[dcolton]

I don't think I communicated my stance clear enough...quit crying and shut up.

[sek929]

You win

/sarcasm

Originally Posted by dcolton 

NO, THE MILITARY IS NOT FOR HUMANITARIAN MISSIONS! Maybe a pathetic military that couldn't beat their way out of a polastic bag. Serious militaries concentrate on defense, not airlifting MRE's to the enemy. This is why canada is pathetic.

In modern non-barbaric society, that's what a military is for - defence of freedom and well being of citizens. At least that's what I heard your fearless leader tell me the other day. Canada's military is currently doing defence and humanitarian missions in Afghanistan right now. Heaven forbid a military actually do something for the innocent civilians in a country. I notice how you conveniently ignore the defence missions Canada is on, because that would make your point even more foolish.

Umm, they are AMERICAN...there is a difference between an American criticizing their own government and an insignificant people criticizing the US governement for whatever reason.

But yet you feel you have a right to "criticize" Canada? I put criticize in quotation marks because you haven't actually made a point. Unless you believe "Canada sucks!" is an actual argument?

In Canada, we enjoy freedom of speech, just like in the USA. If you can't take some Canadians criticizing your government, then that's your problem, not theirs.

Once again, Americans have the RIGHT to criticize their own nation. Actions like calling the American people stupid, stomping on Bush dolls and the overall vitriol expresses by the canucks is a borderline act of war. If it were up to me, we would have already eliminated the canadian issue.

Hmm... again, you expect Canadians to shut up about American government, yet you keep insulting Canada. Stop being a hypocrite.

Mind your own damned business...accept the fact that you are an insignificant nation and shut the F Up.

You keep claiming Canada is "insignificant" but you haven't offered any proof. Simply saying "Canada is insignificant" just shows you know nothing about Canada. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. If you did a little research you'd find a lot of examples of Canada having a great influence on the world. But I doubt you'd be interested in doing that. That would actually take effort, maturity, and an open mind. I've yet to see you exhibit any of those qualities.

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

In modern non-barbaric society, that's what a military is for - defence of freedom and well being of citizens. At least that's what I heard your fearless leader tell me the other day. Canada's military is currently doing defence and humanitarian missions in Afghanistan right now. Heaven forbid a military actually do something for the innocent civilians in a country. I notice how you conveniently ignore the defence missions Canada is on, because that would make your point even more foolish.

This is NOT the job of a military. Maybe the red cross, maybe the UN, but not a standing military. You see, canada can have a 'humanitarian' military because they are dependent on the US for their security.

But yet you feel you have a right to "criticize" Canada? I put criticize in quotation marks because you haven't actually made a point. Unless you believe "Canada sucks!" is an actual argument?

I have the right to criticize canada as much as canadians have the right to criticize the US. I'll tell you what...if you canadians would shut up about the US, then I would have no reason to bite back.

In Canada, we enjoy freedom of speech, just like in the USA. If you can't take some Canadians criticizing your government, then that's your problem, not theirs.

Then pay attention to your own backyard. Your nation is a cesspool for terrorists. On top of that, I have found that most canadians are pretty ignorant of what is going on in their own nation. You want to hear about canadian wireless wiretapping?

Hmm... again, you expect Canadians to shut up about American government, yet you keep insulting Canada. Stop being a hypocrite.

tit for tat. Why is it okay for canadians to bash America but not vice versa?

You keep claiming Canada is "insignificant" but you haven't offered any proof. Simply saying "Canada is insignificant" just shows you know nothing about Canada. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. If you did a little research you'd find a lot of examples of Canada having a great influence on the world. But I doubt you'd be interested in doing that. That would actually take effort, maturity, and an open mind. I've yet to see you exhibit any of those qualities.

canada IS insignificant. A nation that still has the Queen on their looney. A nation that has no self identity and a nation than can't protect her own borders. You guys like to point out WWI and WWII...LOL, you were conscripted into the war by the UK! IN WWII, you had to ask permission to declare war...after you were told to do so. What has canada contributed to this world? Wayne Gretsky. Gay canadians that use computer forums to learn how to be gay? Educate me there, I am listening.

Originally Posted by dcolton 

I have the right to criticize canada as much as canadians have the right to criticize the US.

Thank you for finally admitting it. Yes, you have every right to criticize Canada because you also live in a nation with free speech. It's just that I haven't seen an actual substantiated criticism from you yet.

Then pay attention to your own backyard. Your nation is a cesspool for terrorists. On top of that,

And in what country did the 9-11 hijackers get their pilot training? Where was Timothy McVeigh from?

I have found that most canadians are pretty ignorant of what is going on in their own nation. You want to hear about canadian wireless wiretapping?

I don't believe you know most Canadians and are making a broad generalization, but I agree - many Canadians are ignorant about their own country. You'll get no argument from me here. I don't need you to tell me about wireless wiretapping. I especially don't need to hear it from someone who judges a nation's significance on their military or who is on their money.

tit for tat. Why is it okay for canadians to bash America but not vice versa?

It is ok for Americans to bash Canada. I never said it wasn't. I just said you are doing a poor job of it.

canada IS insignificant. A nation that still has the Queen on their looney. A nation that has no self identity and a nation than can't protect her own borders. You guys like to point out WWI and WWII...LOL, you were conscripted into the war by the UK! IN WWII, you had to ask permission to declare war...after you were told to do so.

It's funny the importance you place on a simple following of a traditional protocol. How can you go on and on that Canada's military couldn't do anything, and then completely ignore what they did do in WWI and WWII, but instead try to steer focus on a simple protocol? Who cares how the declaration came to be? Wouldn't the important part be what they actually did after they declared war? Why do you ignore that? Is it because you know nothing about it. It's much easier to take a silly little factoid (if it is actually accurate) about the declaring of war and try to make that your entire argument.

But if you really want a military example, go research the contribution Avro made to US jet fighter technology.

What has canada contributed to this world? Wayne Gretsky. Gay canadians that use computer forums to learn how to be gay? Educate me there, I am listening.

Is military might the only measure of a country's significance? Does art, culture, science, medicine, humanitarianism not count? The contributions that Canada made to the world are numerous. Too numerous to mention here. You have an Internet connection, go research it.

Remember, you are making the point that Canada is not significant. The onus is on you to actually prove that. Unless you actually believe that recent military action and who is on our money is the only measure of significance.

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

Thank you for finally admitting it. Yes, you have every right to criticize Canada because you also live in a nation with free speech. It's just that I haven't seen an actual substantiated criticism from you yet.

You just don't want to believe my criticism

And in what country did the 9-11 hijackers get their pilot training? Where was Timothy McVeigh from?

Just like a canadian. We are talking about canada and immediately you point your fingers at the US. That is how we all know you don't have a leg to stand on.

I don't believe you know most Canadians and are making a broad generalization, but I agree - many Canadians are ignorant about their own country. You'll get no argument from me here. I don't need you to tell me about wireless wiretapping. I especially don't need to hear it from someone who judges a nation's significance on their military or who is on their money.

If you are aware about canada's wiretapping, then you are indeed much more in tune than most of your brethern. Then again, they are the ones to busy pointing their stinky little fingers at my country (or start gay hook up threads)

It is ok for Americans to bash Canada. I never said it wasn't. I just said you are doing a poor job of it.

Funny, canadians bash Americans, there is never such vitriolic response like when an American tells the truth about canada.

It's funny the importance you place on a simple following of a traditional protocol. How can you go on and on that Canada's military couldn't do anything, and then completely ignore what they did do in WWI and WWII, but instead try to steer focus on a simple protocol? Who cares how the declaration came to be? Wouldn't the important part be what they actually did after they declared war? Why do you ignore that? Is it because you know nothing about it. It's much easier to take a silly little factoid (if it is actually accurate) about the declaring of war and try to make that your entire argument.

Because it amounts to the simple fact that the UK used the canadians as cannon fodder. canadians didn't fight in the wars because it was something they believed in. They served in the war because they HAD to.

But if you really want a military example, go research the contribution Avro made to US jet fighter technology.

Your point?

Is military might the only measure of a country's significance? Does art, culture, science, medicine, humanitarianism not count? The contributions that Canada made to the world are numerous. Too numerous to mention here. You have an Internet connection, go research it.

canadian culture? Your own people admit that your culture is based on bashing America. After that, your culture is not unique in anyway.

Remember, you are making the point that Canada is not significant. The onus is on you to actually prove that. Unless you actually believe that recent military action and who is on our money is the only measure of significance.

Didn't I already ask you once, what has canada done to contribute to this world...except whine?

[brapper]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

Didn't I already ask you once, what has canada done to contribute to this world...except whine?

wow. If you need to ask, you're proving your ignorance.

Do your own research and gain a little appreciation.

[dcolton]

the point is that canadians cant explain how they are significant. only spew hate when they areasked. once again, besides bell...show me

[bailey_jatt]

umm i once read somewhere that

"dont argue with a fool. He will bring you down to his level and then beat you by experience"

no offence to anyone, but this seems quite likely the case here...

[brapper]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

the point is that canadians cant explain how they are significant. only spew hate when they areasked. once again, besides bell...show me

You owe me tuition.

CBC.ca - The Greatest Canadian - Top Ten Greatest Canadians - Lester B. Pearson

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by brapper 

You owe me tuition.

CBC.ca - The Greatest Canadian - Top Ten Greatest Canadians - Lester B. Pearson

is that the list that puts Wayne Gretsky as #1? How pathetic.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

is that the list that puts Wayne Gretsky as #1? How pathetic.

I'd watch your mouth before you pick up another phone.

Alexander Graham Bell
History was made when the first words were transmitted via telegraph on March 10, 1876, “Mr. Watson, come here, I need you.” After patenting the invention and staging a demonstration of the telephone at the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia in 1876, Bell went on to form the Bell Telephone Company in 1877.

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

I'd watch your mouth before you pick up another phone.

1. Please observe my previous post.

2. Was canada even a nation a the time?

Try again.

[angaq0k]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

Your nation is a cesspool for terrorists.

Prove it.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

is that the list that puts Wayne Gretsky as #1? How pathetic.

It's Gretzky.

I'm lucky enough to have been born in the great town of Brantford whom has seen such greats as Gretzky, James Hillier, Pauline Johnson and Alexander Graham Bell.


You are insulting my town by saying these people haven't contributed anything significant to the world. Grow up and learn some history before you spread complete and utter BS.

[Spliffdaddy]

*high-five* to dcolton for a whole day of entertainment in one thread.

I think every Canadian member has posted so far - which can only mean dcolton's comments are hitting close to home.

Me? I have no opinion about Canada. Just as I have no opinion about Keebler graham crackers.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

*high-five* to dcolton for a whole day of entertainment in one thread.

I think every Canadian member has posted so far - which can only mean dcolton's comments are hitting close to home.

Me? I have no opinion about Canada. Just as I have no opinion about Keebler graham crackers.

Time for you to hit the ice and play that puck bubba.

That would be entertainment.

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

*high-five* to dcolton for a whole day of entertainment in one thread.

I think every Canadian member has posted so far - which can only mean dcolton's comments are hitting close to home.

Me? I have no opinion about Canada. Just as I have no opinion about Keebler graham crackers.

The canadians know that their significance is their skin color and proximity to the US. I will never understand why Americans snub the rich culture and history of Mexico so we can import 85% of canada's exports and defend their nation militarily while they look the American gift horse in the mouth. I asked for examples of canadian contributions to this world and all they can come up with is Gretzky and Bell. Gretzky is a freakin' hockey player and canada wasn't even a nation when Bell invented the phone.

I can think of only one thing canadians have introduced thus far...a gay hook up thread on a computer forum.

It is pretty pathetic when a nation with so much potential has floundered in a cesspool of self importance while the world has passed them by. Hey canada...get off the coat tails of Uncle Sam.

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by angaq0k 

Prove it.

I have proved it time and time again. just do a search for the perfection known as dcolton.

[angaq0k]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

I have proved it time and time again. just do a search for the perfection known as dcolton.

I almost choke on my beer!

You are one Helluva clown!

Thanks for the laugh! Good stuff!

[angaq0k]

And by the way, all you proved so far is "nothing".

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by angaq0k 

I almost choke on my beer!

You are one Helluva clown!

Thanks for the laugh! Good stuff!

go figure, a canadian alcoholic. :wink:

[Spliffdaddy]

Probably drinking Budweiser.

I ordered a Canadian beer once. The bartender handed me a glass that was only 60% full. Something to do with exchange rates.

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Probably drinking Budweiser.

I ordered a Canadian beer once. The bartender handed me a glass that was only 60% full. Something to do with exchange rates.

Before we graced canada with NAFTA, you would have gotten a 12 pack of moose piss.

[James L]

Wow.... why feed the troll?

dcolton's posts are pathetic. You would laugh at him in real life, so why empower him online?

There are real Americans on this forum that are far more entertaining, and intelligent, to talk with.

Leave the attention whore to himself, and move on to the adults.

Problem solved.

[James L]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Probably drinking Budweiser.

Spliffdaddy please.... surely a man of your intelligence knows Budweiser is nothing more than bad piss. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by James L 

Wow.... why feed the troll?

dcolton's posts are pathetic. You would laugh at him in real life, so why empower him online?

There are real Americans on this forum that are far more entertaining, and intelligent, to talk with.

Leave the attention whore to himself, and move on to the adults.

Problem solved.

But it is so much fun to see dcolton eat from my hand!

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by James L 

Wow.... why feed the troll?

dcolton's posts are pathetic. You would laugh at him in real life, so why empower him online?

There are real Americans on this forum that are far more entertaining, and intelligent, to talk with.

Leave the attention whore to himself, and move on to the adults.

Problem solved.

Another canadian that can't note anything of significance in canada. Pretty pathetic when a question is posed and all canadians can do is attack people personally.

I ask once again, besides a hockey player, what has canada contributed to this world.

[James L]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

Another canadian that can't note anything of significance in canada. Pretty pathetic when a question is posed and all canadians can do is attack people personally.

I ask once again, besides a hockey player, what has canada contributed to this world.

You don't want answers to the questions... you want to troll.

Sorry little man, but I see no need to feed a troll. Others shouldn't either.

[Pendergast]

Back on topic:

I think that hockey series was the best, ever.

[James L]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

Back on topic:

I think that hockey series was the best, ever.

Absolutely!

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by James L 

You don't want answers to the questions... you want to troll.

Sorry little man, but I see no need to feed a troll. Others shouldn't either.

No one has even offered an answer. Pathetic.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

No one has even offered an answer. Pathetic.

If it weren't for Canada you wouldn't have:

1. Phones
2. Insulin
3. Powerful microscopes


There's 3 reasons off the top of my head. There are thousands of great canadian inventions Here are a few more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...ian_inventions


Do some learning.

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

If it weren't for Canada you wouldn't have:

1. Phones
2. Insulin
3. Powerful microscopes


There's 3 reasons off the top of my head. There are thousands of great canadian inventions Here are a few more:

Category:Canadian inventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Do some learning.

I already addressed phones. Insulin, I was unaware of...kudos to you. Microscopes...I can't allow you to have that one. But, good job so far.

[Atomic Rooster]

Hockey.

[kmkkid]

Basketball

[Atomic Rooster]

Baseball...

[kmkkid]

They also say Football was invented by Canadians, so there goes your 3 Main sports America!

[allblue]

Anyway, back on topic... The Greatest Sporting Contest Ever:
The 2005 Ashes.
The sport here is cricket, the teams are England and Australia, and the rivalry stretches back to 1872. The series is played on a home and away basis every two years, and after the Aussies holding the trophy for 18 years straight, England won it back last summer in what many commentators have (plausibly) described as the greatest series ever. Trying to explain cricket to North Americans is famously difficult, so I'm not going to bother here, other than to say a Test Match (ie international cricket) takes a long time to play - about six hours a day for five days) but at any moment the balance can shift decisively. So you have this high tension extended over long periods, and the series in question was just full of it. It was almost unbearable at times. Anyway, the return Down Under is not much more than a day away, and two nations the other side of the world from each other are on tenterhooks. Oooh! Can't wait!
I apologise for hijacking this thread by introducing some non-belligerent sporting discussion, so Ding! Ding! Round 13, back to your squabbling chaps...

[dcolton]

Originally Posted by allblue 

Anyway, back on topic... The Greatest Sporting Contest Ever:
The 2005 Ashes.
The sport here is cricket, the teams are England and Australia, and the rivalry stretches back to 1872. The series is played on a home and away basis every two years, and after the Aussies holding the trophy for 18 years straight, England won it back last summer in what many commentators have (plausibly) described as the greatest series ever. Trying to explain cricket to North Americans is famously difficult, so I'm not going to bother here, other than to say a Test Match (ie international cricket) takes a long time to play - about six hours a day for five days) but at any moment the balance can shift decisively. So you have this high tension extended over long periods, and the series in question was just full of it. It was almost unbearable at times. Anyway, the return Down Under is not much more than a day away, and two nations the other side of the world from each other are on tenterhooks. Oooh! Can't wait!
I apologise for hijacking this thread by introducing some non-belligerent sporting discussion, so Ding! Ding! Round 13, back to your squabbling chaps...

No, tell us about Cricket. I still haven't decided if it is a stupid sport or not because I simply don't understand it. Can you give a brief summary?

[allblue]

Originally Posted by dcolton 

No, tell us about Cricket. I still haven't decided if it is a stupid sport or not because I simply don't understand it. Can you give a brief summary?

Oh God what have I done... Oh well, I've got nothing to do for a couple of days so here goes...

The essence of the game is not too difficult to explain, the richness is in the almost infinite number of variables that can come in to play. Two teams of 11, and a la baseball, one side is batting and the other fielding at a time. 'First Class' cricket is two innings a side, although a relatively recent (c.40 years) variation is One Day Cricket, with one innings a side. For the purist the latter is a tasty snack, while the former is a gourmet meal. Test matches take five days, domestic games are over three or four days.

The wicket (ie pitch, there is a slightly confusing double usage of the word here) is 22yds long, in the middle of a large field. At either end are the wickets (second usage) which consist of three wooden stumps, thin wooden posts about 3ft high, and resting on top are a pair of 'bails', (more little bits of wood). There is a line a yard in front of the stumps at either end, called the 'popping crease'. Two batsmen are at the wicket at a time, one at either end. The bowler runs in and bowls, and the batsman at the other end will either leave it (if it is wide), or play a shot - defensive or attacking. A 'run' is scored if the two batsmen run to the other end before the fielder returns the ball - get there and back it's two runs and so on. If the batsmen hits the ball over the boundary rope it's four runs, over the boundary rope without hitting the ground first, six runs, although they only happen occasionally, ordinarily the batsman will try to hit the ball down, so they can't be caught.
An innings lasts until all ten wickets have fallen (sometimes a innings can be 'declared' by the batting captain ie stopped before ten wickets have fallen for tactical reasons). The batsman can be out ('loses his wicket') the following ways:
Bowled - the ball hits the stumps and dislodges the bails
Caught - self-explanatory
Leg Before Wicket (LBW) - the batsman misses the ball and it hits his (well-padded!) leg in front of the wicket (there are a number of criteria that have to be satisfied - where the ball pitched etc - for the umpire to give a LBW decision, but that's the advanced lesson!)
Stumped - in the course of playing his shot the batsmen misses the ball and leaves the crease as he does so, and the wicketkeeper (think long-stop) breaks the stumps with the ball (NB this only happens off slow bowlers, as explained later!)
Run out - a batsmen doesn't get to the other end when attempting a run and the wicket is broken by the returned ball
Hit wicket - during the course of his shot the batsmen either hits the stumps and dislodges the bails with his bat, or by treading on them, but this doesn't happen very often.
There are a couple of other methods of dismissal that are extremely rare and so I won't bother with them here.

So if you know baseball there are some things that you can relate to here, but there are some fundamental differences that I believe make cricket the far superior game. Probably the most fundamental of these is that the ball 'pitches' (ie lands) on the wicket before it reaches the batsman. A ball that doesn't pitch first (a full toss) is considered a poor delivery, and any decent batsman would be disappointed not to hit it away for four. Here comes the variation you see, the length of a delivery (too short or too full is bad delivery) but also the movement off the wicket comes into play. The state of the wicket is crucial to the game. A 'greentop' (ie a bit of grass on the surface) gives the faster bowlers lateral movement off the surface. A cricket ball has a pronounced seam around the middle where the two halves are stitched together, and a skilful bowler will land the ball on the seam, and with helpful conditions get it to move 'off the seam' either into or away from the batsman. When you consider that fast bowlers hurl it down at between 80 and 95 mph you an understand the incredible level of technique required to deal with that. A dry wicket on the other hand, tends to favour the spin bowlers. They bowl considerably slower (c.50-65 mph) but put sideways rotation on the ball as it leaves the hand, and if the wicket is 'taking spin' the ball will again move laterally after pitching. A good spin bowler in helpful conditions can 'turn' the ball anywhere up to 90 degrees, so another whole raft of variation is possible there too. So the condition of the surface tends to dictate the style of the match, and over the course of the game that condition will change, particularly in a five day match. An ideal Test wicket will start off with a tinge of green, but as it dries out and the surface starts to crack the ball will spin more and more. The fourth innings of a game is always the hardest for the batsmen. You also want an even bounce throughout, plus a bit of pace in the wicket so that the ball 'comes on to the bat' making shot playing easier. Overhead conditions come into play as well, some fast bowlers can 'swing' the ball (think curveball) and that tends to happen when the atmosphere is more humid. A bowler bowls six deliveries in an 'over', then someone has a go from the other end.

Then you have the fielding positions. There is the bowler and wicketkeeper, but you have nine other fielders to place. The precision here is remarkable. Good batsmen can place their shot inch perfect, so the fielding captain has to get his field inch perfect too, batsman by batsman. At the highest level bowlers study video of opposing batsmen, identifying chinks in their technique which they will then try to exploit. The batsman will then go away and hone his technique to try and counter that and so on. A lot of psychology will come into field placings as well, you try to encourage the batsman to play a shot that he doesn't play so well, and sometimes you can try bluff and double-bluff as well! The captain is cricket is a key role, somewhat akin to the conductor of an orchestra, and it is no coincidence that arguably the finest captain ever was guy called Mike Brearley who was an absolute brain-box and is now a practising psychoanalyst!

So will that do as start? I like to describe cricket as a cross between a martial art and chess, it is the most cerebral of games, while at the same time demanding the highest technique and phenomenal reaction times. Truly, the glorious game!

[- - e r i k - -]

The thing you need to know about cricket: Use sunscreen and buy lots of beer.

The thing about cricket is that it's the only sport where you can look at the final scoreboard and still be confused about who won.

[freudling]

Holy trolling. Just because we share a border with the US doesn't mean we have to kiss their butts.