Articles
Advice of the Day (Forum)
Books (Forum)
Druidic Ramblings (Forum)
Dumb Ideas (Forum)
H-Town (Forum)
Links (Forum)
Movies (Forum)
Music (Forum)
Opinions (Forum)
Photo Albums (Forum)
Prose/Poetry (Forum)
Questions (Forum)
Video Games (Forum)
Member Login

Username

Password

Register Here

Forum
 

Forum posts for Holy Shit

Random Quote
Posted by phduffy on Sep 15, 2006
Q: So what Radiohead album should I get if I’m getting only one?

A: “Dark Side of the Moon”, or “Wish You Were Here”.

that quote
Posted by bryan on Sep 15, 2006
I'd have to say my favourite single radiohead track is interstellar overdrive.


Yeah
Posted by Miguel on Sep 15, 2006
She won because the voters aren't stupid and can tell when a bullshit smear job was in place. I haven't read what she actually said, but I bet you dollars to hamburgers it was taken out of context.

Im glad she won, I think she will represent my riding to the best of her abilities.

Okay...
Posted by phduffy on Sep 15, 2006
I bet you dollars to hamburgers it was taken out of context.

Please give an example of how comparing Karla Homolka to Christ could be taken out of context.

Or what about when she said that axe murderers and pedophiles should be able to become ordained ministers?

Or to worry more about lawyers than child-molesters?

http://www.ehpchurch.org/folder/060505.html

Not to forget her bashing of the Pope within weeks of his death.
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2005-04-14/news_story3.php

sorry
Posted by phduffy on Sep 15, 2006
This should have been in my last post as well:

http://canadiancerberus.blogspot.com/2006/09/cheri-dinovo-radical-reverend.html

I miss yelling...
Posted by bryan on Sep 15, 2006
...about politics, about as fruitless as barking at the moon.

In response to that last article and to Duffy, who is wrong:

RE: her smuggling drugs in a hollowed out bible... I watch CSI... I know how the police use scientific technology to solve crimes. You think the fuzz aren't hip to the hollowed out book scheme yet?

RE: Pedophilia

It's an awful crime, to be sure. Do we have to keep using the fear parents have of it happening to their children as a weapon in discussion?

Just say it with me... DiNovo supports axe-murdering pedophiles. Now go read her book, and tell me the same thing. (I didn't read her book, but I'm not going to trust some random asshole's emotional response to what looks like a "continuity error" without reading the whole thing. That's as stupid as trusting a wikipedia entry on the state of Palestine [seriously, check out the talk page if you want to waste a night shift... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine ] )

Karla Homolka was like christ in that they both made some mistakes while they were on earth.

Here is the lawyer quote
Posted by Miguel on Sep 16, 2006
"a sex offender had taken residence on her street and she was saying, "I’ve got a twelve year old daughter." And I said to her, "You know that sex offender is probably the least likely person in all of Canada to do anything to your daughter." Karla is the least likely person in all of the world right about now, to do anything to anyone. She going to be dogged by paparazzi everywhere she goes. She’s going to be hunted like a wounded animal. It’s going to be sick. She’s not going to be going anywhere and doin’ nothin’. Who is, meanwhile? The people most likely to abuse children are in the children’s own house, relatives, stepfathers, people they know. The second most likely people to abuse children or to hurt someone are people in positions of respect, that’s right, doctors, priests, ministers, lawyers, people that families turn to and trust. Isn’t it weird that we focus on this one woman’s image and we forget all about that?"


So what she's saying is Karla is now so notorious and stalked by journalists that she is not really in a position to hurt anyone, so people can stop freaking out about her. ......worry about those people who can come in direct contact with your child and might possibly abuse a position of power to do something to them: "people that families turn to and trust'. Seems reasonable to me, although I will grant you that I wouldn't put lawyers lawyer in with those others because they wouldn't really have that much interaction with a child.

And I will automatically dismiss any link that comes from a conservative blog.

So in short, you just took her lawyer quote out of context.

Here is the lawyer quote
Posted by Miguel on Sep 16, 2006
"a sex offender had taken residence on her street and she was saying, "I’ve got a twelve year old daughter." And I said to her, "You know that sex offender is probably the least likely person in all of Canada to do anything to your daughter." Karla is the least likely person in all of the world right about now, to do anything to anyone. She going to be dogged by paparazzi everywhere she goes. She’s going to be hunted like a wounded animal. It’s going to be sick. She’s not going to be going anywhere and doin’ nothin’. Who is, meanwhile? The people most likely to abuse children are in the children’s own house, relatives, stepfathers, people they know. The second most likely people to abuse children or to hurt someone are people in positions of respect, that’s right, doctors, priests, ministers, lawyers, people that families turn to and trust. Isn’t it weird that we focus on this one woman’s image and we forget all about that?"


So what she's saying is Karla is now so notorious and stalked by journalists that she is not really in a position to hurt anyone, so people can stop freaking out about her. ......worry about those people who can come in direct contact with your child and might possibly abuse a position of power to do something to them: "people that families turn to and trust'. Seems reasonable to me, although I will grant you that I wouldn't put lawyers lawyer in with those others because they wouldn't really have that much interaction with a child.

And I will automatically dismiss any link that comes from a conservative blog.

So in short, you just took her lawyer quote out of context.

The link "bashing the pope"
Posted by Miguel on Sep 16, 2006
"the churches preach celibacy or monogamy, neither of which works when a woman has little control over her marriage or her future. John Paul II at a speech to the United Nations in 1994 condemned the use of birth control. An AIDS activist interviewed shortly thereafter said this would directly condemn hundreds of thousands to death, many of them women and children. Fleming quoted one of those women from Malawi, who said, "The men are killing us."

I totally agree with this, it's an innefective and irresponsible way to control AIDS or any other STD. She is not bashing the pope, but she is criticizing one aspect of his policies....I dont think John Paul II's legacy should be free from any critique just because he died. He was a good pope, but not without fault, the catholic church became less relevant and progressive under his watch (and it is becoming even more reactionary under Benedict)

"In the Vatican, 15 old white men, followed by hundreds of other men, walked behind a great man last week to honour the world-impacting life he'd led. Outside, thousands of women and ordinary people – gardeners, the wounded, the ones who bake and offer the bread – unable to find a place inside, lit candles.Some of them whispered prayers to Christ, that humble one, that poor one, that sometimes unrecognizable one. Christ smiled from one to the other, as unrecognized as on the Emmaus road, at least by most.
Quietly, silenced, these are the people who will go on changing lives and changing the world. This is a prayer for them all. Amen."

Beautifully put, I agree with everything she is saying. Where is this pope bashing you are talking about? She criticized one aspect of his policies and tries to draw attention to the plight of women and poor people who struggle everyday. She also repeatedly refers to the pope as a "great man".

SO MUCH BASHING.



Sorry Paul
Posted by Miguel on Sep 16, 2006
The conservative blog you posted is not a conservative blog at all, it is a liberal blog, my bad.

But Cerebus is still completely wrong, as are you with Ms. DiNovo. He is taking her quotes out of context and reading something into them thats just not there.

1. She was not teaching kids how to smuggle, she was talking about what she did as part of her past.

2. She did not say that pedophiles should be ordained, she mentioned baptism and inclusion within the church. She didn't actually answer the question, which is bad, but in no way did she say that pedo's and axe murderers should be ordained. (and I agree with the one poster who said he would have no problem with reformed axe murderers being ordained, but pedophiles is another story)

I think Toronto, and even Canada needs more politicans like her, and less like Sylvia "lets put parking lots in Parkdale" Watson.




yeah
Posted by phduffy on Sep 17, 2006
And I will automatically dismiss any link that comes from a conservative blog.
Good to see you're open minded.


I think Toronto, and even Canada needs more politicans like her, and less like Sylvia "lets put parking lots in Parkdale" Watson.


I don't know anything about her opponents, I was just amazed that she won, and not only won, but cleaned up. Yeah, maybe it has more to do with the craptasticity of her opponents than her... still, I was surprised.

You included the quote where she said that doctors and lawyers are more likely to abuse a kid than Homolka.

...about politics, about as fruitless as barking at the moon.

In response to that last article and to Duffy, who is wrong:


Heh, the first time I read this, I thought it said "in response to that last article and to Duffy, who is wrong, as usual". Not sure why I thought that.


It's an awful crime, to be sure. Do we have to keep using the fear parents have of it happening to their children as a weapon in discussion?


Yes. Bryan, what about the children? The Children are our Future.


Just say it with me... DiNovo supports axe-murdering pedophiles


Yeah, that's what I'm saying!

Now go read her book, and tell me the same thing.

I don't read non-fiction, I get all my information from blogs.

.
Posted by bryan on Sep 17, 2006
>In response to that last article and to Duffy, who is wrong:

>>Heh, the first time I read this, I thought it said "in response to that last
>>article and to Duffy, who is wrong, as usual". Not sure why I thought >>that.

It's probably because I'm full of shit, I don't pay nearly enough attention to politics to have a serious debate so I resort to personal attacks and triply so on the internet.

Truth is, I just don't care about children. There. I said it. Screw anyone under the age of 12. Screw them with an axe-- and then become a minister in Miguel's neighbourhood. BLAMO! Take that, socialist swine.




One more time.....YOU'RE WRONG
Posted by Miguel on Sep 17, 2006
I know you read a lot of books, more than I do.

So why are you not getting what she's saying?

Go ahead....read the quote again.

"I did a wedding a couple of weeks back and one of the musicians sat down and told me that a sex offender had just been released from prison and was going to take up residence on her street and she was saying, "I’ve got a twelve year old daughter." And I said to her, "You know that sex offender is probably the least likely person in all of Canada to do anything to your daughter."

A bit of exageration to be sure, but you need to take the quote in its full context to see what she is getting at.

"The people most likely to abuse children are in the children’s own house, relatives, stepfathers, people they know."

This is absolutely true. There are a ton of statistics that prove it

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/statsinfo/nis3.cfm#perpetrator

"The second most likely people to abuse children or to hurt someone are people in positions of respect, that’s right, doctors, priests, ministers, lawyers, people that families turn to and trust. Isn’t it weird that we focus on this one woman’s image and we forget all about that?"

Again, I don't really know why lawyers are in there, because I can't really envision a situation where one would be alone with a child as a client. The point is, RIGHT NOW, TODAY should a parent be worried about Karla Homolka hurting their kid more than they should worry about their neighbour or doctor or priest? When statistics show that a child is overwhelmingly more likely to be abused by someone they know?

You're wrong, even after I helpfully dissected her quotes from you and didn't just get spoonfed by a blog from a jabronie who works the Liberal party.

Duffy, you're wrong.

And for the record, I think that a random doctor or lawyer would be more likely to abuse a kid than homolka. Actually Duffy let's do this.....

I will bet you $500 that a doctor or lawyer will abuse a kid first than Karla Homolka. I have media monitoring services at work, it would be a cinch to include a new category with "lawyer, doctor, sexual, abuse, child" in it. If a news report comes in that Homolka has hurt a child before any other news that a lawyer or doctor has abused one then you win 500 bucks, if it's the other way around, I win.

If you think what Di Novo is saying is so wacky and crazy, then you will step up to the plate and bet.

But you're wrong.


Ummmmm
Posted by Miguel on Sep 17, 2006
I don't actually want to go through with that bet, it's way too wrong on several levels even for me.

But hypothetically.

I tell you what
Posted by phduffy on Sep 17, 2006
You pick a lawyer and doctor. Specific ones. Not just generic doctors.

Or, change it to "convicted sex molester" versus lawyer doctor. Not one specific molester against an entire set of professions.

And I was pretty much being serious about reading non-fiction.

Lawyers
Posted by kristian on Sep 18, 2006
Children get left alone with lawyers during custody battles...at some point the child needs to be interviewed away from both parents.

No, not flashdance....
Posted by phduffy on Sep 18, 2006
http://www.michaeljameswestcott.com/

A dude talking about the bi-election, and the idea of smearing candidates.

One more time.
Posted by Miguel on Sep 18, 2006
Every single last comment used in the campaign to hurt her was usually blatantly out of context, or at the very best open to alternate interpretations.

No one is saying (at least I'm not) that what a politician did and said in the past can't be up for scrutiny (although I believe things like past drug use and promiscuity should have absolutely no bearing on a politicians ability to do their job). Just use it in context, otherwise you run the risk of disgusting voters....which was exactly what happened in my riding. The liberals lost in part because of the tactics they used.


Meh
Posted by phduffy on Sep 18, 2006
I guess it depends on what you mean by out of context. Doesn't look like they were taken out of context to me.

Yeah....
Posted by Miguel on Sep 18, 2006
This is all a moo point anyways....like a cows opinion, it doesn't matter because DiNovo won handily and the rest is history.

Hey, you should look up "new weird fiction" on wikipedia and tell me if any of those authors are good besides Alasdair Roberts or whatever his name is.

Also, Jack Vance's "The Dying Earth" seems to be ridiculously influential...have you read it?

True
Posted by phduffy on Sep 18, 2006
I hate cows, we should never listen to them.

Hey, you should look up "new weird fiction" on wikipedia and tell me if any of those authors are good besides Alasdair Roberts or whatever his name is.

Yeah, I like Alastair Reynods (go, read Chasm City now!) and China Mieville obviously. I've got The Year of our War by Swainson on my amazon wishlist. I own The Light Ages by Macleod, but haven't read it yet. I've also got The Passion of New Eve by Angela Carter, which is a novel from back in the day... Carter was apparently very influential on the New Weird.

Also, Jack Vance's "The Dying Earth" seems to be ridiculously influential...have you read it?

I've read the first novel, The Dying Earth. It's good. He's a very lyrical writer, if you know what I'm saying. I'd recommend that Lyoness Trilogy or the Demon Princes novels instead though.