A day or two ago, two students were killed crossing a street while on their way home from campus. A lady in a minivan didn't see them. The front of the van lifted them up, and then the windshield threw them into the air.
While I believe that pedestrians have the right of way, it is absolutely imperative that you as a pedestrian LOOK BOTH WAYS BEFORE YOU CROSS THE STREET! The motorist should stop but if they don't you will die.
Think about it, when you are driving around town, how many of the other drivers are idiots? 50%? 60%? They don't become better drivers when you get out of your car. They still talk on their cell phones and put on their makeup.
Please pay attention to the world around you.
-Gary Milner
Friday, October 03, 2003
WHAT DOES IT FEEL LIKE TO WITNESS A MURDER
Before I tell you what it feels like to witness a murder let me give you some background on what I've been doing for the last few days. Norman Meyer needed someone to go huntiing with him so I consented and we went out three different days. Going out into the country on colorful warm fall days is relaxing and enjoyable. I have to say it was kind of nice. We saw antelopes from time to time but Norman kept saying that they were to small. He said he only wanted one with extra big horns. And this was fine with me because I couldn't understand why you would kill an antelope anyway. Today however, something went horribly wrong. We saw an antelope and instead of just looking at it, out came the rifle and before I even knew what was happening I became a witness to murder. Then, as if the shooting wasn't bad enough, I had to watch as he hacked at it with his hunting knife. Now I know why when certain people want someone killed , they hire it done.
Changes
I added a Blog Quick Edit link on the left hand side. This allows us to link to the blogger edit page straight from the blog. If you are not logged in already then you will have to put in your username and password.
I also changed the words "Shout Out" to "Comment" but I'll change it to whatever you guys feel is best. The colour scheme of the comments have also been changed to look a little more like the rest of our site.
I also changed the words "Shout Out" to "Comment" but I'll change it to whatever you guys feel is best. The colour scheme of the comments have also been changed to look a little more like the rest of our site.
Thursday, October 02, 2003
TRANSLATING DOG TALK
I found out yesterday that somebody invented a device that looks like an ordinary headset that when your wearing it you can understand what dogs are saying. For instance when a dog says something like bow wow, and your wearing the headset, you hear that he's saying hey-hey. If he says bark bark bark bark bark you will hear hey hey hey hey hey . A prolonged grrrrrrrrrrrrrr sounds like heeeeeeeh.
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Misleading People
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", 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.
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", 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.
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Apology To Jeff
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.
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.
Saturday, September 27, 2003
Doing E-commerce For Real
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
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
Friday, September 26, 2003
GIVING MONEY TO IRAQ
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?
E-Commerce Website Woes
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra Feat. Big Bad Voodoo Daddy
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Dog Argument
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
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
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.
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.
Saturday, September 20, 2003
Stupid Computers Continue to Annoy ME
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
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
Friday, September 19, 2003
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
I'm shovin' off,
-Gary Milner Soul Patch Beard, Internet Pirate
Talk Like a Pirate Matey
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.
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.
MORE REGARDING FUNNY GUYS
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.
Thursday, September 18, 2003
People Debating
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.
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.
Another Analogy About Same-Sex Marriage
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.
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.
Homosexual Marriage
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
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
One Case Against Homosexual Marriage
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)