StoneMtn

Unlike Cream, Floyd tends to make themselves available to North American audiences.

As well, and I can't speak for Tim or Velvet, but I just see this as being as good a time as any to visit England. I plan to visit some time. It might as well be while Clapton is pulling out tunes like "Swlabr"!

Y'know SecondTube, you're not the first to suggest that... ::

Ohmigod! I think I might be going to England too!

In Whistler too! This is awesome! Dancing and changing colours!

:: ::

[color:"purple"]I'm pretty good at wrestling recently-caught fish away from cowboys... ::

You're going to love it! Freaky little area, those Kootenays are with some cool freaky people and some amazing powder.

Swing by Whistler some time too!

I always thought those guys were excellent, and definitely revived a style of music that was waning at the time.

My opinion of them, however, was severely tainted ever since Hoon stripped naked and pissed all over a Vancouver audience.

He's a great musician, but that is entirely uncalled for. It's disgusting, egotistical and should not be forgotten.

Still very much dig their tunes, though.

I would entirely support mandatory spay/neutering. It is the policy of most animal shelters of which I am aware before adopting animals out (including the one here in Whistler who is my client).

The best justification for it, of course, is that there are already far too many domestic animals in our society. Everyone should be sterilizing his/her pets, as we simply do not need more. There are plenty to go around to any family who wants one.

Again, I think that is a well-reasoned point and goes well with Super Freak's suggestion. (If only we were the Ontario Legislature...)

Also, I hope I have not offended anyone's sensibilities on this thread. Believe it or not, I also like children (not only animals) and don't want anyone to be hurt.

Awesome! Thanks Esau.

Have you ever seen Canned Heat? I saw them in '89 at a "Psychedelic Sunday" at Molson Park. The crowd loved "Goin' Up the Country" so much, that they did it a second time as soon as it was over. Even in the late-'80s those guys still rocked.

I can't wait to get this show you have found!

I am currently in the process of drafting a letter to various parties in Ontario on behalf of Whistler's animal shelter. The letter will be inquiring about the status of the investigation into this vandalism.

I will post the letter when it is complete, as I still encourage Ontarians to do the same. (A letter from Whistler is not likely to get much attention, although I know that the Ontario government will not want to see the letter reproduced in the Ottawa Citizen; and that is what I'm banking on.)

I expect to post the letter in a day or two.

I agree with most of your points, h, and I don't mean to be harsh. It is just that the slippery slope argument is very important. Why only pitbulls? Why not rottweilers? Shepherds? Chows? Where does it end?

There are many dogs that can break an adult's leg. Further, that is not the standard adopted. An animal that is 1/2 pitbull and 1/2 chihuaha probably cannot break an adult's leg. Should it be banned? It may be defined as a "pitbull".

There is also the practical problem of enforcement. What if the animal is only 1/4 pitbull? 1/8? 1/16?....

It seems to me that a ban is entirely impractical and won't solve anything. The a_sholes you speak of will inevitably obtain a different breed of dog and train it to attack car tires until it is so aggressive that it is also a ruined animal for use as a pet.

I am not against addressing this as a societal issue. I am against banning a breed of animal. The best compromise I have seen yet suggested came from Super Freak and was the suggestion of licensing. If owners had to pass a licensing test to own or handle a dog of "x" size, that would be acceptable to me. Presumably, people would have to carry that license whenever they are with the dog. Abuse = revocation of license. Allowing your dog to run at large = revocation of your license. etc.

Maybe I am too much of a civil libertarian and animal lover, but I cannot support a ban on a domestic animal.

Got mine. Already know what I'm sending. This was a great idea DB!

Kitchener! I have been trying to figure that one out for a while now. I thought that "Browntown" was actually some sort of obscure Ween reference ("Paintin' the Town Brown"). Why is Kitchener called that?

Yup. This is some scary sheeit indeed. Everyone should go to this site and remove themselves. It wouldn't be a bad idea to forward this to friends, as well.

Congratulations! That's very cool. I like to have all kinds of animals around, whenever possible (except most humans, of course).

(I must admit, though, that I expected this thread to be about the Republican Party....) ::

Super Freak, those are some intelligent comments, and you have hit on a compromise with which I wouldn't even quibble. I would have nothing against licensing, education, etc. That would avoid most incidents. (It has been my experience that almost every dog-bite incident can be explained and could have been avoided if the owner/handler was properly educated and diligent.) We need licenses for cars (which can kill) why not dogs? I am just against banning a particular breed for many reasons, especially being that if we don't do something about moronic macho dog-owners, you can ban any breed you want and it will make little to no difference.

See how agreeable I really am? ::

Fair enough. Coincidentally, however, I am currently acting in a legal action on behalf of a young woman in essentially the same position as the kid you speak of. In my client's case, her lips were bitten off. The dog, however, was a german shepherd.

Should we start making a list of breeds and ban them one by one?

hahahahahahaha!

[color:"purple"]Aaaaaah. Interesting point, my librarian friend, however, I recall as a child being bitten by a horse right on the stomach. Now, shall we ban all horses or only certain breeds...

Diggzz is taking the words right out of my mouth.

For instance, I have not checked the statistics but I suspect that children were killed and injured last year by motor vehicles. I even suspect that there were more children killed or injured by motor vehicles than by dogs (including all varieties, for argument's sake). I will even go so far as to suggest that people who were not negligent were in control of or owned some of those motor vehicles. (I stand to be corrected on that, if someone wishes to check the stats and correct me.) If I'm correct, though, at what point should we be banning motor vehicles?

Again. As the law currently stands, a prosecution could not be contemplated. This is not a criminal matter.

Incidentally. How do you view enforcement of this ban on pitbulls? Would that not involve bringing an action against a dog owner for owning a pitbull, or were you of the opinion that the dog, itself, should bear liability for being alive?

"I just met a Sheik who bought your country last week.

The meek shall inherit nothing."

- Frank Zappa

using the internet is not cheating it is using a resource

I just want to clarify this. We are planning to officially allow people to just look these things up online? That seems to take most of the fun out of a trivia contest. Am I the only one who thinks that?

I suspect that the third temple you speak of is a philosophical issue with debates on either side as to whether the occupation represents the Beit Hamikdash.

Regarding Chanuka, I am not speculating. The Beit Hamikdash was rebuilt after the Maccabees won a battle against the Syrians. They rebuilt the Temple and tried to rekindle the "Eternal Light". There was not enough oil for the lamp, though, and everyone expected it to burn out in less than one day. It lasted 8 days and that is why Chanuka is 8 days. It is also why Jews eat latkes and jelly doughnuts at Chanuka, because they are deep fried and it represents the oil.