Mark H.

The perception that gays do those kinds of things is part of what creates homophobia. Take Canadian Blood Services policies as another example. To someone who is not educated, the questions that CBS asks about homosexuality make it appear that most homosexuals live a high-risk lifestyle. If that is not the intent, then why are there specific questions about them? Why not just general questions about high-risk sexual activity? There are many other examples in society - you can't completely blame individuals for being uncomfortable with homosexuality. Oh for sure. I agree. The blood thing is interesting. My buddy was called all the time to go donate. When he came out, he told them "Im gay" and they never called again. Unfortunately, there is a predominant segment of the gay community that is anywhere from somewhat to wildly permiscuous, in an extremely disgusting way actually. Sadly the prevailing opinion that gays engage in permiscuous sex is not unfounded. And I say that as someone that has made it clear what I think about homophobia. That is indeed unfortunate - not to mention unsafe for them.

The perception that gays do those kinds of things is part of what creates homophobia. Take Canadian Blood Services policies as another example. To someone who is not educated, the questions that CBS asks about homosexuality make it appear that most homosexuals live a high-risk lifestyle. If that is not the intent, then why are there specific questions about them? Why not just general questions about high-risk sexual activity? There are many other examples in society - you can't completely blame individuals for being uncomfortable with homosexuality.

100% correct - supply management is on the way out. The only downside is for people who actually invested money to get into this system. Some just inherited whatever quota they have, but there are farmers who have invested millions to get into the supply managed system. They will take a hit - but this ancient system needs to go. Hopefully they pay off at least those who actually invested $$

100% correct - supply management is on the way out. The only downside is for people who actually invested money to get into this system. Some just inherited whatever quota they have, but there are farmers who have invested millions to get into the supply managed system. They will take a hit - but this ancient system needs to go.

Oh, do shut up Dave.

That's actually an interesting idea. Personally I don't pay attention to email but some may definitely find value in that. Anyone else? Too many e-mails already...

I like experimenting with cheap wine. Who can recommend some good but reasonably priced wine? I like Beringer Cabernet - it's an American wine that sells for 9.99. Good stuff for that price.

Are the rest of us supposed to know what this is about? If it's a personal issue, please use PM.

I would like to thank all the posters who 'self-moderate.' That's really what it takes to make a fan site work.

He is what he is - a decent player who still gets overrated by media pundits. Could be a top 3 D man on many teams - but don't ask him to be a leader. Great shot, can hit like a truck, is a liability in his own zone at times, not the best puck distributor on the PP

That is certainly one opinion to carry. Its not a very enlightened one, but its one. I mean, by that stance, we could literally jusitfy any behaviour because "bad things happen". Im a hypocrit because I eat meat. But I certainly wish I was strong enough not to support these places that treat animals so poorly. As far as humans treating humans poorly, thats awful too. But human nature is such we have free will to be as nasty and mean to one another as we choose. Unfortunately. Yes, you can find places that are inhumane, and they are the ones that end up on you tube. But modern slaughter houses are actually humane with very little stress to the animals. They have to be - there's a government inspector there every day. And meat from a stressed animal is actually not fit to be eaten - it has a very musky smell. The truth is, butchering is actually more humane that it ever was. Today chickens (and other poultry) are electrocuted. Butchering chickens on family farms back in the 'good old days' consisted of chopping the head off with an axe or using a v-shaped apparatus with sharp edges. Sometimes you missed and had to quickly do it again. By contrast, electrocution is fast, accurate and consistent. The bird dies - fast.

If people feel there are some health benefits to being a vegetarian I don't really agree but respect the thought process. Drives me nuts though when people pretend their lifestyle is more morally acceptable. Regardless of whether you eat them directly or not animals stills die to support your lifestle. The survival of the entire planet is based on living things eating other living things. If anyone is looking some kind of moral high ground, there are better places to look.

Why does that logic not extend to beer? Aren't we the only species that drinks it? Scotch is another matter entirely...

I think I doubt this, a lot in fact. You'd be wrong. And I like milk more than just about anybody. There seem to be two main issues that are brought up about milk: a) People have researched it and found it harmful to humans, due to its protein composition. Mainstream healthcare professionals do not endorse this point of view. Nor do mainstream medical websites. We're the only species that drink the milk of another species. Not exactly true. Pets and farm animals consume plenty of milk and milk by-products. Also, are there really any foods that are pre-ordained for human consumption? c) It's my understanding that Asian countries don't consume a lot of milk. Asian women have one of the highest rates of osteoperosis in the world. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/osteoporosis/basics/definition/CON-20019924

Farming in Manitoba is a lot different than farming say, in BC. The climate and the type of bugs is totally different. Mark obviously has a strong understanding of what he has to do to maintain his crops and his living, but his isn't the only way, and that's what folks n here are trying to say. More info: - "BC has emerged as a leader in Organic farming in Canada with the greatest number of organic farms growing both fruit and vegetables." - COABC - "organic farmers use quality compost, cover crops (such as nitrogen-rich alfalfa) and crop rotation to nourish soil naturally, and to allow it to rest and regenerate. Plants grown in healthy soil are better able to feed and protect themselves from pests and disease, which means they won’t require heavy applications of fertilizers and pesticides. The expression, “Feed the soil, not the plant” is a familiar refrain among organic farmers." - COABC It's up to all of us to educate ourselves in what we eat, not to lecture others, but to better understand what goes into our food and to understand why others make other choices….yes, even hippies. What is Organic Farming? http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/aboutorganic/whatis.php Indeed, legumes are great. We raise alfalfa, soybeans, and edible beans. Maybe peas at some point. The reduction in fertilizer input and run-off pollution risk is dramatic. Soil sampling has proven that many times. We do have fields that have not experienced a major pest problem for a long time - due to crop rotation, burning, cultivation and other strategies. But when it happens, you spray the pest or kiss your crop good-bye. The rate of spraying depends on many factors. For example, if you have a wet fall, you can't cultivate your fields as much as you'd like. Then you'll have more weeds the following spring. If you have sandy soil where zero tillage is the norm, you will have more weeds. For the whole world to farm organically, the price of food would inevitably rise. Why? Because the farming industry would need more employees. This is a chronic problem already. Just ask fruit and vegetable growers who hire Mexicans every summer. Just ask a dairy farmer trying to hire someone for 4 AM milking (yeah, yeah milk sucks)

Gluten: Might I suggest oatmeal. It's cheaper and healthier. Oat fields rarely get diseases. For the organic folks, fewer pesticides are used because it grows so thickly, many weeds are choked out, especially broadleaf weeds.

Statements such as 'the Government is telling you to do it' or "The xxxx lobby is huge" are also problematic. If you're going to dwell on that, you'll never eat or drink anything. Because then the food guide is not legitimate, it's just a document used by governments and special lobby groups to promote their own interests. Let's say you don't trust conventional farming and you think organic farmers are a bunch of con artists. I guess you can have a garden and some chickens in your backyard, or maybe someday you'd find that perfect food source. You can find a study that will prove whatever you want it to prove. If you're against immunization you can find sites that will tell you Bill Gates is using vaccines to depopulate the world. The acid test would be: go back to the era where most people in cities didn't drink milk, or drank very little of it. What were fractures like in that era? What a silly post. You don't need to disregard everything. You don't need to believe everything. You can use common sense. The milk lobby is massive. This isn't in doubt. Milk is not good for You. This isn't on doubt. No animal drinks another animals milk. Use common sense. You also don't need to build a time machine to be sure. Plenty of the world doesn't drink milk. Plenty of the world is lactose intolerant. If you like milk, great. Drink it. But if you feed your kids milk don't be surprised when they have health issues. Yes, I know some kids who are lactose intolerant. One broke an arm an due to inadequate calcium. I realize it's not as cut an dried as I'm making it sound, but if others are arguing from one point of view, so will I.

Statements such as 'the Government is telling you to do it' or "The xxxx lobby is huge" are also problematic. If you're going to dwell on that, you'll never eat or drink anything. Because then the food guide is not legitimate, it's just a document used by governments and special lobby groups to promote their own interests. Let's say you don't trust conventional farming and you think organic farmers are a bunch of con artists. I guess you can have a garden and some chickens in your backyard, or maybe someday you'd find that perfect food source. You can find a study that will prove whatever you want it to prove. If you're against immunization you can find sites that will tell you Bill Gates is using vaccines to depopulate the world. The acid test would be: go back to the era where most people in cities didn't drink milk, or drank very little of it. What were fractures like in that era?

Observations: 1. If kids don't drink milk - how do they get enough calcium? A glass of milk has 30% of your daily calcium requirement. Things like dark green vegetables have only 10 - 12% of your daily requirement per serving. Good luck getting them to eat that much broccoli. If you use fortified orange juice or calcium supplements, you are probably ingesting animal products. And yes, I also know kids who are lactose intolerant - they drink goats' milks or specially prepared milk. 2. Vitamin B12 supplements are usually an animal product. Some are made with natural yeast, but not most. 3. I'm a farmer, we spray our crops. Let's say an organic farmer gets an infestation of army worms or grasshoppers. They will demolish your crop in a few days or even hours you don't spray them. We had army worm in oats one year. Even with spraying, that field only averaged 68 bushels per acres, while the rest averaged 110+. Does an organic farmer just write off that field as a loss for that year? Funny how we've never heard of that happening. 4. Let's you're growing edible corn (corn on the cob). If you don't spray for worms, must of the crop will be infested with them. You'd have to throw 80% or more of the crop on the compost heap. I have seen this happen due to a mistake. I guess organic farmers could plant extra to make up for what they'll lose - never heard of that though.

No problem at all- any info would be appreciated.

And the first step would be to acknowledge that there is plenty of blame to go around.

It wasn't realistically possible to live off the land during that era - centuries of unsustainable fur trade had severely reduced everything except perhaps the fish. In fact, some populations (beaver and white tail deer) are more plentiful today than they were in the 19th century. The reserve system was put into place with the promise that the natives would be taught how to farm - but they weren't. Not only were they not properly taught, they were not given the proper implements. Thus the system of handouts began... Macdonald thought he could 'starve them out.' When that didn't work, they tried residential schools to assimilate them. It was a mess in the 19th century and it's still a mess today. The reserves and the treaties never made any sense whatsoever. The intentions of the government that created them were unethical at best.

Don't fix the leak in your bathroom - it's just going to run to the kitchen, the bedrooms, and the rec room.

Sounds sort of like a Stubler Defense.

A shut down defenseman who can move the puck and generate offence is pretty much exhibit A on most Stanley Cup winners / contenders.