The Milner's

In 12 days I will have been misleading people with this website for exactly one year. That's right baby, the blog will be one year old on the 12th of October.

You may be wondering why I say that I have been misleading people. It because of the searches that are giving us hits.

For example, the following items return no useful information about the topics the people appear to be searching for: recipe for brussle sprouts, onomatopoeia comics, how to make gravey, accelerator "her foot" "know how to drive",Â CNN Cameraman Stu Iraq, masher + serial +Californiaa, and "i tied her up" pics.

These are just an example of the 633 words that were used to access our website. There are no pics of any one tied up. Gravey is spelled wrong, but besides that we don't have a recipe for it. Speaking of recipes, Jeff and Anna haven't posted a new recipe in months. James you're just going to have to wait to find out how to make pizza soup. It's too bad really, because it's so good. (teen girl squad, so good.)

But when it comes right down to it, this post is only adding fuel to the fire. Now more people who don't know that Avril Lavine is not how you spell Avril Lavigne, will come looking for Avril Lavine pics. Oh well.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

I'm sorry that I have offended you. Our friendship is more important to me than this argument. I didn't realize that you would take my position so personally, and it was not my intent to hurt your feelings.

What I was trying to do was to post a reasonable argument for the con side. I guess that I have failed to do this.

-Gary Milner

ps. Jeff if you have not read my email to you, one is there for you.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

I would like to start my own e-business for real, but I lack some very important elements of a business. First a product to sell, and second a reason for people to think that buying it on the internet would be better than buying somewhere else.

Over the last 3 or 4 years, the world experience a "Dot Bomb" hundreds of dot coms went bankrupt. People have to be much more careful about doing e-business now, the have to ask themselves harder questions. Will this website add value to the business? Does it make anything more convenient? Is there information value, is the information there and presented in a useful manner? Does it get rid of a middle man or just change who the middle man is? Does in create a new better/cheaper middleman? Does it make a lower price more feasible?

The internet has a bunch of effects on businesses and consumers.

1. It is a Mediating Technology, it helps to connect people/parties and helps them to exchange information.

2. It makes the world both smaller and larger. Larger because number of people you compete with will go way up, since there are very low barriers to entry. Smaller because you can do business from anywhere, being in a major center is the same as being in a smaller city.

3. Often it has the effect where the more people that connect to it, the more valuable it is. Take this site for example, the more different people that post, the more useful it is to entertain and inform others about what the family is doing.

4. It can be a distribution channel. This is mainly relevant for information based services. I saw an example on a show called Venture, there is an accounting firm in South Africa that is emailed Canadian companies information. They process it and send it back. The South Africans are making a fortune (in their opinion) and the Canadians are saving a fortune.
It can also enhance some channels of distribution, for example if you mail a package via FedEx, you can track where your package is along it's journey.

5. It is a time moderator. Websites are open 24/7. Information is delivered much faster, and you don't have to stand in line. Take a bank for example. You don't have to wait in line (or on hold) during bank hours to do your transactions (that don't involve cash) and you can do your transaction any time.

6. It shrinks information asymmetry. Both parties are on more equal ground. I, knowing nothing about cars, can look car info up on the internet and I can check prices in lots of dealerships before I even test drive.

7. It gives infinite virtual capacity. If 50 people go into a bank, it would take a long time to handle that many people. Over the web, you could get 1000-10000 visitors with in seconds of each other, and they could all be doing transactions at the same time. It's like having a thousand or more staff members.

8. The standards are low cost. Standards for programming on the web are open. You don't need to pay someone to write a program in their computer language. This means that there are low barriers to entry. I could make a website just as easily as someone with 4 times as much money as me. This also means that I can make changes easily because I don't have to pay fees to someone to get the right to use their programming standard.

9. It is a creator and a destroyer. 10 years ago, no one had heard of an internet service provider, the only way to be on the internet was through a University, the military or the government. Providing internet service is a new industry created by the internet. It also has completely changed the way people travel. Lots order tickets online, and so travel agencies are going the way of the dodo, unless they can somehow change the way they do business.

10. It reduces transactions costs. It becomes easier(cheaper) to find buyers/sellers. You can pay a couple hundred bucks to host your website, or you can pay a couple hundred bucks to have flyers printed. If there's mistake on your website you can change it, but if there's a mistake on the flyer you pay a couple hundred to have them printed again. It becomes easier to collect information.

A good e-business would take into account the effects of the internet and try to do something that is aided by the them. If you are interested in an example, post a shout out.

-Gary Milner, Internet Idea Man

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

Has anyone wondered how the United States can afford to give so much money to Iraq? I have. It's because I know what the United States national debt is. It's 6,806,136,437.663 dollars. And the debt is growing at the astonishing rate of 1.6 billion dollars a day. That's 66,666,666 dollars an hour or 1,111,111 dollars per minute or 18,518 dollars a second. The interest on the national debt at five percent per year(I guessed at the five percent figure)is $390,306,821,880. I have to assume that their paying that interest, otherwise nobody in their right mind would lend them another penny. How are they managing to dig up $390,306,821,880 a year in interest payments and still be able to eat you ask. The answer is that they're borrowing it of course. That explains the 1.6 billion dollar daily raise in the debt. When they can no longer pay the interest people are going to want their money back. The only way the government will be able to get it is to print more money. When a country does this without real value to back it up it causes inflation. Then money will be worthless. Then what will people buy food with?

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

My auction website is almost done. I stayed up until 2:30 am last night to work on queries for my website. It's coming along quite well, although there are a few bugs that I would like to work out. I'm not sure if we will be able to get everything done in time. The due date was pushed back again until Monday. I will be really glad when it's done. It will give me more time for the rest of my studies. I am getting a little behind on my readings.

Even though I stayed up until 2:30 I still had to drive Tracie to work at 6:45. That's pretty early, but I had to be at school by 9:00 for a lab anyway, so it wasn't really that bad. I actually showered at the school just so that I wouldn't have to get up as early.

The thing with being busy is that I don't get to do stuff. Stuff that I want to do I mean. As crazy as it sounds, I like going to the gym every morning. I haven't done that for a week. When this stupid e-commerce class is done, I'm going to have more time to get back to the gym.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

One of the guys up at the Gauntlet worked for the Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra over the summer and so he has connections, although maybe they are just using him to help fill the Jack Singer Concert Hall. He asked me if I would like a pair of tickets to see the show. I did so he wrote down my name and he had a pair of tickets set aside for me at the box office (regular price $40.50 each + service fees from ticketmaster.) He made the same offer to everyone else in the office as well.

It was quite interesting. For those of you who have never been to the auditorium, It's about the same size as a regular theater, except that the stage is a lot deeper, (Anna will correct me if that's the wrong term for being very long from front to back) and that there are balcony seats.

Tracie and I were in one of the balconies, right above the stage. Our vantage point made it hard to see the bass players, but I'm told that they don't do much anyway.

Over all Tracie and I give the concert two thumbs up. Four if you think that each person can give both thumbs. I especially liked it when they emptied the spit valves and the buckets they all had to hold the spit.

At the beginning of the concert they orchestra played a song, that had the sound of a telephone and then the orchestra would sing out, "Pennsylvania 6-5-0-0-0". Up until that point, I never realized that you could play the telephone as a serious instrument. You would have to be a very good dialer to get the timing just right, so maybe it's not a realistic profession for me.

I have to admit that I liked the orchestra part much better than the Big Bad Voodoo Daddy part. "Big Bad" plays swing music, which would be much better in a place where you could dance. They also had microphones. I felt that they overpowered the orchestra. It probably would have been better if they had been made first chairs instead of having mics. The drums should not have been amplified at all, because they are too loud already.

It was an interesting concert, because of the styles of the two groups are so different. The orchestra has a very rigid style, in fact you get jabbed by the little stick if the conductor thinks your getting off track. The swing band how ever improvises quite a lot.

If you have a chance to go see an orchestra, especially one from a big city, it's totally worth it. It's especially important to support the one in Calgary, because they are having such financial difficulty.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

Dad, further on down the post I wrote: "I find that I cannot express why I am against homosexual marriage in a manner that I consider to be adequate." While thinking of what to write I found an argument that used an example of marrying your pet bird. I consider your example of marrying your dog, just as fowl. (ha, ha, get it fowl=foul).

The best thing you have written concerning this topic to date is:
"At this point I sit back and I ask myself: how do I respond these questions and comments. Is this indeed none of my business? Is this indeed not going to hurt me? How will this affect me? I'm not sure. What I do know is that something is not right here. I feel violated somehow."

Lots of people feel like that. Lots of people also feel like me, like we are inadequate or possible not eloquent enough to discuss it or post about it. The problem that many people are also on the fence. Many people don't know what to think, they don't really think that homosexual marriage is a good thing, but they don't want to hurt anybody else's feelings. When people with good intentions try to persuade with "crazy" arguments rather than making a simple truthful argument the borderline people think, "That argument is pretty weak. The guy making it may or may not be crazy. The people supporting it (same sex marriage) are saying things like 'be fair' and 'equal rights'. I want to be fair and give everyone equal rights"

Jeff wrote: "I felt that the new law wouldn't really affect us. What does it matter to me as a straight guy whether or not two same gendered individuals are married by definition or just living together. It doesn't affect me." I had the feeling that he didn't really care what the law was as it didn't affect him. I guess I was wrong about that. His follow up posts don't paint that picture.

What I was trying to do with my posts was, to provide some sort of simple, non-marry-dog arguments against same sex marriage. To try to show, that, although there are people willing to present a case against same sex marriage that is pretty weak, that, there are also people who are reasonable, that believe every law in Canada affects them even if they don't run a-fowl of said law. (How about that? The same pun twice in one post.)

In conclusion, everybody please let this topic die, or continue through email. When I started this blog it was supposed to be entertaining and possibly informative. This discussion is not entertaining at all, and stopped being informative very quickly (if it could be considered informative at all.)

-Gary Milner, Sick of Internet Arguments

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

SAY A MAN WANTS TO MARRY HIS DOG

A man says that he loves his dog and they want to get married. While this is very touching and everything. Normal people would say forget it. But there would be a fringe of people who would be bound to say, well why not. Who's it going to hurt How is this going to affect you. This is only fair. This is none of your business. At this point I sit back and I ask myself: how do I respond these questions and comments. Is this indeed none of my business? Is this indeed not going to hurt me? How will this affect me? I'm not sure. What I do know is that something is not right here. I feel violated somehow. I feel cheapened to think that someone is marrying a dog. I think that if a guy befouls the group he befouls everybody and thats that.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

Do you mean that when you called me a sophist, a heterophobe, and incincere it was because you couldn't come up with anything more articulate?

No I mean by your fallacious but plausible reasoning, you seem to by trying to puzzle inquirers after truth, attempting to weaken the faith of the people, and drawing upon yourself general contempt by people who disagree with you. By heterophobe, I meant you are afraid to have an opinion different from pro-gay groups. By incinere (sic) I meant, that you are trying to justify to yourself, inactivity from church. You might be wondering where I got that one. When you wrote, "Maybe as an active Mormon" you separated yourself from the church, even if by only a little bit, and it hit me. Now that you aren't going to church anymore, you have to find another source of things that make you feel superior to people who do go to church. Congratulations. It's really to bad you're not looking for reasons to come back as opposed for reasons to put the church down.

I must ask if you are saying that to you marriage has no practical importance? Or that if you were barred from being married no actual harm would be felt?

I'm not saying that there is no practical importance to being married. I'm saying there is no practical importance for gays to be married, therefore there is no harm being done to them. In the context of an actual rights case, actual harm was being done to people who had no choice (not including Michael Jackson) about the colour of their skin. Not being able to go to school or being turned down for a job is not the same as having to get a civil union instead of a marriage.

Symbolicness of Marriage

You are right, my marriage is more than just symbolic. But I am not in a homosexual marriage. It means a lot more than the piece of paper, because we can have kids, something homosexuals can't do with their partners. I haven't actually gone outside Canada with her, so I don't know if it would make going through customs any faster.

"How can I talk about the importance of being treated like a family when I've snuck into the United States and lied on an official document." What this person fails to realize that in the USA his marriage isn't legal. So filling out a form that says you are single isn't a lie.

Dictionaries

I meant to say, "A serious aspect of this decision is it is attempting to change the meaning of a word that has meant something to the Western world for centuries."

I agree that this case is about individuals fighting for rights You misunderstood me. When I said "The case passed from being about individuals fighting for rights" I meant this case isn't about fighting for rights. They already have "All the benefits and protection of married life have already been given to same-sex couples. These include bereavement leave, health care benefits, pensions benefits, spousal support, name changes and adoption. I think that this is a wonderful thing."

In case anyone that reads this is wondering, as far as I know I don't really know many gay people. Maybe I do and they just haven't told me. In any case what people do in their bedrooms is their own business. I promise I won't tell you what I do in my bedroom if you won't tell me what you do in yours.

Let It Be
Hi guys. All this arguing is really bringing me down. I agree with Anna, please let this subject drop and think what ever you want to think, or talk about it via email.
I had planned to post about going to the Calgary Philharmonic orchestra last night, but got sidetracked and the much more entertaining post will have to wait until tomorrow.

-Gary Milner, Really Sick of This Argument

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

The team had a significantly easier hike this year compared to the 6 hour monster we climbed last year. It only took us an hour or two up and likely less than 30 minutes down (although I don't really know either way). Andy, the coach, was nice enough to buy us all ice-cream cones again this year and I can't tell you enough how good the ice-cream cones from The Big Scoop in Waterton are. I ordered a wild cherry / maple walnut waffle cone. It was so good. Then we had a team picture in front of Waterton lake and after that we all headed for Lethbridge.

I got to know one of the guys on my team a bit better. He is from Vancouver, his last name is Talstrup, and even though he is on the swim team he really likes basketball. This got me wondering if he was related to the Talstrups that grew up next door to Dad. Well it turns out they are his cousins, or something like that - they are related anyway. He isn't however 6'8, he's just normal 6' or so. Obviously that side of the family got most of the height.

Sophist Heterophobes Don’t Make Good Arguments But Name Callers Do?

What were you trying to get at when you said, "What I really think is that [using big words] helps defeat the desire to resort to name calling and using hurtful derogatory words." Do you mean that when you called me a sophist, a heterophobe, and incincere it was because you couldn't come up with anything more articulate?

Same Sex Marriage > Same Sex Unions

I never said that because women are separate-but-equal to men that I felt them to be inferior or deserving of a lifestyle that they don't choose which I felt you were implying when you said, "[separate-but-equal] doesn’t mean that they should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen." My point in illustrating women as separate-but-equal was to clearly illustrate the difference between separate-but-equal and different-but-equal even if it was only in having to do with one particular aspect of the differences between men and women, just the same as the arguement is about only about one thing; that is whether same-sex marriages are recognized as legal and not about how we treat homosexuals fairly or unfairly or any other aspect of homosexuals.

Why did you point out that "even before the definition was changed using the dictionary to proclaim the evils of same sex marriages was lame"? That is exactly my point. I was illustrating that there is no good reason to believe that the procreative relationship between a man and a woman is an inherent property of marriage? Did you really need me to put <sarcasm> tags into my post to clear that up? And frankly rather than rehashing the dictionary argument (which we apparently both agree is a fallacy) you could have given me an actual reason as to why - I'll say it again - Why is the procreative relationship between a man and a woman an inherent property of marriage? If you can't answer that, then I don't see any reason to continue talking about this subject with you.

You also stated that, "[Same-sex marriage is] the first step in allowing same sex adoption." Well for goodness sake? I thought that provinces in Canada were already allowing same-sex adoption. Hmm, the CBC (via Google Cache) better check their facts because they obviously have no idea what this is going to mean to straight people like you and me, from the linked article: "May 1995 - An Ontario Court judge finds that the Child and Family Services Act of Ontario infringes Section 15 of the Charter by not allowing same-sex couples to bring a joint application for adoption. He rules that four lesbians have the right to adopt their partners' children. Ontario becomes the first province to make it legal for same-sex couples to adopt. British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia follow suit, also allowing adoption by same-sex couples."

So the slippery slope argument didn't really pan out for you Gary. Maybe the arguement that marriage is not a right is more convincing, "If it does nothing practical, if it is more symbolic than anything, can it really be called a right?" Think this out for a second. Do you feel that your marriage to Tracie is just a symbolic action you took to impress someone? A convenience to help make it through US customs a little faster? Be honest now, surely it means something a little more than that.

You argue that in civil rights cases, "actual harm was being incurred by the plaintiffs or they were prevented from doing something of practical importance." My response is similar to my previous one in that I must ask if you are saying that to you marriage has no practical importance? Or that if you were barred from being married no actual harm would be felt?

Ok, despite the fact that you apparently agree the dictionary argument is "lame" you decided to use it anyway. "A serious aspect of this decision is it will change the meaning of a word that has meant something to the Western world for centuries." You also said that, "The case passed from being about individuals fighting for rights, to individuals on an active program trying change the way people think." I agree that this case is about individuals fighting for rights and I also agree that this case is trying to change the way people think. While you do have the right to smile politely and think to yourself, "pfft, yeah married", they will be married under the law with all the rights associated to being legally and lawfully wedded, and nothing you think will change that. Maybe as an active Mormon you feel that someday the government will back them up so far that they will have a legal right to be married as two men or two women in the Temple. Boy, wouldn't that make people sore. I can't imagine any same-sex couples wanting that or even of anyone thinking it might be a possibility. If that is your real worry then just say so, but be very careful when opening that can of worms.

In case anyone that reads this is wondering, I don't really know that many gay people. I just think they should have the same rights to marriage that we (straight folks) have.

-Jeff Milner Internet Superstar Debater

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

Well, I rode the bus for an hour today to go work on my internet auction site. My partner was an hour late. The tech's still haven't fixed what ever problems they are having with the computers.

I cannot get any of part of my auction site to load in the lab. I sincerely hope that there are no graduates of the U of C, working as part of the U of C IS department. It would mean that the university cannot teach people how to fix computers, how to manage computers or solve computer problems.

Apparently the problems are campus wide. Several viruses all hit in rapid succession, and besides that the various networks on campus are too large to fix in one fell swoop, so while one gets fixed, the other networks somehow break it again. This has been going on since the start of school.

Admittedly, several thousands of additional users probably puts a lot of strain on the infrastructure, the new students come every year, and as far as I'm concerned reimaging the computer lab where I was going to work on my site did more harm to me than it did good to the network.

-Gary Milner

ps. arrrr

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

Avast this lubbin thing of a computer, just gave me a broadside, an I lost me post again. I can hardly believe it t' be true. I have t' port at t'hospital to capture me buxom beauty Tracemeister the Terrible. So I've t' keep this post short

I'm shovin' off,

-Gary Milner Soul Patch Beard, Internet Pirate

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

Arrrrr, top of the morning to you me hearties. Avast, it being Talk Like a Pirate Day, I'm hoping ye swarmies will be talkin' more in line with the Pirate lingo. The thing about talk like a pirate day is, Mateys, I walk down these here halls in the University thinking to myself how great 'twould be to break out in pirate lingo but arrrr I haven't the courage. Here instead is a do-over of Gary's and Dad's posts with ++pirate lingo ye scurvy bilge rats. YAARRRRHH!!!!

More Regarding Funny Guys Mateys
by Bob Milner (re-written by Jeff)

I think that while the liberals be workin' so hard t' achieve equal starboards for funny guys they should make it a law that funny guys get t' have their own change rooms 'n restrooms the same as men 'n women do. Arrgh! As thin's be now, it's a hard thin' just t' use a cubicle in the restroom because ye think ye might get yer ankle grabbed. Bilge!

Arrr, When the Crew Argues
by Gary Milner (re-written by Jeff)

I just noticed that when people debate sensitive topics, they like t' use big words. The chase is making full sail, matey! I almost never use big words in real life, 'n neither be Jeff or Anna (as far as I can tell havin' only talked her 5 or 6 times). Yaaarrrr! But it's not just us. Shiver me timbers T' whole filthy lot o' 'em does. Avast, I think that, at a subconscious level, we think it makes us sound more convincin'. AAARRGGHHH! Maybe we hope that the other person won't en be able t' understand bigger words. Blimey! Maybe we hope that they will spend time lookin' up the words in a pirate dictionary: sophist, disingenuous, bling bling, semiotics and pfft. Aarhh! The word pfft be an onomatopoeia, so don't be botherin' lookin' it up Matey. Yarrr, maybe they will forget their argument because they be in awe o' yer stupendous vocabulary. Bloody landlubber! Somehow I be doubtin' it.

What I really think be that it helps defeat the desire t' resort t' name callin' 'n usin' hurtful derogatory words. Be ye ready to walk the plank? Ye may have read an earlier post o' mine where I posted a clip o' an email from the lass who was furious. Yo-ho-ho! I'll say again that the hurtful derogatory words don't increase the weight o' yer argument. Dead men tell no tales. They make ye look like a landlubber.

-Gary Milner Pirate Internet Dictionary

ps. Man the guns, ye cowardly swabs! I put the link t' James' blog because I think he be a good writer, not because I agree with everythin' he says.

Aye me Hearteys, man the sails and yarrr, more grog, wench! Have a great talk like a pirate day and when pirating music, don't let those bastarrrrrds at the Arrrrr-IAA get you down Matey.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

I think that while the liberals are working so hard to achieve equal rights for funny guys they should make it a law that funny guys get to have their own change rooms and restrooms the same as men and women do. As things are now, it's a hard thing just to use a cubicle in the restroom because you think you might get your ankle grabbed.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

I just noticed that when people debate sensitive topics, they like to use big words. I almost never use big words in real life, and neither to Jeff or Anna (as far as I can tell having only talked her 5 or 6 times). But it's not just us. Everyone does. I think that, at a subconscious level, we think it makes us sound more convincing. Maybe we hope that the other person won't be able to understand bigger words. Maybe we hope that they will spend time at dictionary.com looking up the words: sophist, disingenuous, bling bling, semiotics and pfft. The word pfft is an Onomatopoeia, so don't bother looking it up. Maybe they will forget their argument because they are in awe of your stupendous vocabulary. Somehow I doubt it.

What I really think is that it helps defeat the desire to resort to name calling and using hurtful derogatory words. You may have read an earlier post of mine where I posted a clip of an email from the girl who was furious. I'll say again that the hurtful derogatory words don't increase the weight of your argument. They make you look stupid.

-Gary Milner Internet Dictionary

ps. I put the link to James' blog because I think he is a good writer, not because I agree with everything he says.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

Jeff, you paint with such broad strokes. Try and add a little grey to your arguments. Just because many people agree that women shouldn’t be allowed in the men’s room, doesn’t mean that they should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. To use a phrase from Plastic.com, you are being +1 disingenuous.

I’m willing to go on the record as saying that as far as washrooms are concerned, women are separate-but-equal. For everything else, different-but-equal. If they do the same work, they should get the same pay.

Also, you brought up the dictionary as a pre-emptive argument against hetero only marriages because that is a common argument that many people use against same sex marriages. Unfortunately, even before the definition was changed using the dictionary to proclaim the evils of same sex marriages was lame. Especially since dictionaries are only a mirror of how language is used. Can we really expect them to be anything else with entries like bling bling?

Anna, no matter how many hetero-married people fail to exhibit traits exactly like Ward and June Cleaver, it is completely irrelevant to whether or not homosexual unions should be marriages or civil unions.

“I think that two parents are better than one. Whether those parents are of the same sex or not.”
Well you’re half right. Two parents are better than one. I don’t believe that same sex “parents” are parents at all. More like one parent and one not parent. Which is my only other argument against same sex marriage so far.

As much as I hate to use the term “slippery slope” allowing same sex marriage is the first step in allowing same sex adoption. I believe that children have the right to a mother and a father. Not two of one or two of the other, and like I said before, no matter how many hetero-married people fail to exhibit traits exactly like Ward and June Cleaver, it is completely irrelevant to whether or not homosexual unions should be marriages or civil unions.

The problem is that marriage, although an important institution, offers neither protection nor benefits. In fact, the only practical effect the decision will have on same-sex couples is it will allow them to purchase licenses and register their marriage. If it does nothing practical, if it is more symbolic than anything, can it really be called a right?

This is not a rights case in the way other cases for civil rights were. In other cases, actual harm was being incurred by the plaintiffs or they were prevented from doing something of practical importance. (Because of the colour of their skin, not their choices.)

All the benefits and protection of married life have already been given to same-sex couples. These include bereavement leave, health care benefits, pensions benefits, spousal support, name changes and adoption. I think that this is a wonderful thing.

A serious aspect of this decision is it will change the meaning of a word that has meant something to the Western world for centuries. Whether activists would like to admit it or not, marriage is an institution embedded in history, and religion, as a heterosexual union. The case passed from being about individuals fighting for rights, to individuals on an active program trying change the way people think. In essence, this case is about societal manipulation and semiotics.

The project of the gay lobby, at this point, is complete recognition of the legitimacy of same-sex relationships. This is a decent and respectable goal, however the recent court decision will not furnish what they are looking for. Recognition cannot be forced. Those who do not accept gay marriage will not do so just because of a court decision.

The church leaders, parents who do not accept their gay children, and others who are homophobic will not change simply because of this decision. The reason recognition is so important to all of us is because it is voluntary.

Perhaps recognition by three judges is enough to those who brought the suit forward. If their goal is societal recognition, however, they should have gone about it in a different fashion.

If the day ever comes when gay marriages are recognized, when gay couples introduce themselves as being married not many will take them seriously. I, for one, will smile politely and think to myself, "pfft, yeah married".

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

What Margaret Somerville said about same-sex marriage reminded me of something I heard about radical feminists who wanted equal rights for women in every way, even when it came to the right of going into the men's change room! This is where the ideas of separate-but-equal and different-but-equal seem to apply. Women are different-but-equal and as such should have the same rights as men to use the rest room assigned to their gender. If they were separate-but-equal, using Dr. Somerville's definition, they should be able to use either a men's or ladies' change room. I obviously, like most of society know that women should be classified as different-but-equal and not separate-but-equal.

Now as for same-sex marriages, should they be classified as separate-but-equal or different-but-equal? Well the more conservative religious and political parties don't want to give them either and would try and say they don't deserve any equal rights. For the sake of expediency in my argument I will not address such an archaic way of thinking. Obviously we want equal rights for all humanity. However, the question still persists: different-but-equal marriages (implying that they should have some sort of equivalent marriage just for homosexuals but don't call it marriage) or separate-but-equal (implying that they should be granted the right to have the exact same kind of marriage traditionally reserved for man and woman)? Dr. Somerville thinks the answer is different-but-equal. She thinks that "recognizing same-sex marriage would change [marriage's] inherent nature," the same way allowing females into a men's change room would inherently modify the men's change room into a gender-less change room. It's a good argument, one that might convince you that different-but-equal is the answer, if you agree that there would be some damage to marriage because of recognizing same-sex marriages. Dr. Somerville failed to argue any realistic damage that would be done. Instead she just says that, "The issue is whether society needs marriage to institutionalize the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman. I believe we do, and maintaining it should take priority." That's all fine and dandy that she has an opinion but she doesn't explain why the procreative relationship between a man and a woman is an inherent property of marriage? Is it because the dictionary [said] so?

Going back to my change room analogy, this inherent property of marriage - the procreative nature between a man and a woman, isn't really an inherent property the way gender is. Marriage will still be the uniting of two people that love each other regardless of the government’s decision to recognize same-sex marriages. Allowing a women into the men's change room would modify inherent properties because it would no longer really be a men's room, it becomes a gender-less change room. The men already using the change room would have to adjust because the modification of the change rooms inherent properties would actually have affected their right to a men's only room. Same-sex marriages will not have this impact upon traditional male and female couples. Just because they are recognized under the law will not change the way heterosexual people are married or make their marriages worth less. Therein lies the difference. Therein is the reason that similar-but-equal is the answer, and while Margaret's arguments may have been convincing it was the fact that she never concretely secured the most important variable, and that is whether or not the procreative relationship between a man and a woman is an inherent property of marriage.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

I wish I was as eloquent as Dr. Somerville. I find that I cannot express why I am against homosexual marriage in a manner that I consider to be adequate. I hold a firm belief that an argument can be made against it. I also believe that that the argument can be done in a non-homophobic manner. It seems to me that one can disagree with a pro-homosexual idea with out being homophobic, in the same way I can disagree with an Irishman's opinion without being racist, bigoted or somehow discriminatory.

To Anna's example, and I do realise that it is just an example, I say that no non-sick (possibly healthy?) person has the right to be in the hospital. Hospital staff can and do tell family members to leave the hospital for various reasons all the time. If the person doesn't go, they call security or the police. The hospital argument just doesn't work. But, any nurse that would just kick someone out that wasn't be disruptive is, in my opinion, completely heartless.

I would like to point out Dr. Somerville's explanation "Different-but-equal, and Separate-but-equal". A person being denied the privilege of visiting a loved one the basis of their sexual choice is wrong.

-Gary Milner

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

Note to Svend Robinson
By MARGARET SOMERVILLE

As published in the Globe and Mail
July 9, 2003

Dear Svend,

Your recent article in these pages makes me acutely aware of the mixed emotions I face in opposing same-sex marriage. You, and many others, regard such a change as an essential recognition of the dignity, worth and rights of homosexual people, and opposition to it as a declaration to the contrary. In writing of the discrimination suffered by homosexual people, you evoke powerful feelings that we all must "right the wrongs." But, despite those feelings, I must challenge your arguments in favour of same-sex marriage.

First, there's a difference between separate-but-equal and different-but-equal. Separate-but-equal means that two entities are inherently the same, but are treated as separate. That's discrimination, and you rightly reject it. Different-but-equal means that two entities are not inherently the same, but are treated equally. That's the antithesis of discrimination. Separate-but-equal is second-class citizenship. Different-but-equal is not.

The question is: Are homosexual and heterosexual unions inherently the same, in which case they should constitute one group of unions, or inherently different, but should be treated equally?

The answer depends on which characteristics of the unions we choose to focus.

If we focus on adult individuals' commitment to each other and public recognition of that commitment (as the courts have done), we can conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex unions and having a separate but equal institution for same-sex unions would be discrimination. If, however, we focus on the inherently procreative nature of an opposite-sex union and the absence of that feature in a same-sex union, we can regard the two types of union as different but equal.

You argue previous changes in marriage are precedents for changing marriage to include same-sex couples, citing the fact that husbands once could beat their wives, and interracial marriages and divorce were illegal. These are not relevant.

Institutions have both inherent and collateral features. Inherent features define the institution and cannot be changed without destroying the institution. Collateral features can be changed without such impact. We rightly recognized that women must be treated as equal partners with men within marriage. While that changed the power of husbands over their wives, it simply changed a collateral feature of marriage. Recognizing same-sex marriage would change its inherent nature.

As for interracial marriage, it symbolizes the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman and the only reason for prohibiting it is racial discrimination. Same-sex marriage expressly negates this symbolism. That is the reason for denying same-sex partners access to marriage, not their sexual orientation.

Divorce is not analogous. The issue is not whether opposite-sex couples attain the ideals of marriage; neither is the issue whether marriage is a perfect institution.

The issue is whether society needs marriage to institutionalize the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman. I believe we do, and maintaining it should take priority. You believe recognizing homosexual people's claims to access to marriage should come first.

The conflict at the heart of our disagreement - as is so often true in ethical dilemmas - is whether societal needs or individual rights should prevail. Important as individual rights are, we can do serious harm in assuming that they should always trump society's needs.

Sincerely, Margo.

Margaret A. Somerville is Samuel Gale Professor of Law at the McGill Centre
for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

If you want to make your web browser much better by allowing Google to be the default search engine, then check out this page explaining what you need to do. Just scroll down the page and click on the link for your browser. Actually I'll save you the trouble, IE 6.0 users just click here and then click open. Say ok to all of the windows that popup and you're done. Also to note from that page, once you've updated your registry settings you can do google searches right from the address bar. Just type gg before your search term in the bar and google's search page will come up with that term. For example: gg milner blog will google the term milner blog and come up with googles search results.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

I went to Wendy's Hamburger joint the other day with Norman Meyer. We were sitting there eating our food when in walked about six or eight J. W.'s. I got the bright idea of betting Norman five dollars that he didn't dare shout out, "Party in the hall." Without even one second's hesitation he shouted out, "Party in the hall!" Boy I just about fainted. I thought to myself, oh hell what have I done. I pulled out my wallet to get the money but Norman said put your money away.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

It's a sad day for careless eaters everywhere as Jillian Clarke of Chicago High School has proven that five seconds is long enough for microorganisms such as E.coli to transfer onto dropped food.

And In Other News . . .

The gay marriage controversy in Canada is a hot topic. I was talking with Mom, Dad, and Anna about how I felt that the new law wouldn't really affect us. What does it matter to me as a straight guy whether or not two same gendered individuals are married by definition or just living together. It doesn't affect me. However, for the gay or lesbian couple, it means a lot. The situation that Anna pointed out seemed to make a lot of sense to me. She explained that if a homosexual person were extremely ill or injured in the hospital and his or her partner came to the hospital to visit them, the hospital had the right to deny visitation rights on the basis that he or she is not family. The same rules apply for all kinds of legal proceedings and have many implications to the homosexual population.

The Canadian Alliance is doing what they can in an attempt to block same-sex marriages. What is it that they are worried about? The destruction of the family? Like every traditional family is about to self destruct because of a new law. Get real. Are they worried about the number of homosexuals portrayed on TV? That's a whole different issue, one that I can understand but they need to realize fighting this isn't going to make Will and Grace any less gay. Frankly I can't see any reason to fight this.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

I love reading my blog posts. I laugh over and over at my own jokes. That "Rectum, nearly killed him joke" gets me every time. Seriously. The other people in my office all want to know why I am laughing so hard right now.

Last night I dreamt that I rented a fancy camera to do some photos to hang on our walls. I've be thinking about renting a camera for awhile now. It probably won't happen until next summer though. I dislike winter shots. Well maybe it's not so much that I hate photos of winter scenes as much as I hate winter. Anyway, it was a medium format camera. I don't think the one I rent in real life will be like the camera I rented in my dream. The one I rented in my dream was made of leather. Real cameras aren't made of leather.

-Gary Milner, needs something to hang on his walls.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

"I was writing a post on my PC and it was like bleepeepbleepeepeep bleep." This happened to me yesterday. Actually there was no bleeping. Just the uncensored swearing inside my head as I realized that my knee clicked the switch on the power bar under the desk. Here at The University of Lethbridge they screw the power bars onto the bottoms of the desk so as to be out of the way. They are not out of the way.

My New Jeep

I've been driving the new Jeep around lately. I just got insurance for it, which as I now realize - I should not have paid for an entire year in one foul blow. At least I can cancel my insurance on the car. Anyway the Jeep is great. I'll post a picture later today (if I remember before it gets too dark).

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

I had a really good post, and then I accidentally hit "back" and it disappeared. We re-join it now, already in progress.

....RECTUM? HELL, IT NEARLY KILLED HIM!

Well ok that's not really what I had written, but I thought it was funny.

Self Portraits

Before I went to Argentina, my opinion of taking a photo of yourself while holding the camera was: Don't do it. It almost always looks dumb because it's hard to aim a camera if you're not looking through the lens. I have seen countless people do it and I absolutely thought that it was a waste of film and more importantly money. Then I was in Argentina just after the world cup held in France, and I did it. I broke down and took a photo of myself, without using the self timer. There was no slow then fast flashing of the little light. Just a camera held at arm's length.

Really I don't know what came over me. I think I only did it that once. But now, I have access to so many more cameras. Four at my work, and three at home. I do it all the time I love it and I do it with Tracie too. Even when she's driving on the highway and that's just plain dangerous.

But to the point. Today, Russ Dyck, aka Rustic, had his Canon D10 in the darkroom, because you don't leave a $3000 camera lying around. Obviously. The problem is that there are several people who have keys to the darkroom. I am one of them, and I love playing with cameras. Especially expensive cameras.

When he downloads his pics, he's in for a surprise. A great surprise. A surprise involving me. If he doesn't delete the pics right away, I might post a couple of them.

-Gary Milner Really Big Internet Surprise

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

I knew, at the time, that I would regret later but I was trying to be sensible. I went to an auction the other day to see about buying a fridge. I only wanted to bid $100 for the fridge and also promised myself that I wouldn't bid on anything else. Well now I regret it. There was a piano for auction - a mighty fine sounding upright type piano and I was quite tempted to bid. Probably worth a few thousand now that I think about it. It sold for $250. What was I thinking? I guess I was thinking that I just don't have room in my house for a piano. Maybe I'd have room if I got rid of all the extra washers, dryers, etc! Geez they are really bringing me down lately.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

We had our piano tuned today. Tracie is very pleased. For the record, a piano should be tuned more than once every six years. The best part is now the keys match each other, which is one of the most important parts of a tuned piano, because each key could be out of tune in different directions. It also seems that each note has more than one string, so not only can the key not match the other keys, it's possible to not even match itself.

I also got a very interesting piece of info from the tuner, our piano was made in 1919. The tuner has a "Piano Atlas" which is a book that has lists of serial numbers from about every manufacturer and the date they were made.

We have a very nice piano, it's too bad that the people who owned it before Tracie's parents treated it so poorly. Knowing that it was made in 1919 makes me think of the movie, "The Red Violin". I can't help but wonder where our piano has been before. I'm sure that it has only had a handful of owners, but it is close to 85 years old.

The Tuner was an older gentleman, from Germany. One of a dying breed I might add. He came in his trenchcoat and suit! He dressed up in a suit to tune pianos. How's that for being a flash of year's gone by. He commented on what a nice piano we have. In fact, he also owns a Doherty. He said it has a wonderful singing tone. Apparently they don't make pianos with the same tonal qualities any more. But I'm getting away from what I wanted to talk about, which is where this piano has been.

The Tuner, made a comment that the piano was in very good shape on the inside. It has obviously not been played very much (in over 80 years.) He said that it would probably outlast him. Now he's an oldster, but it got me to thinking more about where this piano had been, and where it would be going in the future. Presumably, Tracie and I will have it for at least the next 20 years, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that we will have it for the next 40 years. Who will we give it to? What will happen to it? Wouldn't it be nice to hear all the songs it has played in four score and 5 years?

-Gary Milner

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

Swim practice was really good this afternoon. I am becoming much more consistent in my swimming. It's important to be able to set a pace for yourself and to know how fast you are swimming in the water. I have come along way since I started (again) last year. Now that I'm done class and done my 3D Studio Max tutorial I'm going to head home where I will find a delicious supper made by Anna-Maria. She is so cool and not just because she made supper tonight, which might even include GRAVY! Yum. But maybe not too, I don't really know.

I Ran Into Janine

Actually I didn't run into her literally, I just talked to her for a minute outside the pool when I was renting my locker for the year. She is going to the University still; taking part in some sort of praticum that starts in November (I think). Anyway just have to add, I'm still glad we never got married. Phew!

P.S. I wish Mom would post more. Why don't you? (I hope you realize that instead of writing me an explanation of why you don't, you could just post it on the blog.)

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

So you want to see "Def Leopard Photos"(sic) from the concert last night? Well I didn't take any pictures myself, but the band did. Of course they mentioned at the concert that it might be 24 hours or so until they get them posted. It's a good way for them to get 10,000 extra hits a day while all the excited fans keep checking over and over to see if the pictures they took of the audience are there yet.

The concert was really fun, a little loud - but hey at least we remembered to bring ear plugs so it wasn't that bad. The noise of the crowd was the worst, the fans were very excited last night. So here's the deal with our seats. Anna and I never inspected our tickets very carefully. We just sort of assumed that row 11, seats 5 and 6 meant Row 11, seats 5 and 6 - right up there on the floor. We walked down the stairs and right through security. They never looked at our tickets very carefully either. They just stamped our hands and our tickets and told us to keep moving. We were sitting up there in the 11th row enjoying the opening band when someone came up to us and wondered why we were sitting in their seats. We pulled out our tickets and they both appeared to be for the same seats, but then we realized that our tickets were for section 113. Oops. Well we moved and decided that now that we were already down in the floor seating we would just sit in some empty seats and stay down there. There were a few guys wearing Mullet wigs, but for the most part, it appears that fans of Def Leppard have traded in their mullets for bald spots. Hard core rockers are getting old. However, the relative age of the audience was not apparent when we listened to their enthusiastic cheers. According to lead singer Joe Elliot we are at least as loud as Montreal and Saskatoon (he mentioned that he was surprised at how loud Saskatoon was, given that they are in the middle of nowhere).

Despite being extremely tired last night, I forced myself to drive home. We got back around 1:45am and when 6:00 rolled around there was no way I was going to go swimming. I was just too tired. I'll try and get in for this afternoon's practice before my 4:30 class.

This morning I did get up though and called the radio station to say thanks and tell them about the concert. They played a short clip of our conversation on the air. I think I sound terrible on the radio. It just occurred to me that since I won the free tickets, I wonder if I will be eligible for the Toys for Boys contest? I mean it seems to me that you can't have won anything in the past 30 days. Well chances are I'm not going to get drawn anyway, so no sense losing sleep over it.

The Cable Guy

We finally buckled. My roommates and I are getting cable. The cable guy is supposed to be coming on Wednesday - they said that someone needs to be home all day. I don't know how they get off having someone ruin their day waiting for the stupid cable guy to come, you'd think they could at least narrow it down to a couple of hours. Well I guess that's just the way the world works. Hopefully with all the roommates that I have now at least one of them will be able to stick around. Speaking of roommates, I was happily surprised to find that while I was in Calgary my roommates moved the fridge in for me. Sure now that I have another fridge my house looks even more like a furniture / appliance store, but it's a store with plenty of food.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

I have been getting a lot of hits about the "get me drunk" ad so I have decided to address it. All you people wondering "how to make gravey" and about the "Def Leopard Calgary" concert will just have to wait. Hopefully you won't be needing the gravy any time soon.

First of all, here is a link to the official response written by the Editor of the Gauntlet

Second of all, lots of people have expressed their shame at being students at the U of C, because of the advertisements in the Gauntlet. Let me make it clear that the Gauntlet and the University are two different things. The Gauntlet is not run by the University. It is not controlled by the SU. It is an individual entity. It's ok to be ashamed of the University and possibly even the SU, but it really should be for reasons other than things that advertisers have published in the Gauntlet.

Third of all, does seeing these ads make you want to go to the nightclubs being advertised, or stay away? Does knowing how trashy these bars are make you thirsty? When women stop going to these bars, the boys will stop going too. It would only take about 30 seconds for the boys to realize that there are no women in the establishment. When the people stop going, the bars with either close or change the way they entice people to come in. Really, it would not take that big of a group of customers not going to a bar to put it out of business. How many people go to a bar on any given night? A thousand? Two thousand? If you can convince a thousand regulars to switch to a different bar, how long would it take to hurt the bar? A week or two weeks? You can make your complaint into a major news story (at least online) but you can't convince people to not go to these few bars?

Last of all, more letters need to be sent discouraging these type of ads. Show your dissatisfaction as soon after the paper is released as possible. Had the first email come in one day sooner the ad wouldn't have been printed a second time. I would also suggest that you write letters that make the people in the office think, not letters that make us want to make fun of you. What's the point of swearing in your correspondence?

> But this week's newspaper has
> made me f-----g furious.

That's pretty furious. I hope I never meet you in person while you are that furious. Lisa, do you think that, comments about how f-----g furious you are make your argument against the ads more effective? I think they make people want to make fun of you, because really nobody cares how furious you are. Next time count to 10, then write your email.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

The fridge has arrived. It is in my backyard waiting for someone strong to move it downstairs. Anna thinks she is strong enough to help but reality will hit hard when she finds herself under the fridge at the bottom of the stairs.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

I've decided to get a second hand fridge which will be dropped off at my house at 11:30 today. It's $150 but needless to say it's going to be a nice change to have some room for food. Now I just need to get a second stove so that half the roommates can use the downstairs laundry room as a kitchen and pretty much leave us alone upstairs. Not that I find them bothersome, it is just that it gets crowded with five people in one kitchen. (Actually I'm just joking about the stove - for now).

Go Deaf for Def Leppard Update

It looks as though Anna and I are really going to the Def Leppard (Official Site) concert tonight. We don't really want to go deaf so I think we'll try to remember to pick up some ear plugs before we go. We'll be leaving for Calgary at around 4:00 this afternoon and will "get rocked" from 7:30 until they're done I guess. It's doubtful that we will be seeing Gary or Tracie tonight but tune in to Rock 106 tomorrow morning between 7 and 8 when I will phone the radio station up and tell them how the concert was. If you don't live in Lethbridge then you can go to their website and click on listen live. Even though we could scalp the tickets and make a mint (they are 11th row floor seats) I think it will be worth it to go and have a good time.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

In addition to winning the tickets to Def Leppard, Anna and I were entered into Rock 106's Toys for Boys Contest. The prizes include:

Kawasaki 360 ATV 4X4

Job Hunting in Waterton

Anna and I drove up to Waterton yesterday. She had an interview for a job in the national park. It's a good and bad deal because while Anna can start working right now, she will have to live in Waterton (just because it's too far to drive in from Lethbridge) and so that sucks because we won't be able to see each other very often. I guess I'm hoping she won't go for it, but we'll see what she decides. That was pretty much my trip to Waterton, fairly uneventful, but we did get some delicious ice-cream from the Big Scoop.

Y Staff Party at Urszula's

Later that night Anna and I headed up to the north side of town to Urszula's for a BBQ with the rest of the Aquatics Staff. It was pretty fun and after having a couple of burgers some of us competed in some friendly Indian Leg Wrestling. Vicky seemed to dominate most of the leg wrestling. Actually I don't think she even lost. Sadly I was one of the people that lost to her. Anna is so flexible that her body was basically folded in half - I wish I had a picture to post but alas, I don't. Everyone had a good time at the party and then we headed home fairly early because we had to get up early to head off to Medicine Hat the next morning.

Medicine Hat Again

If it seems like I drive Medicine Hat every weekend, it is because I come here almost every single weekend. We are visiting to celebrate Jake's Birthday (it's tomorrow). We are going out for lunch with Jake, Anna, Lana, and Pam right now.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

I was riding the bus home today, when a group of 6, 14-15 year old girls got on. While they were obviously all in a group together, 4 of them were having different conversations on cell phones.

Now, I'm no teen girl, but it seems to me to be better to have a conversation with the people you're with.

-Gary Milner, really big internet superstar

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

We wrote an article about date rape in the gauntlet and Tracie posed for the picture. She a quite lovely hand model, by the way. In the same issue we ran three or four ads for bars featuring scantily clad ladies. Seven days later, we got this letter:

> Hello
> My name is Emily Elder. I'm a fourth year student. Today I picked up a copy
> of the Gauntlet, always interested to see what the campus newspapers are
> doing, as I was interested in writing for the Gauntlet. What I saw made me
> think twice.
>
> Your article on page nine, "Watch Your Drinks" covers a crucial topic to the
> campus undergrad population, most of whom are female. It's a very good and
> important article. However, I found several other features of your paper
> profoundly offensive.
>
> The Whiskey ad on page 19 more than compensates for any cautionary impulses
> that might result from "Watch Your Drinks." Not only are the images
> degrading to and objectifying of women, they exclusively appeal to a
> heterosexual male audience. This audience is further incited to exploit
> women by the text on the button "Get Me Drunk and See Then What Happens". The
> message? Women are only bodies to be used as one sees fit, once they're too
> drunk to consciously choose.
>
> Past that, I count 2 ads on pg 22, and on pg 29 the same Crazy Horse ad as
> pg 22 which are also unacceptable images. I noticed that these semi-nude or
> suggestive images of women are the only ones in your publication. All other
> images used in advertising are male.
>
> Basically, these ads are sexist, degrading, and an exploitative use of
> space. I don't want my student fees to go to a publication that condones
> violence of any sort, especially not sexual violence.
>
> If you're interested in rectifying the gender imbalance that extends to the
> content and tone of your paper, consider a permanent women's page. Since
> there isn't a Women's Centre on campus, there should at least be a voice to
> mitigate the effects of your ads. It wouldn't even be as dogmatic or boring
> as you might think.
>
> I hope to hear your response.
> Thanks for your time.
> Emily Elder

Apparently, the graphic artist for the Whiskey took it upon himself to add the "Get me Drunk..." text and the owner of the bar didn't notice it when he approved it. Our ad manager didn't notice it, our ad layout guy didn't notice and our editor in chief didn't notice it. It ran a second time before anyone realized it.

Hopefully, her letter will help to clean up the ads in our paper.

-Gary Milner, Really Big Internet Superstar

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

According to the first presidency, "we are not to resist evil." Two examples are given that clarify what is meant by resisting evil. First, "if a person smites you on the right cheek, turn and let him smite you on the left cheek." The second example is that "if a person sues for you coat, let him have not only your coat but your cloak also." This caused me to wonder if the afore mentioned smite is only a little love smite or a full blown punch in the face which causes teeth to fly. Or perhaps the smite might be a bash with a softball bat or slash with a sword. Maybe a poolcue or a hockey stick. I also wondered about the sueing thing. Would this only apply to your coat or could it be your house and life savings? Right off hand I'm thinking this doesn't sound like very sage advice. So now I'm perplexed. Should I be smart and avoid being smitten in the face or should I be righteous but stupid. I guess I'll be righteous but my advice to you is don't try this at home.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post

At the crack of dawn this morning Anna-Maria and I headed off to Rock 106 to try and win some concert tickets. When I got there, there was only one other contestant. Things were looking up, but then they got on the radio and asked more people to come down and be in on the contest. Well a few more people started to show up and after a slight mishap with dead batteries in the decibel reader they got things underway. First off, I should explain the basis behind this concert. The idea was that whoever sang the loudest Def Leppard line would win tickets to the Def Leppard concert on Monday. They talked Anna into also participating and she sang at an amazing 101.2 decibels (or was it 102.1?) She sang Pour a Little Sugar on Me - which she said she didn't even know and nobody else sang louder than Anna-Maria, in fact nobody else even broke 100 decibels, except for me. I yelled a spectacular 106.6 decibels of Let's Get Rocked and then after the contest was over did an encore performance and sang at 108.1! We won the tickets and now all that's between me and Def Leppard is getting out of my evening class on Monday night. We are pumped.

click to comment
0 comments links to this post