NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, of all the evil and insiduous things to be repressed.... Jon Stewart certainly would ave topped my list.... after all, being able to laugh at yourself sounds far to much like that whole "humility" thing that Jesus seemed big on.


So his book has gotta go.. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050110/ap_en_ot/banned_book)


Library officials in two southern Mississippi counties have banned Jon Stewart's best-selling "America (The Book)" over the satirical textbook's nude depictions of the nine U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) justices.

"I've been a librarian for 40 years and this is the only book I've objected to so strongly that I wouldn't allow it to circulate," said Robert Willits, director of the Jackson-George Regional Library System of eight libraries in Jackson and George counties.



Bet I could find something equally graphic in their medical reference section....

Yes, of all the evil and insiduous things to be repressed.... Jon Stewart certainly would ave topped my list.... after all, being able to laugh at yourself sounds far to much like that whole "humility" thing that Jesus seemed big on.


So his book has gotta go.. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050110/ap_en_ot/banned_book)



Bet I could find something equally graphic in their medical reference section....

Justice Souter has a tiny weeny.

Yes, of all the evil and insiduous things to be repressed.... Jon Stewart certainly would ave topped my list.... after all, being able to laugh at yourself sounds far to much like that whole "humility" thing that Jesus seemed big on.


So his book has gotta go.. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050110/ap_en_ot/banned_book)



Bet I could find something equally graphic in their medical reference section....

As much as I agree wholeheartedly that they are just using the nude supreme court justices as an excuse to ban a book they disagree with ideologically, I think the graphic pictures (often disgusting, like pictures of diseases) actually serve a purpose aside from entertainment... Although, I think it could be argued that laughter is a useful psychological healing tool, so maybe those in favor of keeping the book could say that it shouldn't be banned because it's medical.

HARRY J. ANSLINGER (http://www.heartbone.com/no_thugs/hja.htm) should have been censored years ago. and by that i mean shot.

sorry off topic but i have no idea what you are talking about :p

Yes, of all the evil and insiduous things to be repressed.... Jon Stewart certainly would have topped my list.... after all, being able to laugh at yourself sounds far to much like that whole "humility" thing that Jesus seemed big on.
This is the same Country in which Michael Friggin' MOORE won A People's Choice Award??? Sorry, but I don't have much sympathy for Ms. Stewart's lil boy. :D

This is the same Country in which Michael Friggin' MOORE won A People's Choice Award??? Sorry, but I don't have much sympathy for Ms. Stewart's lil boy. :D


but haven't you heard? Hollywood is the evil antithesis of real American values, so anything endorsed by them is clearly flawed anyway....

Also there is no need to ban this book. It comes with robes you can cut our and put on the justices. The librarians simply could have spent two minutes to glue on the robes nice and tight.

Still, someone could have peeled them off again! The horror! Think-Of-The-Children! ^_^

Yes, of all the evil and insiduous things to be repressed.... Jon Stewart certainly would ave topped my list.... after all, being able to laugh at yourself sounds far to much like that whole "humility" thing that Jesus seemed big on.

It's a public library. The idea of censoring it is to keep such possibly offensive material from those who don't ask for it. It's like laws against public indecency. In boradcasting, if someone gets cable, sattelite, XM radio or whatever other private boradcasting system, it's their decision to view the possibly risque or pornographic content. However, it shouldn't be forced upon the public who didn't ask for it. The same goes for public libraries. It's under government jurisdiciton, and in the public control. If people want to view graphic humor, they can still buy the book, and, if they buy it, it's their decision to intake that graphic material. Money for books in the library come out of the publioc piggy bank and the government,the public aren't in the business of endorsing pornography or graphic books. If people want to view trash it's their choice.

As long as the government isn't stopping people from buying the book, I don't see any reason for complaint...unless it bugs you that much that you have to pay to see excessively senior citizens naked.


Bet I could find something equally graphic in their medical reference section....

Actually you probably couldn't.

Medical reference has a differnet intent, a different spirit about it. It's like the difference between ER and South Park. They both may show a mutilated body, but ER does so in a respectful, dignified, medical manner. South Park, in contrast, does so just for kicks. South Park wants a row; medicine wants to avoid pornographic content. Medical books, in my brief experience, are tasteful and educational. They are not 'graphic' in the sense that the naked pictures in Jon Stewart's book are.

If you really don't want other posters (such as Colodia) thinking you're just steamed over others' ability to hold political opinions independent of yours, perhaps you should bring up more legitimate examples of the evils of them stupid Americans.

Still, someone could have peeled them off again! The horror! Think-Of-The-Children! ^_^

To true. But we should take it further. We should ban all books with pictures in since with good pen work someone could easily render any picture obsene.

It's a public library. The idea of censoring it is to keep such possibly offensive material from those who don't ask for it. It's like laws against public indecency. In boradcasting, if someone gets cable, sattelite, XM radio or whatever other private boradcasting system, it's their decision to view the possibly risque or pornographic content. However, it shouldn't be forced upon the public who didn't ask for it. The same goes for public libraries. It's under government jurisdiciton, and in the public control. If people want to view graphic humor, they can still buy the book, and, if they buy it, it's their decision to intake that graphic material. Money for books in the library come out of the publioc piggy bank and the government,the public aren't in the business of endorsing pornography or graphic books. If people want to view trash it's their choice.

As long as the government isn't stopping people from buying the book, I don't see any reason for complaint...unless it bugs you that much that you have to pay to see excessively senior citizens naked.



Actually you probably couldn't.

Medical reference has a differnet intent, a different spirit about it. It's like the difference between ER and South Park. They both may show a mutilated body, but ER does so in a respectful, dignified, medical manner. South Park, in contrast, does so just for kicks. South Park wants a row; medicine wants to avoid pornographic content. Medical books, in my brief experience, are tasteful and educational. They are not 'graphic' in the sense that the naked pictures in Jon Stewart's book are.

If you really don't want other posters (such as Colodia) thinking you're just steamed over others' ability to hold political opinions independent of yours, perhaps you should bring up more legitimate examples of the evils of them stupid Americans.


You know, if a tiny picture of a penis is going to horrify children who are mature enough to be browsing the political satire section of the library, but a big penis is not going to do so if you go looking for it in the medical section, then people need to.... get a life.


That is my opinion. Feel free to have one that is diferent.

Steamed? Hell -I'm amused!

But nice try......

There's already an oversexed culture that is blooming in today's American culture, amongst the prevailing all-righteous hypocritical Christian-right. I fail to see how censoring this book is going to do any good, especially with the crap they have on American television.

Yes, of all the evil and insiduous things to be repressed.... Jon Stewart certainly would ave topped my list.... after all, being able to laugh at yourself sounds far to much like that whole "humility" thing that Jesus seemed big on.


So his book has gotta go.. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050110/ap_en_ot/banned_book)



Bet I could find something equally graphic in their medical reference section....
Two stupid things are obvious. There are probably more that aren't.
First, why does what two rural counties do represent the US? Other than they are easy to poke fun at. Hell, we've been doing that to folks in Mississippi for years. Congratulations on your firm grip of the obvious.

Second, why should we care what the counties do? After all, we don't live there. If we did, we could leave. It's a county library, maybe just a bookmobile -- depends on how big the county is, and they are spending county money to keep it running. Where's the problem? I know, it's just that they are so easy to make fun of.

It's funny, but as civilized as we are in Georgia, there is still a list of banned books. I might be wrong, but I think "The Giver" is on the list. If there's anyone at Georgia Tech, the list is posted on a bulletin board in the library.

Ahh, another anti-america thread from zep. Get a life. :rolleyes:

It's a public library. The idea of censoring it is to keep such possibly offensive material from those who don't ask for it. It's like laws against public indecency. In boradcasting, if someone gets cable, sattelite, XM radio or whatever other private boradcasting system, it's their decision to view the possibly risque or pornographic content. However, it shouldn't be forced upon the public who didn't ask for it. The same goes for public libraries. It's under government jurisdiciton, and in the public control. If people want to view graphic humor, they can still buy the book, and, if they buy it, it's their decision to intake that graphic material. Money for books in the library come out of the publioc piggy bank and the government,the public aren't in the business of endorsing pornography or graphic books. If people want to view trash it's their choice.

As long as the government isn't stopping people from buying the book, I don't see any reason for complaint...unless it bugs you that much that you have to pay to see excessively senior citizens naked.


amazing MY public library not only as a whole section devoted to "self love"(picture books) but also has a copy of karmasutra ...oh cant forget their "sexlopedia" which is like the karmasutra with pictures

(worked help stocking shelves at 16 for a few months before I got a good job)

It's funny, but as civilized as we are in Georgia, there is still a list of banned books. I might be wrong, but I think "The Giver" is on the list. If there's anyone at Georgia Tech, the list is posted on a bulletin board in the library.
It should remain banned - that book was an insult to my intelligence! It's written for intellectual lightweights, who can't handle real literature. That's why my grade 8 English teacher assigned it to the majority of my peers. 5 of us got exept from it and each got a different book by John Wyndham to study (Chrysalids is a good book). :D

Hey Zepp, if you must throw stones, here is one back at you:

Canadian Content Laws! (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/cancon.htm)

Yeah Zepp no censorship up their in the great white north. :rolleyes: Go bludgeon a baby harp seal!


Well, Zepp I guess it doesn't count as censorship when the Almighty Canadian Government regulates how much of a % of a radio's airtime must be given to Canadian artists. I guess if you like the Barenaked Ladies, Bryan Adams, Celine Dion, Avril Lavigne, and Anne Murray you wouldn't have a problem with it! :gundge:

Hey Zepp, if you must throw stones, here is one back at you:

Canadian Content Laws! (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/cancon.htm)

Yeah Zepp no censorship up their in the great white north. :rolleyes: Go bludgeon a baby harp seal!
What does their specific governmental agency equivalent of the FCC have to do with public libraries?

Hey Zepp, if you must throw stones, here is one back at you:

Canadian Content Laws! (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/cancon.htm)

Yeah Zepp no censorship up their in the great white north. :rolleyes: Go bludgeon a baby harp seal!
It calls for 30% Canadian content in the media. That is fairly reasonable. It's a way of protecting Canadian culture from the influx of foreign culture. While it's good that we have a diverse nation, it is necessary to protect one's heritage.

The Canadian Content Laws isn't censorship. It's more of a requirement/requisite to running a media outlet. It's to promote Canadian media and literature, not censor other forms of free speech. It's to allow equal access to more than just the "top 50". It allows Canadians to retain their national identity in a small way.

Well, Zepp I guess it doesn't count as censorship when the Almighty Canadian Government regulates how much of a % of a radio's airtime must be given to Canadian artists. I guess if you like the Barenaked Ladies, Bryan Adams, Celine Dion, Avril Lavigne, and Anne Murray you wouldn't have a problem with it! :gundge:
I don't like a couple of those artists, but I think it's entirely fair, since other Canadians obviously like them. It's not censorship until you edit something and change/modify in some way that it is no longer in its original uncensored form.

And for your benefit, here is the definition of censor and censorship, courtesy of Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)

cen·sor n.

1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
3. One that condemns or censures.
4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.
5. Psychology. The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.

>>>>

cen·sor·ship n.

1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.
2. The office or authority of a Roman censor.
3. Psychology. Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.

It calls for 30% Canadian content in the media. That is fairly reasonable. It's a way of protecting Canadian culture from the influx of foreign culture. While it's good that we have a diverse nation, it is necessary to protect one's heritage.

The Canadian Content Laws isn't censorship. It's more of a requirement/requisite to running a media outlet. It's to promote Canadian media and literature, not censor other forms of free speech. It's to allow equal access to more than just the "top 50". It allows Canadians to retain their national identity in a small way.

Yes it is censorship. What if someone owned a radio station and didn't want to play Canadian content? They wouldn't be allowed to broadcast, and would lose their permit. Now if that isn't governement censorship, I don't know what is. How is mandating to an individual who pays all of the taxes and fees what they can and can't broadcast protecting your heritage?

We have stations in the states broadcasting Indian programing, Puerto Rican, Iranian, Polish, etc, they don't broadcast American programs, yet they are allowed to broadcast, none the less. Are these stations destroying America's heritage?

You may not want to call it censorship but you have to call a turd a turd, and you can't polish shit. You do know that some of your tax money goes to pay to support the media. Sort of funny how you pay, but you can only listen to certain amounts of foreign media. State-run media that highlights how great Canada is. Sounds a little like a Soviet era Pravda style propaganda machine to me. Hahaha, funny how you have to pay to hear how great your own country is.

What does their specific governmental agency equivalent of the FCC have to do with public libraries?

Not anything, but Zepp was making fun of America (yet again). So I brought up his governments policy on foreign media.

Yes it is censorship. What if someone owned a radio station and didn't want to play Canadian content? They wouldn't be allowed to broadcast, and would lose their permit. Now if that isn't governement censorship, I don't know what is. How is mandating to an individual who pays all of the taxes and fees what they can and can't broadcast protecting your heritage?

We have stations in the states broadcasting Indian programing, Puerto Rican, Iranian, Polish, etc, they don't broadcast American programs, yet they are allowed to broadcast, none the less. Are these stations destroying America's heritage?
We have very similar stations.... We call it the CBC :D (and other stations, but, they got permits from CRTC).

No, if you read the definition of censorship that I dug up, you'll see that this doesn't conform to the tradtional meaning. It's not saying you can't play certain types of music, it says that you need to play Canadian music in addtion to whatever you have.

The stations that play native music are playing pure Canadian content.

If you want to talk about censorship in Canada, why aren't you quoting me crap about the Quebec Language Police?

It calls for 30% Canadian content in the media. That is fairly reasonable. It's a way of protecting Canadian culture from the influx of foreign culture. While it's good that we have a diverse nation, it is necessary to protect one's heritage.

The Canadian Content Laws isn't censorship. It's more of a requirement/requisite to running a media outlet. It's to promote Canadian media and literature, not censor other forms of free speech. It's to allow equal access to more than just the "top 50". It allows Canadians to retain their national identity in a small way.


I don't like a couple of those artists, but I think it's entirely fair, since other Canadians obviously like them. It's not censorship until you edit something and change/modify in some way that it is no longer in its original uncensored form.

And for your benefit, here is the definition of censor and censorship, courtesy of Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)


Though that definition does not restrict it to “modifying” if the whole book is considered unsuitable they can still restrict it … so still is still censoring if they completely do not show something ... (that dident come out right hope you got what I mean)

Not anything, but Zepp was making fun of America (yet again). So I brought up his governments policy on foreign media.
Why I don’t agree with the America bashing I don’t agree with censorship either

Hell, I don't even agree with Stewart's politics, but I have his book and it doesn't deserve to be banned. The book is great and all this free publicity cannot hurt. Even my college library has it.

If you want to talk about censorship in Canada, why aren't you quoting me crap about the Quebec Language Police?

I wasn't finished yet! ;) Don't even get me started on Les Quebecois!!! :p

I wonder how the ACLU would feel about the Language Police? I'm not the biggest fan of everything they do, but I'd think they'd come out blasting with both barrels!

It calls for 30% Canadian content in the media. That is fairly reasonable. It's a way of protecting Canadian culture from the influx of foreign culture. While it's good that we have a diverse nation, it is necessary to protect one's heritage.

Canada and the US have a pretty similar history. Colonized by Europeans so they could get rich, battled Indians and the elements, had a gold rush...and so on.

What makes Canadian culture? Okay, you have some French speaking, so do we. You have some Chinatowns, so do we. We have New Englanders, you have Newfies(sp?) We all have our odd little enclaves in a pretty homogeneous society. But what makes Canadian culture unique?

What if the US required 30% US content? Duh, it's all US anyway. Sorry.

Yes it is censorship. What if someone owned a radio station and didn't want to play Canadian content? They wouldn't be allowed to broadcast, and would lose their permit. Now if that isn't governement censorship, I don't know what is. How is mandating to an individual who pays all of the taxes and fees what they can and can't broadcast protecting your heritage?

We have stations in the states broadcasting Indian programing, Puerto Rican, Iranian, Polish, etc, they don't broadcast American programs, yet they are allowed to broadcast, none the less. Are these stations destroying America's heritage?
No it's not censorship. Besides, the owner agrees to these rules and regulation before getting a license. Think of it as a contract. If you don't respect your part of the deal (Canadian Content), you shouldn't expect the other side to respect his part (lease you the airwaves).

The airwaves are not free. They are owned by the Canadian people as a whole. As such, our society decided to preserve our culture with rules like Canadian Content. If you don't like it, get a license elsewhere.

No it's not censorship. Besides, the owner agrees to these rules and regulation before getting a license. Think of it as a contract. If you don't respect your part of the deal (Canadian Content), you shouldn't expect the other side to respect his part (lease you the airwaves).

The airwaves are not free. They are owned by the Canadian people as a whole. As such, our society decided to preserve our culture with rules like Canadian Content. If you don't like it, get a license elsewhere.

But where else can you get a license in Canada? Nowhere. Sounds a little like the Commies. "We know what is best for our people! We prove this by allowing the people to pay for their own media!You pay, but we know best. Besides, those dastardly Americans are trying to brainwash the children with their loud rock music, Dan Fogelberg, and Pac-Man video games. Nevermind that man behind the curtain!"

No it's not censorship. Besides, the owner agrees to these rules and regulation before getting a license.


Yup a real fair system there! Just like the IRS here, you have the right not to pay your taxes, but they have the right to arrest you if you don't.

I hope when you travel to Quebec you speak French and don't insult them with your bastard English.

As such, our society decided to preserve our culture with rules like Canadian Content. If you don't like it, get a license elsewhere.

Your society decided? Really, did you get to vote on that issue? Oh sorry, your government decided.

Your society decided? Really, did you get to vote on that issue? Oh sorry, your government decided.
Hey pal, in a representative government, that's the way it works. Did I decide to implement the last budget bill in Congress? Of course not. I voted for someone who would represent my views on that vote. So did the rest of us. I'm pretty sure Canada works the same way. Except that they vote for the wrong candidates most of the time.

Your society decided? Really, did you get to vote on that issue? Oh sorry, your government decided.
And we elected the government that did it AND we are not protesting against it, so yeah, our society as a whole agreed to it. There was a debate, a legislation passed, end of story. This is how it's done.

Yup a real fair system there! Just like the IRS here, you have the right not to pay your taxes, but they have the right to arrest you if you don't.

I hope when you travel to Quebec you speak French and don't insult them with your bastard English.
Like you can go on and set up a radio station in theUS without FCC approval :rolleyes:

And since I am from Montreal, Quebec I speak French very good indeed. In fact, you could say it's my primary language. But please, enlighten me where my English is bastardised, as I really want to correct my errors.

But where else can you get a license in Canada? Nowhere. Sounds a little like the Commies. "We know what is best for our people! We prove this by allowing the people to pay for their own media!You pay, but we know best. Besides, those dastardly Americans are trying to brainwash the children with their loud rock music, Dan Fogelberg, and Pac-Man video games. Nevermind that man behind the curtain!"
Typical: as soon as it's not what you would do, it's Commie. :rolleyes:
Besides, I never said you couldn't move elsewhere. It looks like the US is fairly easy if you want to set up a station. Just build it in Vermont and you'll broadcast in Canada due to being close to it.

And since I am from Montreal, Quebec I speak French very good indeed. In fact, you could say it's my primary language. But please, enlighten me where my English is bastardised, as I really want to correct my errors.


"I speak French very well indeed."


:rolleyes:

Hey pal, in a representative government, that's the way it works. Did I decide to implement the last budget bill in Congress? Of course not. I voted for someone who would represent my views on that vote. So did the rest of us. I'm pretty sure Canada works the same way. Except that they vote for the wrong candidates most of the time.


Don't think the Canadians directly elect their PM and know they don't vote for their Senate.

There is Big time censorship in the American War Reports...

Canada is better off in many fields...including Health-Care, civil-justice and not least...Foreign Policy.

having said that...I must ask you Canadians...

Is Canada perfect? of course not.

When compared to the USA (or other countries) is Canada always rigth? of course not.

Dont let your patriotism blind you.

the CRTC/Quebec.Language.Board ...are they some kind of Censorship? of course they are.

Don't think the Canadians directly elect their PM and know they don't vote for their Senate.
They do vote for Parliment and the PM comes from Parliment. Pretty much like Great Britian. Which also votes for the wrong candidates most of the time.

We don't directly elect our President, either. It is more direct than a coalition in the House choosing one, though. Not too long ago, State governors would appoint Senators in the US. The only people that were directly elected to national office were Representatives.

Like you can go on and set up a radio station in theUS without FCC approval :rolleyes:

And since I am from Montreal, Quebec I speak French very good indeed. In fact, you could say it's my primary language. But please, enlighten me where my English is bastardised, as I really want to correct my errors.


Typical: as soon as it's not what you would do, it's Commie. :rolleyes:
Besides, I never said you couldn't move elsewhere. It looks like the US is fairly easy if you want to set up a station. Just build it in Vermont and you'll broadcast in Canada due to being close to it.

Yes you need a license from the FCC to broadcast, but you only have to obey the obscenity rules. You know no dirty words, you can't threaten to kill anyone or call others to cause harm, and pay royalties where applicable. But you do not have to have 30% American content.

Sure you speak French "very good indeed", but do you think the language laws in your country are fair. How is having two official languages preserving your culture? If you think it does, then why not pass Hindi, Chinese, Arabic, etc language laws? I'm sure those people want to preserve their culture. You can preserve your culture all you want, but it's wrong to attempt this by stamping out other people's culture. Sounds like another group that wants to protect it's culture, the KKK. Are you guys in the KKK? The Quebec language laws are a joke. If you tried to pull this type of cultural discrimination in the US, the ACLU's heads would explode.

I find it funny that Canadians think of themselves as more free and democratic than the US while enforcing these types of fascist laws on their people. French Language Enforcement and Canadian Content Laws sound like Orwellian evil to me.


For example, why would a freaking Chinese or Indian restaurant be required to have a French name?

There is Big time censorship in the American War Reports...

Canada is better off in many fields...including Health-Care, civil-justice and not least...Foreign Policy.

having said that...I must ask you Canadians...

Is Canada perfect? of course not.

When compared to the USA (or other countries) is Canada always rigth? of course not.

Dont let your patriotism blind you.

the CRTC content rules..are they some kind of Censorship? of course they are.
Well said. Although, would you care to explain how Canadian Content is censorship?

Well said. Although, would you care to explain how Canadian Content is censorship?
supressing viewing of matirial because the content or manufacture is not "canadian" enough seems to be to me ...

Yes you need a license from the FCC to broadcast, but you only have to obey the obscenity rules. You know no dirty words, you can't threaten to kill anyone or call others to cause harm, and pay royalties where applicable. But you do not have to have 30% American content.

Sure you speak French "very good indeed", but do you think the language laws in your country are fair. How is having two official languages preserving your culture? If you think it does, then why not pass Hindi, Chinese, Arabic, etc language laws? I'm sure those people want to preserve their culture. You can preserve your culture all you want, but it's wrong to attempt this by stamping out other people's culture. Sounds like another group that wants to protect it's culture, the KKK. Are you guys in the KKK? The Quebec language laws are a joke. If you tried to pull this type of cultural discrimination in the US, the ACLU's heads would explode.

I find it funny that Canadians think of themselves as more free and democratic than the US while enforcing these types of fascist laws on their people. French Language Enforcement and Canadian Content Laws sound like Orwellian evil to me.
So there are rules and regulations before being able to broadcast in the US as in Canada. Ours are more strict. What's the big deal?

And even if I don't totally agree about the French Language Law, it was deemed necessary to preserve that part of our heritage. Is it drastic? Yes. But it was deemed a necessary evil to protect that part of our culture. Was it challenged in court? Yes. It was deemed constitutionnal. There are still people who protest it, and I understand fully why. But the Quebec province is taking steps to stay French and it is our right to do so.

And I don't get you complaint about having two language. Care to explain it better?

Canada is better off in many fields...including Health-Care, civil-justice and not least...Foreign Policy.


I guess that's why I paid for my aunt to leave Toronto and paid for her operation to save her life here in the US - because the Canadian Health Care system put her on an 18-month waiting list for pancreatic surgery.

She wasn't expected to live more than two months in her condition. I suppose that would have saved the Canadian tax payer a lot of money there.

She's alive and well despite the Canadian health care system.

supressing viewing of matirial because the content or manufacture is not "canadian" enough seems to be to me ...
Ah, but it's not supressing content. You can show what you want, as long as you also show some Canadian stuff. As far as I know, nothing has been taken off the air because it's not Canadian.

Well said. Although, would you care to explain how Canadian Content is censorship?
First Every Country, Every society have more or less Censorships...

Try to post a naked picture here and see how fast Myrth brings it on :D

It is not Because Mirth do not appreciated the beuty of the human body...Its because he is followin rules...

What we need to be aware of is when Governements or Institutions create Censorship to hide stuff...To spin the truth...

so far, It is not the case of CRTC/Qubec-Language-Board...

Canada is better off in many fields...including Health-Care, civil-justice and not least...Foreign Policy.

Where is this written? Let's not bait the original issue with these red herrings. I don't think half the participants would agree with that statement and the half that do are wrong! :>

Where is this written? Let's not bait the original issue with these red herrings. I don't think half the participants would agree with that statement and the half that do are wrong! :>
While I get your point, I find debatable the statement in bold. Surely you're as guilty of sending a red herring.

Where is this written? Let's not bait the original issue with these red herrings. I don't think half the participants would agree with that statement and the half that do are wrong! :>
Myrmidonisia, would you Agree with me if I told you that: America has the best Health-Care, civil-justice and Foreign Policy.

Myrmidonisia, would you Agree with me if I told you that: America has the best Health-Care, civil-justice and Foreign Policy.

It's better than the Canadian health care system. If my aunt had stayed and waited the 18 months for her pancreatic surgery, she would have been dead for 16 months.

So she came down here, and I paid for it. Got it done. Wasn't even an option in Canada.

Nice to know they would have let her die, and made her die (because everyone has to take turns, and anyone with any real skill has left Canada to practice elsewhere - that's what they told her the official reason was for the shortage of surgeons capable of doing that sort of surgery).

Myrmidonisia, would you Agree with me if I told you that: America has the best Health-Care, civil-justice and Foreign Policy.

Comon Myrmidonisia,...Green icon says you are online :)

1mississipi, 2mississipi, 3mississipi,

Nice to know they would have let her die, and made her die (because everyone has to take turns, and anyone with any real skill has left Canada to practice elsewhere - that's what they told her the official reason was for the shortage of surgeons capable of doing that sort of surgery).
Well, they lied to her as there are still many competent surgeons here.

And, if I recall, the latest studies showed that overall both systems are equivalent with both having different strenghts and weaknesses. So saying that one is better is just plain false.

Now, in one case (like your mother's) the US system might be better but in other cases the Canadian one is better. You can't base your judgement on only one case.

The problem with the US system is one of affordability. If you can't pay, you're likely to fall under the wheels.

If you have some insurance, your care depends largely on what the insurance company is willing to pay for.

But, under the Canadian system, there certainly IS a shortage of some specialties. That's why they have to schedule some surgeries - 18 months in advance. And, the reason for the shortage is that if you're that well-trained, either the Canadian government is going to pay what you're worth, or you'll be migrating to New York and working there under NAFTA provisions.

Where you'll probably make a lot more money, especially if your an expert in some critical surgical technique.

Yeah, about the Canadian healthcare system, don't expect to receive a liver if you happen to be a senior citizen. The major fault with socialized medicine is that it's a monopoly and that in turn causes bad service, inflated costs, long waits, etc.

And it's not like it's free healthcare anyway. With the massive taxes you pay (pst, gst included), it all ends up eventually into the healthcare dole anyway.

It's a public library. The idea of censoring it is to keep such possibly offensive material from those who don't ask for it. It's like laws against public indecency. In boradcasting, if someone gets cable, sattelite, XM radio or whatever other private boradcasting system, it's their decision to view the possibly risque or pornographic content. However, it shouldn't be forced upon the public who didn't ask for it. The same goes for public libraries. It's under government jurisdiciton, and in the public control. If people want to view graphic humor, they can still buy the book, and, if they buy it, it's their decision to intake that graphic material. Money for books in the library come out of the publioc piggy bank and the government,the public aren't in the business of endorsing pornography or graphic books. If people want to view trash it's their choice.

I'm sorry... does the fact that it's a public library mean that someone is going to strap you down and force you to look at the pictures in every book? The idea that people should censor anything that could possibly be construed as offensive it is has the possibility of being viewed by someone who "shouldn't" or doesn't want to see it is absurd. The solution, if you don't want to see it is simple, don't look. I've read much of that book, but I didn't find that particular part as funny as the rest, but guess what, I just skipped it and didn't have to rip it out of my book, or stop reading the whole thing just because one tiny part of it is "offensive" (a highly loaded term).

As long as the government isn't stopping people from buying the book, I don't see any reason for complaint...unless it bugs you that much that you have to pay to see excessively senior citizens naked.

How about being bugged by the fact that we would have to pay to see the other parts that aren't considered offensive just because one piece of it disqualifies the whole text. There are graphic depictions of sex (and worse, violence) in many books of fiction, that don't get banned (although this isn't a good argument because the same people who want to ban this book, want to ban everything with any even remote reference to sex because they're masocists).

Actually you probably couldn't.

Medical reference has a differnet intent, a different spirit about it. It's like the difference between ER and South Park. They both may show a mutilated body, but ER does so in a respectful, dignified, medical manner. South Park, in contrast, does so just for kicks. South Park wants a row; medicine wants to avoid pornographic content. Medical books, in my brief experience, are tasteful and educational. They are not 'graphic' in the sense that the naked pictures in Jon Stewart's book are.

If you really don't want other posters (such as Colodia) thinking you're just steamed over others' ability to hold political opinions independent of yours, perhaps you should bring up more legitimate examples of the evils of them stupid Americans.

ER, dignified? That's funny. If anything, South Park often shows a greater respect for the dead than ER, though I don't intend to explain how, because it'd take about a week, and I'm tired as hell.

If you can't see that the naked justices are being used as an excuse to ban a book that contradicts the politics of the librarians then you are truly not very bright. The whole point is that those librarians are "steamed" that others have political opinions different from their own, so they seek to remove all influence of those people within their spheres on control. It's a pathetic and disgusting mockery of freedom of speech (which is exactly on par with, no greater and no worse than, freedom to bear arms, so don't give me any of that crap about "Lefties always talking about the first ammendment, never about the second") and should be prevented wherever possible.

Yeah, about the Canadian healthcare system, don't expect to receive a liver if you happen to be a senior citizen. The major fault with socialized medicine is that it's a monopoly and that in turn causes bad service, inflated costs, long waits, etc.
Yeha, about the US system, don't expect to recieve a liver if you happen to have no insurance. The major fault with capitalized medecine is that it's cutting corners and reducing benefits to make some money. And that in turn, cause bad service, inflated costs, long paperwork, etc.

See both systems have their flaws.

5 of us got exept from it and each got a different book by John Wyndham to study (Chrysalids is a good book). :D

Can't agree there. I nearly fell asleep reading that book.

As for the original thread: yeah, it's crude, but Jon Stewart has every right to express himself in any way that he likes (besides, I'm sure there's FAR worse than his book on the shelves or in libraries). However, it does seem to me that the naked judges are just a ploy and don't really make a point, but that's a critical issue and not an expression issue.

Yeha, about the US system, don't expect to recieve a liver if you happen to have no insurance. The major fault with capitalized medecine is that it's cutting corners and reducing benefits to make some money. And that in turn, cause bad service, inflated costs, long paperwork, etc.

See both systems have their flaws.

Insurance is the biggest problem with the American healthcare system, but also the fact that doctors no longer do anything except learn about new procedures that can be done to screen for diseases, rather than actually learning to be diagnosing technicians themselves. A huge amount of money is wasted on tests for things that a competent doctor could prevented because the tests were obviosly unecessary, but people do them anyway, because they've got the deep pockets of the insurance company to dig into since neither they nor the patient has any actual responsibility.

Basically, by centralizing the money to be used to pay for medical procedures they dramatically increase the wasteful spending, if no one had health insurance and everyone paid a little bit more in taxes to provide for those who can't afford healthcare, costs would go down dramatically for everyone.

have you heard?

Walmart is also censoring the book along with all cd's not in the top 50 on the charts

Yeha, about the US system, don't expect to recieve a liver if you happen to have no insurance. The major fault with capitalized medecine is that it's cutting corners and reducing benefits to make some money. And that in turn, cause bad service, inflated costs, long paperwork, etc.

See both systems have their flaws.

You can get a liver with no insurance. By law all patients must be treated regardless of them having the funds to cover it! BTW-SARS kicked your butts.

have you heard?

Walmart is also censoring the book along with all cd's not in the top 50 on the charts

That's not at all the same. Walmart is a private company that can choose to sell whatever it wants. A public library does not have that luxury.

have you heard?

Walmart is also censoring the book along with all cd's not in the top 50 on the charts

Go to a major bookstore, and try finding a gun magazine.

There are some Borders that WON'T carry them. There are some WaldenBooks that WON'T carry them.

I was told that sometimes they get these directives from their upper management, and other times, it's up to the store manager - if they don't like guns, they don't sell the magazines or books.

Considering that roughly 20 billion is spent on gun books, magazines, and videos every year, you would think that a merchant might want a piece of that.

Yes you need a license from the FCC to broadcast, but you only have to obey the obscenity rules. You know no dirty words, you can't threaten to kill anyone or call others to cause harm, and pay royalties where applicable. But you do not have to have 30% American content.

Dude, you're kidding yourself. There is a lot more that goes into that FCC liscence than Carlin's seven little words. We regulate the hell out of content. We regulate how many stations are owned, how much content the broadcasters own versus how much is from an outside source, we mandate a certain percentage of programing to be educational. The FCC liscence is a lot more than just an agreement not to swear.

Did you know, in fact, that you cannot own american media without being an american? Why do you think Ruper Murdock changed his citizenship from Australian to American. Not really all that different.

It still doesn't compare. Some prissy librarians censored a political parody. Political criticism is the exact why of the first amendment. It is note worthy. We should care, or at least make note of it. Oh, but it was a Canadian that told us, so we should forget it....

My concern is why does it take a Canadian to find it for us? Why are we sleeping on the job?

While I get your point, I find debatable the statement in bold. Surely you're as guilty of sending a red herring.
That :> was supposed to be :) My fingers didn't cooperate.

Myrmidonisia, would you Agree with me if I told you that: America has the best Health-Care, civil-justice and Foreign Policy.
Sure. But what does that have to do with the thread topic?

but haven't you heard? Hollywood is the evil antithesis of real American values, so anything endorsed by them is clearly flawed anyway....
it is in everyone best entrance to click the drop down menu on eutrusca's name and hit IGNORE, he is not worth listening to and i doubt has made an intelligent addition to any conversation unless you count doing a slightly cooled down imitation of ann coulter an intelligent addition

Comon Myrmidonisia,...Green icon says you are online :)

1mississipi, 2mississipi, 3mississipi,
Sorry, I had some stuff to do.

The problem with the US system is one of affordability. If you can't pay, you're likely to fall under the wheels.
No, if you can't pay there are charity hospitals that treat everyone. The closest to me is Grady Memorial. The emergency room routinely treats coughs and colds and other minor maladies. There was a big stink a couple years ago when the hospital board wanted to charge a few, five I think, dollars for the ER visits. Answer was that indigent people shouldn't have to pay.

You can get a liver with no insurance. By law all patients must be treated regardless of them having the funds to cover it! BTW-SARS kicked your butts.
I think that SARS was handled professionnally and with efficiency considering that we had nothing in place to fight such an epidemic. And saying that SARS kicked our butts is like syaing that Hurricane season in Florida kicked your butt.

It's childish and totally irrelevant.

it is in everyone best entrance to click the drop down menu on eutrusca's name and hit IGNORE, he is not worth listening to and i doubt has made an intelligent addition to any conversation unless you count doing a slightly cooled down imitation of ann coulter an intelligent addition

I've been wondering, what exactly is the effect of ignoring something?

I've been wondering, what exactly is the effect of ignoring something?

If you ignore enough people, eventually you become ignorant.

it is in everyone best entrance to click the drop down menu on eutrusca's name and hit IGNORE, he is not worth listening to and i doubt has made an intelligent addition to any conversation unless you count doing a slightly cooled down imitation of ann coulter an intelligent addition
Well, he did praise me in another thread. I find it an intelligent addition to the conversation. :)

I'm sorry... does the fact that it's a public library mean that someone is going to strap you down and force you to look at the pictures in every book? The idea that people should censor anything that could possibly be construed as offensive it is has the possibility of being viewed by someone who "shouldn't" or doesn't want to see it is absurd. The solution, if you don't want to see it is simple, don't look. I've read much of that book, but I didn't find that particular part as funny as the rest, but guess what, I just skipped it and didn't have to rip it out of my book, or stop reading the whole thing just because one tiny part of it is "offensive" (a highly loaded term).



How about being bugged by the fact that we would have to pay to see the other parts that aren't considered offensive just because one piece of it disqualifies the whole text. There are graphic depictions of sex (and worse, violence) in many books of fiction, that don't get banned (although this isn't a good argument because the same people who want to ban this book, want to ban everything with any even remote reference to sex because they're masocists).

The state of Mississippi, I love spelling that, and its counties elect representatives to carry out the will of the people of that state. Like I said before, why are two rural counties in Mississippi being held out as representative of the entire US? Aside from the fact that they are silly, I mean.
And how does health care figure into censorship?

I've been wondering, what exactly is the effect of ignoring something?
You don't see his posts. When he posts there's only a message saying "This poster is on your ignore list" and a link to see the message.

it is in everyone best entrance to click the drop down menu on eutrusca's name and hit IGNORE, he is not worth listening to and i doubt has made an intelligent addition to any conversation unless you count doing a slightly cooled down imitation of ann coulter an intelligent addition
Same can be said about you :rolleyes:

Same can be said about you :rolleyes:

No, Chess Squares isn't like Ann Coulter. More like Al Franken.

If you ignore enough people, eventually you become ignorant.

I've certainly noticed that, which is why it pisses me off that no one ever listens to anyone else, and why I always listen to everything everyone says, except when I can't see.

And how does health care figure into censorship?
You know:
Poster 1: Canada or US is better than the other one.
Poster 2: Oh, yeah! Well your healthcare system sucks!
Poster 1: No it doesn't
Poster 2: Yes it does.

Next thing we'll be hitting is our different foreign policy.

I've been wondering, what exactly is the effect of ignoring something?
i dont have to read his subintelligent babble about michael moore is coming to eat your babies and liberals want to take away your guns so the ycan shoot you with them and take over the world MWUAHAHAH, or whatever ignorant bullshit he still talks about

This is preposterous. The only book that should be banned is Mein Kampf.

i dont have to read his subintelligent babble about michael moore is coming to eat your babies and liberals want to take away your guns so the ycan shoot you with them and take over the world MWUAHAHAH, or whatever ignorant bullshit he still talks about

His posts just don't show up? What if someone quotes him?

This is preposterous. The only book that should be banned is Mein Kampf.

No. No books should be banned at all.

His posts just don't show up? What if someone quotes him?
You see the quote.

i dont have to read his subintelligent babble about michael moore is coming to eat your babies and liberals want to take away your guns so the ycan shoot you with them and take over the world MWUAHAHAH, or whatever ignorant bullshit he still talks about

I've been searching, and I don't find any posts by Eutrusca talking about Michael Moore coming to eat your babies.

Could you post a link, so that I could see this for myself? Or are you making up derogatory viewpoints just for your personal amusement?

No, Chess Squares isn't like Ann Coulter. More like Al Franken.
Was talking more the

he is not worth listening to and i doubt has made an intelligent addition to any conversation

I've been searching, and I don't find any posts by Eutrusca talking about Michael Moore coming to eat your babies.

Could you post a link, so that I could see this for myself? Or are you making up derogatory viewpoints just for your personal amusement?
i generally exagerrate to make a point, and i would ignore you but i just skip your posts anyway usually

I've been searching, and I don't find any posts by Eutrusca talking about Michael Moore coming to eat your babies.

Could you post a link, so that I could see this for myself? Or are you making up derogatory viewpoints just for your personal amusement?

At what point did we lose our sense of humor? It seems all too fitting that this would appear in a thread about political satire being censored from a public library.

The idea that the other side accuses your side of eating babies is a pretty standard joke. Where have you been?

And in his first post in this thread Eutrusca excuses the book banning by exclaiming his disgust that Micheal Moore won the People's Choice award (apparently public opinion only matters when it goes his way. Or can we tell him to 'get over it already, 21 million people have spoken'...the duality would be lost on him....)

So, while I agree Chess Squares policy of ignore heavy browsing is a little silly at best, come on-you know what he was saying. Don't play stupid.

"Santa Claus" just gave my son (who happens to be 24 and working on his Doctorate in Political Science) "America - the Book" for Christmas.

Santa has seen the illustrations in question.

Santa was highly amused, but in no way distressed or upset.

He was noted to be chuckling about the book in general, the illustrations in specific, and the whole "censorship" thing struck him as simply ridiculous.

America the Country finds itself involved in using every means at its disposal, short of Chemical, Nuclear or Biological, to kill people it currently has disagreements with in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the "surrounding area".

America the Country finds itself involved in taking a number of people from these areas, transporting them across the Atlantic Ocean to, of all places, a US Naval Base in Cuba, locking them up and virtually throwing away the key.

America the Country finds itself knee deep in the unexplained torture of other prisoners.

But we have to ban a book because of satirical nude pictures of old people (and, of course, it isn't really them) who happen to be the Supreme Court Justices of America the Country.

Perhaps it's time the Emporer realized he has no clothes...

So, while I agree Chess Squares policy of ignore heavy browsing is a little silly at best, come on-you know what he was saying. Don't play stupid.

Yes. Well. While it seems perfectly OK for Chess to engage in humorous exaggeration, the same doesn't seem to be accorded to those who disagree with him.

When you try to get humorous with Chess, he accuses you of making ignorant arguments.

His number one method of stating his disagreement with you is to state that you're stupid. Hardly humor, or even cogent argument.

Yes. Well. While it seems perfectly OK for Chess to engage in humorous exaggeration, the same doesn't seem to be accorded to those who disagree with him.

When you try to get humorous with Chess, he accuses you of making ignorant arguments.

His number one method of stating his disagreement with you is to state that you're stupid. Hardly humor, or even cogent argument.
oh yes noting that you hate michael moore and he and other liberals are disgusting slugs at every chance you get is an amazing bit of humor quite lost on me

Yes. Well. While it seems perfectly OK for Chess to engage in humorous exaggeration, the same doesn't seem to be accorded to those who disagree with him.

When you try to get humorous with Chess, he accuses you of making ignorant arguments.

His number one method of stating his disagreement with you is to state that you're stupid. Hardly humor, or even cogent argument.
So we're going with "Just as bad" instead of "Being better?"

Doesn't matter. Don't let me come between you all's mud fight...

I think that SARS was handled professionnally and with efficiency considering that we had nothing in place to fight such an epidemic. And saying that SARS kicked our butts is like syaing that Hurricane season in Florida kicked your butt.

It's childish and totally irrelevant.


But oh so true. You couldn't deal with SARS as your healthcare was not capable. BTW the hurricanes kicked our butts, sure, but we will recover quickly.

oh yes noting that you hate michael moore and he and other liberals are disgusting slugs at every chance you get is an amazing bit of humor quite lost on me

I guess it was lost on you that on multiple occasions I agreed with Michael Moore that Clinton was the best Republican President since Ronald Reagan.

But oh so true. You couldn't deal with SARS as your healthcare was not capable. BTW the hurricanes kicked our butts, sure, but we will recover quickly.
I have to wonder if YOUR healthcare would have been capable. :rolleyes:
And we recovered quickly from SARS so that's a moot point.

Next thing we'll be hitting is our different foreign policy.

I guess we'll have a penis measuring context as well. Let's also poke fun at each others sports teams!

I have to wonder if YOUR healthcare would have been capable. :rolleyes:
And we recovered quickly from SARS so that's a moot point.

We would have kicked SARS right in the ho-ho's.

Well the fact is that statistically, SARS killed more people in Canada, then it did in China, where the freaking thing came from. We had SARS cases here as well. No fatalities!!!

I guess we'll have a penis measuring context as well. Let's also poke fun at each others sports teams!
Hey! As long as we're piling on, how about the screwed up way they measure everything?

I'm against most censorship, but I agree that books that are just blatantly crude should not be in public libraries.

We would have kicked SARS right in the ho-ho's.

Well the fact is that statistically, SARS killed more people in Canada, then it did in China, where the freaking thing came from. We had SARS cases here as well. No fatalities!!!
numbers are always fun things to manipulate eh?

Hey! As long as we're piling on, how about the screwed up way they measure everything?
What, the metric system? The one employed by most of the world? The one used by scientist?

but haven't you heard? Hollywood is the evil antithesis of real American values, so anything endorsed by them is clearly flawed anyway....
Very true. :D

We would have kicked SARS right in the ho-ho's.

Well the fact is that statistically, SARS killed more people in Canada, then it did in China, where the freaking thing came from. We had SARS cases here as well. No fatalities!!!

You. Percentages. Get them.

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,58552,00.html

Canada had death rate of 21 percent, while China had 5. Considering the population difference, I'd say China had more death.

Canada Population (approx) = 31,892,000 Pop. China = 1,300,060,000
5 Percent = Canada = 1594600 China = 65,003,000

I'd say China had a higher mortality count, but Canada did have a higher percentage.

You. Percentages. Get them.

I'd say China had a higher mortality count, but Canada did have a higher percentage.


I did get the percentages, and the percentages proved my point. More people infected with SARS in Canada, statistically died, then did those in China.

I did get the percentages, and the percentages proved my point. More people infected with SARS in Canada, statistically died, then did those in China.


Statistically there was more death percentage in Canada than in China, but statistically there was just more death in China.

I did get the percentages, and the percentages proved my point. More people infected with SARS in Canada, statistically died, then did those in China.
And we are saying that's false. More people died in China. A bigger percentage died in Canada, but that does not, statistically or not, result in more people dead.

I did get the percentages, and the percentages proved my point. More people infected with SARS in Canada, statistically died, then did those in China.
fun with numbers!

This is preposterous. The only book that should be banned is Mein Kampf.
NO book should be banned! If it's crap don't read it.
"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Hey, guess where that comes from.

I did not want to participate anymore, but this is too much...literally
mortality count
1594600....65,003,000

This is preposterous. The only book that should be banned is Mein Kampf.
No book should be banned.

Book banning is for a socoeity, or group of people that are usually too immature to understand that this is a book and not real life. Leaving books open to the public allows the public to learn from its historic mistakes.

I'm against most censorship, but I agree that books that are just blatantly crude should not be in public libraries.
See my previous post.

And we are saying that's false. More people died in China. A bigger percentage died in Canada, but that does not, statistically or not, result in more people dead.

I never said "more" people died in Canada. Only that according to the stats, it was more likely you'd die in Canada from it!

fun with numbers!

Nothing I said about SARS in Canada was false!

I never said "more" people died in Canada. Only that according to the stats, it was more likely you'd die in Canada from it!

I did get the percentages, and the percentages proved my point. More people infected with SARS in Canada, statistically died, then did those in China.

You were saying?

No book should be banned.

Book banning is for a socoeity, or group of people that are usually too immature to understand that this is a book and not real life. Leaving books open to the public allows the public to learn from its historic mistakes.


Indeed. I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone what they may or may not read. And if it's really necessary, I don't have high hopes for that society. (which is open to mistranslation. I don't think it is necessary in America. There.)

What, the metric system? The one employed by most of the world? The one used by scientist?
Yeah that disturbing decimal system that was invented to help people that couldn't count to twelve. Or four. Or 36. Or lots of other weird unrelated numbers.

I never said "more" people died in Canada. Only that according to the stats, it was more likely you'd die in Canada from it!
Pull your head out of the sand, boy! You are blowing out your ass, and there is already enough hot air in here.

I'm from, and live in Toronto, and I know that there were a few cases, but the public health board handled the whole thing very well. They took all necessary measures. Those health measures are now practically common practice at hospitals. Such as, all visitors MUST wash their hands before and after leaving. The healthcare providers still wear the protective gear they wore during the crisis.

Hell, I visited a hospital during that time and I didn't get SARS.

I went to Chinatown, and nothing happened to me.

There were dozens of reports every day about people getting sick from it, but they were given house arrest, but food was delivered to them, as well as medical supplies.

From what I remember, one nurse died, as well as the all but one of the people who originally brought it here. The rest of the few who died (very little) were elder, and were already deathly sick. They were also long term hospital patients.

Indeed. I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone what they may or may not read. And if it's really necessary, I don't have high hopes for that society. (which is open to mistranslation. I don't think it is necessary in America. There.)
The exception is school... ;) when you have no choice when your English teacher assigns you reading homework.

Nothing I said about SARS in Canada was false!
true, but HOWEVER you are manipulating the numbers, a 5% death rate in china is the equivolant of what a 100+% death rate in canada?

true, but HOWEVER you are manipulating the numbers, a 5% death rate in china is the equivolant of what a 100+% death rate in canada?
This person is obviously very uneducated.

I know because I was there during the crsis. It was scary as hell to know that just breathing could get you sick...

The exception is school... ;) when you have no choice when your English teacher assigns you reading homework.

That's no exception. Deliberatly pick something completely different! It'll be the last thing they'll expect. And whilst they are surprised, steal the red pen of DOOM and mark it yourself! hand it back, and when they recover, act as if nothing happened. It's foolproof, I tell you!

This may be a bad idea.

You know, I prefer it when small size font was actually small. I mean, that's way too legible to be fine print. just out of interest, how do you get the little trademark sign?

That's no exception. Deliberatly pick something completely different! It'll be the last thing they'll expect. And whilst they are surprised, steal the red pen of DOOM and mark it yourself! hand it back, and when they recover, act as if nothing happened. It's foolproof, I tell you!

This may be a bad idea.

You know, I prefer it when small size font was actually small. I mean, that's way too legible to be fine print. just out of interest, how do you get the little trademark sign?
Use the character selection program in your start menu.

I've found that people ban books just to complain about something and besides that I don't know what people want. Now they're banning books and they wanted tv and video games banned and this rap and pop music banned. Let me tell you though that if they want to watch, listen to, and play baby stuff. they got another thing coming.

(...And the white house burn,burn,burn
and we're the ones that did it...) :sniper:
:sniper:
:mp5:
and for the idiots... :headbang:

This person is obviously very uneducated.

I know because I was there during the crsis. It was scary as hell to know that just breathing could get you sick...
flu masks for the win, and all i did was point out what he was doing, which is getting stupid, it was kind of amusing at first but the continued repeating of it is sad

NO book should be banned! If it's crap don't read it.
"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Hey, guess where that comes from.
Um ... the US Constitution? :)

I see that in my absence, my name has been maligned by those who should by now know better. Tsk! Please allow me to set the record straight.

I have never questioned the right of free speech. As a matter of fact, I believed it was one of the reasons I was in the military, to defend my own and others' right to say what they thought. I know there will be those of you who scoff at this, but it happens to be true.

I do not agree with whatever public library, or any other organization, attempted to ban or censor any book whatsoever. If they felt the book should have been limited to adults, it could have been placed on a restricted status. I have trouble figuring out how my original post could have been interpreted to indicate that I somehow approve of this action. I suppose we all tend to believe what we want to believe, yes? :)

You were saying?


I said statiscally more died, you know as a percentage, then those in China. You were saying?

true, but HOWEVER you are manipulating the numbers, a 5% death rate in china is the equivolant of what a 100+% death rate in canada?


Sort of how John Kerry did?

This person is obviously very uneducated.

I know because I was there during the crsis. It was scary as hell to know that just breathing could get you sick...

The WHO had the stats. Stats don't lie. Are you an expert on public health? I think this person is very uneducated!

I've found that people ban books just to complain about something and besides that I don't know what people want. Now they're banning books and they wanted tv and video games banned and this rap and pop music banned. Let me tell you though that if they want to watch, listen to, and play baby stuff. they got another thing coming.

(...And the white house burn,burn,burn
and we're the ones that did it...) :sniper:
:sniper:
:mp5:
and for the idiots... :headbang:


Yes the British regulars burned the White House. We burned Canadas capital.

Yes the British regulars burned the White House. We burned Canadas capital.
That's right. Just a couple breaks and we would be lords of the Great White North, too!

I guess it was lost on you that on multiple occasions I agreed with Michael Moore that Clinton was the best Republican President since Ronald Reagan.
Moore never said the part about Reagan. Because, lets face it, Carter was better than Bush sr. The man was a religious extremist if I ever saw one..

I'm against most censorship,
which makes you almost not a fascist @#$%

Geez, they're censoring his book?!

Stupid officials w/no sense of humor (grumble grumble grumble)

Sort of how John Kerry did?
no, sorta like teh swift boat vets against kerry- i mean for truth

That's right. Just a couple breaks and we would be lords of the Great White North, too!

Yup, then maybe we could of stopped the massacre of over 300,000+ baby harp seals each year. I guess they like using poles to brain those cute little critters. Plus we could have taught them about fashion sense, and food. I would like to say it is wrong to wear socks with sandals. And call them caps, not toques!

no, sorta like teh swift boat vets against kerry- i mean for truth


He never did release all of his info, so we'll never know. Will we?

He never did release all of his info, so we'll never know. Will we?
any one with half a brain knows teh swiftboat vets were lying through their teeth, provided by the fact it was proved time and again

He never did release all of his info, so we'll never know. Will we?
who wouldve read it?
where?

I said statiscally more died, you know as a percentage, then those in China. You were saying?
what the stats says is not that more died. Get your conclusions straight.
It says that a bigger percentage of those that did get the virus died. Or that you were more likely to die if you caught it here. What it DOESN'T say is that more people died.

You have to add some clause like "If there were the same number of cases in both coutries" to say that more people died here.

What this means is that saying "statistically" before saying more persons died is just like saying "if you ask me" or "in theory". You need to be more precise in what you say.

Besides, GLOBALLY, less peoples died here. So there. Stats mean diddly-squat.

Yup, then maybe we could of stopped the massacre of over 300,000+ baby harp seals each year. I guess they like using poles to brain those cute little critters. Plus we could have taught them about fashion sense, and food. I would like to say it is wrong to wear socks with sandals. And call them caps, not toques!
A tuque is a hat.
A chesterfield is a couch.
It is pronouced about, not aboot.
And it's zed, not zee!

If you really want to go into a pissing contest, please choose something where you have a decent chance of winning. Food :rolleyes:

You. Percentages. Get them.

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,58552,00.html

Canada had death rate of 21 percent, while China had 5. Considering the population difference, I'd say China had more death.

Canada Population (approx) = 31,892,000 Pop. China = 1,300,060,000
5 Percent = Canada = 1594600 China = 65,003,000

I'd say China had a higher mortality count, but Canada did have a higher percentage.

Having been in Toronto during the SARS "crisis" I can safely say that it was COMPLETELY overblown. Toronto alone has a population of three million people, and out of those, 44 people died- that's hardly a cause for concern (Toronto loses more to homicides then it did to SARS, and even then it's not a lot). Don't get me wrong- I feel bad for those 44 people who died (and their families)- but it was hardly worth calling it an "epidemic". City life went on as it always did, most cases were concentrated on hospitals and most people who caught SARS survived (it's mortality rate is only slightly higher than that of the flu, which makes it even sillier to worry about SARS since if we worry about SARS we should worry about the flu too, and we don't).

Without wanting to sound anti-American, I wonder what the reaction would have been if New York faced the same "crisis" Toronto did...would they be getting travel advisories too? Sorry, but the "crisis" really bugged me.

any one with half a brain knows teh swiftboat vets were lying through their teeth, provided by the fact it was proved time and again


Prove it here!

Like I said before, why are two rural counties in Mississippi being held out as representative of the entire US? Aside from the fact that they are silly, I mean.


The answer:

Aparently the play on the book title used as the thread title flew right over the heads of most people here.

Clearly two counties in Mississippi do not represent the whole country.

Prove it here!
your an idiot, you know that? i dont have the stuff on me right now but you obviously wernt watching the news or reading the news other than fox

your an idiot, you know that? i dont have the stuff on me right now but you obviously wernt watching the news or reading the news other than fox

Chess please, few people on this forum are stupid. Stupid couldn't get on this forum.

But some don't know when to quit...

BTW-SARS kicked your butts.


Really? A brand new deadly virus turns up in the general population, the medical system goes into high gear, contains it within a couple of months with a death toll of 44 people before it is completely contained, and you call that "kicking butt?"

Oh right, you got to watch sensationalized news stories about it. Yep, you must be right - people were just collapsing all over the place and dying.... :rolleyes:


Sheesh - I'd hate to think what you call the average of 36,000 deaths in the US of the Flu every year given that is a KNOWN disease...

But hey, I loved that ad campaign this year telling people NOT to get their flu shots unless they were at risk while you came running to Canada to get any excess serum that we had. You should count yourself lucky that it seems to be a very mild flu season this year. Had this happened last year - it could have been a whole lot uglier than the 96 children that died from the strain of the flu that was running around.

The answer:

Aparently the play on the book title used as the thread title flew right over the heads of most people here.

Clearly two counties in Mississippi do not represent the whole country.

Man, I hate being the example of how not to do something.:(

Reminds me of the time in Diff Eq class. I don't even remember the question. The answer has been _seared_ into my brain. I piped up with the right answer -- homogeneous. Problem was, I pronounced it like homogenized in homogenized milk. That's one of those disadvantages that we have in rural America.

Yes, of all the evil and insiduous things to be repressed.... Jon Stewart certainly would ave topped my list.... after all, being able to laugh at yourself sounds far to much like that whole "humility" thing that Jesus seemed big on.


So his book has gotta go.. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050110/ap_en_ot/banned_book)



Bet I could find something equally graphic in their medical reference section....
Pathetic. Today's edition of "Zeppistan hates America!"

Trite.

NYERMMMM. PEN MISSILE!!!!

Best thing that could have happened to him. Everytime a book gets banned people have to buy copies to read it and they do. Are you sure he didn't pay those librarians to do that?

Best thing that could have happened to him. Everytime a book gets banned people have to buy copies to read it and they do. Are you sure he didn't pay those librarians to do that?
Then he would break even... Which defeats the purpose of profit.

Prove it here!
Here (http://factcheck.org/article244.html), and here (http://factcheck.org/article231.html) are good places to start.