# Nova Scotia - You're such a joke now



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Ski helmets to be mandatory in N.S. - Nova Scotia - CBC News



> Under legislation introduced on Tuesday, any skier not wearing protective headgear would face a $250 fine for each offence.


More government intervention, awesome. 

Where do they find the right to give you a ticket for not wearing a helmet on private land?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

If it saves just one life....

I think we also need a ski registry.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Should also be mandating buttons on the dangerous ski poles.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

How on earth did we survive as kids? No ski helmets, no bike helmets, no seat belts, and cigarette ashes were good for the carpet.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Just more do-gooders at work destroying the world.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

Ski-related head injuries that could have been prevented by helmets cost $6-8million in health care costs each year. 

That's their reasoning, and honestly I'm okay with it. Snowboards and jumps and such were not around when we were younger. There is more danger nowadays. 

You can't legislate common sense, unfortunately. And then those idiots cost everyone else money.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

okcomputer said:


> Ski-related head injuries that could have been prevented by helmets cost $6-8million in health care costs each year.
> 
> That's their reasoning, and honestly I'm okay with it. Snowboards and jumps and such were not around when we were younger. There is more danger nowadays.
> 
> You can't legislate common sense, unfortunately. And then those idiots cost everyone else money.


The government forcibly took over health care--and then decides that you can't do X, Y and Z because it now costs everyone money? That's really dreadful reasoning.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

okcomputer raises a good point though. Do we all complain about having to wear seat belts? What's the difference?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

okcomputer said:


> Ski-related head injuries that could have been prevented by helmets cost $6-8million in health care costs each year.
> 
> That's their reasoning, and honestly I'm okay with it. Snowboards and jumps and such were not around when we were younger. There is more danger nowadays.
> 
> You can't legislate common sense, unfortunately. And then those idiots cost everyone else money.


Snowboards and jumps have been around longer than you think. But skiing has been around longer than anyone alive. And there have always been accidents, they happen, you can't legislate them out. If you go sliding down a hill at full speed and you hit your head against a tree with a helmet on, you are not going to survive. A helmet prevents nothing. This is not bike riding.

Second these ski resorts are private property. Not wearing a helmet is not a criminal act causing harm to someone else so why are police on private property?

Next thing you know they want you to wear full body protection as soon as you walk out your door, just in case. 

And about your $6-8million in health care costs each year comment, well how about the alcohol and tobacco costs to the health care system, still sell those to anyone who has $10. So that argument doesn't up it is just political garbage.

This is just government wanting to govern every part of your life.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> okcomputer raises a good point though. Do we all complain about having to wear seat belts? What's the difference?


True but your on public roads. Ski resorts are private property. They have step into a very dangerous area. The next thing they want to tell me is that when I get on that woobly chair to change the light bulb in the privacy of my own home, I will be charged a $250 fine for not wearing a helmet. Or because I took a slip in the bathtub and cracked a few ribs  here is another $250 fine for having a slippery bathtub.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

Geez ... Next someone will stop kids from playing with balls.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

is these the same do gooders that give people criminal records for having one joint?

It just makes me laugh when people whine about do gooders and nanny states, only to line right up if it's something they don't like.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Lichen Software said:


> Geez ... Next someone will stop kids from playing with balls.


now that, was ridiculous!


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

groovetube said:


> is these the same do gooders that give people criminal records for having one joint?


now that, is ridiculous!


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

I'm not sure I agree with making it a law...but everyone should ware a helmet when boarding or skiing...just makes sense. God knows mine has saved my nogging several times.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

How about this. A law, or whatever regulation something. It says, you hurt yourself because you didn't wear a helmet, the province bills you for the medical costs.

Personal responsibility. Interesting concept.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

no thing wrong with helmets.. Its not myself that I worry about but the pot smoking loonie that smokes by everyone and causing injuries to everyone around them.. so if a helmet prevents injury then wear it..  common sense. ( if you can afford the fine - then ski with out one - simple. )


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

or how about the larger number of loonies who've had a few drinks.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> okcomputer raises a good point though. Do we all complain about having to wear seat belts? What's the difference?


As a matter of fact, yes, I do.

Because in typical progressive politico response, both seat belts & helmets address the effect, not the cause.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Ah, Nova Scotia. First place that comes to mind when I think of downhill skiing.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

groovetube said:


> How about this. A law, or whatever regulation something. It says, you hurt yourself because you didn't wear a helmet, the province bills you for the medical costs.
> 
> Personal responsibility. Interesting concept.


They already do with the taxes we pay. 

I like our medical system the way it is.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

How's about Newfoundland and Labrador ever give a thought to that province about skiing?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

BigDL said:


> How's about Newfoundland and Labrador ever give a thought to that province about skiing?


To be honest when I think about skiing the east coast is not on my radar and I am sure not many others. Not saying there is not great skiing just not what comes to mind first.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> How's about Newfoundland and Labrador ever give a thought to that province about skiing?



Folks come from the alpine countries of Europe to ski at Marble Mountain on the west coast of the Island of Newfoundland here in NL. I don't ski, but I am told that one of the slopes has such a steep incline that only the best skiers can fly down that slope and still get a thrill of a lifetime.

Marble Mountain Resort


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> How about this. A law, or whatever regulation something. It says, you hurt yourself because you didn't wear a helmet, the province bills you for the medical costs.
> 
> Personal responsibility. Interesting concept.


I'd sign it in a minute, providing all the monies I already pay in taxes/fees/whatever to that end were returned.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

FeXL said:


> I'd sign it in a minute, providing all the monies I already pay in taxes/fees/whatever to that end were returned.


Ya ok. I have a piece of swamp in Florida to sell you then. Nobody like the current health care system until they need it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> I'd sign it in a minute, providing all the monies I already pay in taxes/fees/whatever to that end were returned.


I think I'm referring to costs that are -over and above- our general medical expenses.

Sure stepping out your front door can have consequences. Such as driving a car which has obvious risks, but if you want to drive a car without wearing a seatbelt, that sort of decision shouldn't be covered by tax dollars.

Smokers pay up in their 'sin taxes', should others who take these sorts of risks?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

groovetube said:


> I think I'm referring to costs that are -over and above- our general medical expenses.
> 
> Sure stepping out your front door can have consequences. Such as driving a car which has obvious risks, but if you want to drive a car without wearing a seatbelt, that sort of decision shouldn't be covered by tax dollars.
> 
> Smokers pay up in their 'sin taxes', should others who take these sorts of risks?


Seatbelts are proven to save lives and you drive on *public* roads. If you don't wear a seatbelt you most likely are thrown from the car in an accident and won't survive, so who do you send the bill to?

What are these 'sin taxes' you speak of? I have never heard of those.

Helmets don't protect you from brain injury at all, just ask Sidney Crosby, Ryan Miller, James Reimer, Marc Savard, Eric Lindros. I could go on and on. It's a farce.

Again these ski hills are on *private* property.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Joker Eh said:


> Seatbelts are proven to save lives and you drive on *public* roads. If you don't wear a seatbelt you most likely are thrown from the car in an accident and won't survive, so who do you send the bill to?
> 
> What are these 'sin taxes' you speak of? I have never heard of those.
> 
> ...


you've never heard of 'sin taxes'? Are you a monk?  What the hell to you think you pay anytime someone buys cigarettes or alcohol?

You pay those sin taxes whether you buy a drink at a bar, or bring your bottle home and drink in your castle.

As for the effectiveness of these helmets and that debate, sorry, I don't know anything about it. I'll stay on the point I tried to make and not go into that circle.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

groovetube said:


> you've never heard of 'sin taxes'? Are you a monk?  What the hell to you think you pay anytime someone buys cigarettes or alcohol?
> 
> You pay those sin taxes whether you buy a drink at a bar, or bring your bottle home and drink in your castle.
> 
> As for the effectiveness of these helmets and that debate, sorry, I don't know anything about it. I'll stay on the point I tried to make and not go into that circle.


Not a monk, my mother thinks I am a saint. beejacon


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Helmets won't protect you from massive impacts but they will function well to avoid head injuries which would occur from lighter impacts. Person to person impact with both wearing helmets is a far better scenario than without one or both. Take a fall on the ice and a helmet will protect your head. Obviously they aren't going to save you in every instance but I'm pretty sure there are numbers demonstrating a reduction in injuries with the use of helmets (will have to dig to find these). I have had my noggin protected by my helmet for years while on the slopes and wouldn't consider snowboarding/skiing without one. 

Not sure how I feel about legally mandated helmet use but I do think it's a good idea for resort operations to enforce helmet rules (at least for children).


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Macified said:


> Not sure how I feel about legally mandated helmet use but I do think it's a good idea for resort operations to enforce helmet rules (at least for children).


I am in agreement with you,


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Joker Eh said:


> Seatbelts are proven to save lives...


Again, after the cause.

You wanna wear a seat belt, helmet, rubber suit, whatever protective device, go for it. As an adult, it's your choice. Don't legislate it for the rest of us.

It's only going to be an ambulance call if I'm dead anyway. Send the bill to my estate...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

people don't necessarily die because of not wearing a seatbelt, many end up with massive severe injuries costing millions in medical costs.

But it is your choice not to wear a seatbelt. Other than the pesky fine.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Joker Eh said:


> Helmets don't protect you from brain injury at all, just ask Sidney Crosby, Ryan Miller, James Reimer, Marc Savard, Eric Lindros. I could go on and on. It's a farce.


 LOL - those helmets were never designed for repetitive hockey sticks to head or bashing your face first in to the ice or walls ( since they missing any face protection )
Also - they are signed off by Gary Bettman - so that should be another no brainer ( no pun intended ) not to trust any thing that is signed by him as NHL approved - since he thinks pain and suffering and blood sell tickets.



FeXL said:


> It's only going to be an ambulance call if I'm dead anyway. Send the bill to my estate...


Wow - i wish i had an estate ( thats the problem with being married and 2 kids ) LOL

:shakes head:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> people don't necessarily die because of not wearing a seatbelt, many end up with massive severe injuries costing millions in medical costs.


Ain't happenin'.

If I'm lying there like a rutabaga, the plug gets pulled.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

FeXL said:


> Ain't happenin'.
> 
> If I'm lying there like a rutabaga, the plug gets pulled.


can we use this web post as your living will then?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

macintosh doctor said:


> LOL - those helmets were never designed for repetitive hockey sticks to head or bashing your face first in to the ice or walls ( since they missing any face protection )
> Also - they are signed off by Gary Bettman - so that should be another no brainer ( no pun intended ) not to trust any thing that is signed by him as NHL approved - since he thinks pain and suffering and blood sell tickets.


What were the helmets designed for then? (It has nothing to do with Gary Bettman (why people hate him is beyond me, that is for another thread)). The helmets are there to protect you from head injury that is why they wear them. The most they protect you from is cracking your skull during a light fall. Like riding a bike. They don't prevent massive brain injuries when your head impacts something hard. Your brain is moving around in your head and it gets bounced and pushed against your skull when you hit your head, that is one of the causes of brain injuries. The helmet can no nothing about that. 

Blood does sell tickets. You and I may not like it but it does. Just look at the UFC (I am not a fan), it is getting bigger by the day.



macintosh doctor said:


> Wow - i wish i had an estate ( thats the problem with being married and 2 kids ) LOL
> 
> :shakes head:


Where do I get one of those estate things?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Ain't happenin'.
> 
> If I'm lying there like a rutabaga, the plug gets pulled.


this isn't just about you, Fexl. That's fine. But it costs a lot of money for those who don't die.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

macintosh doctor said:


> can we use this web post as your living will then?


That was taken care of long ago. I have a couple of old & dear friends who have been tasked to look after this for me personally, if necessary. Of course, the duty is reciprocal...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> this isn't just about you, Fexl. That's fine. But it costs a lot of money for those who don't die.


No, it isn't. I'm merely addressing the theoretical situation you posed as it would apply to me. As adults, I expect others to make their own informed decisions, rather than have the gov't mandate what is & what isn't good for the populace. 

I'm tired of the gov't in my life. I don't require bureaucratic hand-holding & believe that if anyone else does, there are far greater issues at hand which won't be solved with gov't interference.

I quote P.J. O'Rourke:

"How did an allegedly free people spawn a vast, rampant cuttlefish of dominion with its tentacles in every orifice of the body politic?"


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

FeXL said:


> No, it isn't. I'm merely addressing the theoretical situation you posed as it would apply to me. As adults, I expect others to make their own informed decisions, rather than have the gov't mandate what is & what isn't good for the populace.


yes but you just admitted during your adult choice to smash into other in your careless skiing adventure because you made the adult choice to be nuts on the hill for your own enjoyment - you cause others harm...

so therefore government has to mandate helmets because since you are okay - the others in the care of the tax payers now..
get it...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> No, it isn't. I'm merely addressing the theoretical situation you posed as it would apply to me. As adults, I expect others to make their own informed decisions, rather than have the gov't mandate what is & what isn't good for the populace.
> 
> I'm tired of the gov't in my life. I don't require bureaucratic hand-holding & believe that if anyone else does, there are far greater issues at hand which won't be solved with gov't interference.
> 
> ...


well, that whole freedom thing, yeah that's been stamped on and blown out of the water by previous governments, and the right wing governments in a very SERIOUS way stateside, and now our current one.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

groovetube said:


> well, that whole freedom thing, yeah that's been stamped on and blown out of the water by previous governments, and the right wing governments in a very SERIOUS way stateside, and now our current one.


Nova Scotia is run by NDP right?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Joker Eh said:


> Nova Scotia is run by NDP right?


somewhere in there it looks like you missed the hilarity of right wing supporters whining about the loss of freedom and 'nanny states'.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

macintosh doctor said:


> yes but you just admitted during your adult choice to smash into other in your careless skiing adventure because you made the adult choice to be nuts on the hill for your own enjoyment - you cause others harm...
> 
> so therefore government has to mandate helmets because since you are okay - the others in the care of the tax payers now..
> get it...


I don't have a clue what you're on about here.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*It's always about finding the right balance*

Despite the skiing context, there is no "slippery slope" here.

As long as we live in communities (i.e. this doesn't apply to the "rugged individualist" Libertarians or Anarchists), we have to make laws that balance the freedoms of the individual against the interests of society. Where the community chooses to find that balancing point is what defines the society.

Personally, I think this is stupid. If adults want to ski without helmets on private property, I can see the property owner wanting them to sign a waiver, but I don't think it's worth making a provincial law about it. I understand the argument in favour of the law, I just don't think this particular social good (fewer injured people) is worth the loss of individual freedom in this case.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> personally, i think this is stupid. If adults want to ski without helmets on private property, i can see the property owner wanting them to sign a waiver, but i don't think it's worth making a provincial law about it. I understand the argument in favour of the law, i just don't think this particular social good (fewer injured people) is worth the loss of individual freedom in this case.


+1


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Where the community chooses to find that balancing point is what defines the society.


The hell of it is, though, is that many times the community as a whole isn't making the decisions. It's a few special interest groups making a lot of noise.

That being said, I too, think the decision is stupid.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

bryanc said:


> Personally, I think this is stupid. If adults want to ski without helmets on private property, I can see the property owner wanting them to sign a waiver, but I don't think it's worth making a provincial law about it. I understand the argument in favour of the law, I just don't think this particular social good (fewer injured people) is worth the loss of individual freedom in this case.


yes but signing the wavier only puts the cost of stupidity back in the tax payers cost to keep them alive and/or repair them ... still not the answer unless private property owner will pay for damages caused by others 'free will '


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> yes but signing the wavier only puts the cost of stupidity back in the tax payers cost to keep them alive and/or repair them ... still not the answer unless private property owner will pay for damages caused by others 'free will '


It only puts the costs back on the taxpayers if you don't allow two tiers of medicine. The entire problem is a result of a government monopoly on primary care.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It only puts the costs back on the taxpayers if you don't allow two tiers of medicine. The entire problem is a result of a government monopoly on primary care.


nonsense idea. What's to prevent the idiot from still accessing the free healthcare.

Unless you think that should be done away with as well.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> okcomputer raises a good point though. Do we all complain about having to wear seat belts? What's the difference?


Not wearing a seatbelt can turn you into a projectile injuring others. Not wearing a helmet can not.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Despite the skiing context, there is no "slippery slope" here.
> 
> As long as we live in communities (i.e. this doesn't apply to the "rugged individualist" Libertarians or Anarchists), we have to make laws that balance the freedoms of the individual against the interests of society. Where the community chooses to find that balancing point is what defines the society.
> 
> Personally, I think this is stupid. If adults want to ski without helmets on private property, I can see the property owner wanting them to sign a waiver, but I don't think it's worth making a provincial law about it. I understand the argument in favour of the law, I just don't think this particular social good (fewer injured people) is worth the loss of individual freedom in this case.


+1 and while we'er at it let get rid of those rule enforced by the fire marshall in bars. Really limiting the number of people and the size of the dance floor. Restricting the use of pyrotechnics indoors. These are Private Property. Right? Am I right?

Where do engineers get off tell us how many people can ride on a elevator or how much weight can be put on a floor or deck high in the air. Who voted for them anyway?


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

BigDL said:


> +1 and while we'er at it let get rid of those rule enforced by the fire marshall in bars. Really limiting the number of people and the size of the dance floor. Restricting the use of pyrotechnics indoors. These are Private Property. Right? Am I right?
> 
> Where do engineers get off tell us how many people can ride on a elevator or how much weight can be put on a floor or deck high in the air. Who voted for them anyway?


Those are all activities where one can risk the lives of others. How does not wearing a ski helmet risk the lives of others?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

this is true. It's more an issue of someone hurting themselves by not taking obvious precautions, and then expecting others to pay for it.

Once could, also argue that enforcing motorcyclists to wear helmets is infringing on their free will.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

hayesk said:


> Those are all activities where one can risk the lives of others. How does not wearing a ski helmet risk the lives of others?


Good point! Forget the helmets and limit ski hills to one person sliding on the hill at a one time. Helmet or no Helmet. Hmmm seems a tad extreme. Better still.

Really if want to stop debilitating skiing accidents get rid of the mechanical lifts. Have every person climb to the top of the hills themselves. This plan should ensure only the fittest will have any chance of injury thereby the greatest chance of recovery.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sorry Joker Eh, but once again I hate the title of your thread just like I did with your RIM thread....

Why should Nova Scotia be "such a joke now" just because the government of the day tables legislation that you don't agree with??

It is disrespectful in the extreme...

I haven't lived in the province for 46 years (but I have been back many, many times and still have family there) but I was born there and have 250 years of family history there and I still call it home so I personally for one take offence to the title of your thread... 

There is a helluva a lot more to Nova Scotia than this proposed legislation... which really has absolutely nothing to do with Nova Scotia but only the current government which is temporary to say the least...

How would you like it if it I called your home province a JOKE just because I thought some provincial legislation was stupid IMO????

The twains do not meet... So are you prejudice about everything and everyone just based on their most recent actions? 

Don't fault an entire province based on the actions of the current government.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think he was kinda, joking eh?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

hayesk said:


> Not wearing a seatbelt can turn you into a projectile injuring others. Not wearing a helmet can not.


Wearing a seatbelt is law because it saves lives, not because not wearing one can turn you into a missile.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Lars said:


> Wearing a seatbelt is law because it saves lives, not because not wearing one can turn you into a missile.


Yes, of the driver and those around him who don't have to swerve to avoid him from coming through their windshield. Not to mention it keeps the driver in the seat which can allow him to regain control of the car in instances of swerving, where otherwise he'd be thrown from the driver's seat.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

i have a better idea.. those who hate rules please leave Canada as a whole buy an island - be as unsafe among yourselves and when you chop/break/harm yourselves because of not wearing helmets/seatbelts etc.. stay there and fix yourselves.. or pull your own plugs.. so it does not tax our Health care over here LOL ( when your little island tries to form a set of rules to live by, I will be sure to show and demand no rules! anarchy for all! )


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> i have a better idea.. those who hate rules please leave Canada as a whole buy an island - be as unsafe among yourselves and when you chop/break/harm yourselves because of not wearing helmets/seatbelts etc.. stay there and fix yourselves.. or pull your own plugs.. so it does not tax our Health care over here LOL ( when your little island tries to form a set of rules to live by, I will be sure to show and demand no rules! anarchy for all! )


Rules are constantly in flux. You may leave as the rules evolve in my favour.




LOL.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Rules are constantly in flux. You may leave as the rules evolve in my favour.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:lmao::lmao:

The Island of Macfury ................ may you "live long and prosper". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

heh. I think he voted for smaller government and lower taxes. 

Leave him be, it must smart.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

bryanc said:


> personally, i think this is stupid. If adults want to ski without helmets on private property, i can see the property owner wanting them to sign a waiver, but i don't think it's worth making a provincial law about it. I understand the argument in favour of the law, i just don't think this particular social good (fewer injured people) is worth the loss of individual freedom in this case.


+1


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

screature said:


> Sorry Joker Eh, but once again I hate the title of your thread just like I did with your RIM thread....
> 
> Why should Nova Scotia be "such a joke now" just because the government of the day tables legislation that you don't agree with??
> 
> ...




Relax. It was a (see below) 



groovetube said:


> I think he was kinda, joking eh?


I love Nova Scotia I have been there to visit and travelled the entire coast and plan to go back. I am not talking about the people just the ones that govern them. The title got you in here didn't it?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

just a question. The bike helmet law, does that cover private property, or is that just for public roads etc.

Can they really enforce a law like this on private property? Or is it because they're a commercial operation?

I would think you should be able to do what you want on your own land.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

groovetube said:


> just a question. The bike helmet law, does that cover private property, or is that just for public roads etc.
> 
> Can they really enforce a law like this on private property? Or is it because they're a commercial operation?
> 
> I would think you should be able to do what you want on your own land.


Exactly. 

This is my whole point of this thread. They are stepping over a line that shouldn't be crossed. The ski resort owner could enforce the requirement himself and everything would be fine because that's his choice on his land. Someone doesn't wear the helmet they don't go up the ski lift or are asked to leave.

But with this you are getting the law involved on private property.

I would argue that if this law was taken to court it would be knocked down.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

FeXL said:


> The hell of it is, though, is that many times the community as a whole isn't making the decisions. It's a few special interest groups making a lot of noise.


Yes, this is a major flaw in our system. Lobbyists, and those who can afford them, have far more power than the electorate in general. This, I think, is one of the major issues being protested by OWS.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Yes, this is a major flaw in our system. Lobbyists, and those who can afford them, have far more power than the electorate in general. This, I think, is one of the major issues being protested by OWS.


By forming a lobby?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Joker Eh said:


> Exactly.
> 
> This is my whole point of this thread. They are stepping over a line that shouldn't be crossed. The ski resort owner could enforce the requirement himself and everything would be fine because that's his choice on his land. Someone doesn't wear the helmet they don't go up the ski lift or are asked to leave.
> 
> ...


Are you sure? In many privately owned facilities the penalties of law have been enforced on factory owners, warehouse owners, construction sites etc when hard hats and safety boots and the like have not been worn when ordered to do so. It's an everyday thing in all jurisdictions across this country. Even Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. 

Why point out Nova Scotia and ski hills?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

BigDL said:


> Are you sure? In many privately owned facilities the penalties of law have been enforced on factory owners, warehouse owners, construction sites etc when hard hats and safety boots and the like have not been worn when ordered to do so. It's an everyday thing in all jurisdictions across this country. Even Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.
> 
> Why point out Nova Scotia and ski hills?


You are talking about jobs and the workplace. This is pleasure.

So if I buy a hill and go skiing down it are you telling me a police officer can come on my property and give me a ticket for not wearing a helmet? I think not.

The same way I can ride my ATV on my property how I choose. And by the way I wear a helmet when I do. But as soon as I ride on public roads then I must obey the laws of public roads like get insurance and plate and register it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> Relax. It was a (see below)
> 
> I love Nova Scotia I have been there to visit and travelled the entire coast and plan to go back. I am not talking about the people just the ones that govern them. *The title got you in here didn't it?*


Yeah and so would a million others... I just hate this one.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think they make those circle pillows for that.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

screature said:


> Yeah and so would a million others... I just hate this one.


Ok. I will create a thread and call it "Ontario - You're such a joke now." or one better "Markham - You're such a joke now."

It is just a title. Sorry if offends you, that is not my intention.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Joker Eh said:


> You are talking about jobs and the workplace. This is pleasure.
> 
> So if I buy a hill and go skiing down it are you telling me a police officer can come on my property and give me a ticket for not wearing a helmet? I think not....


If you are the only one on it who cares? When the public is invited to participate now that might change the water on the beans.

Why is control over pleasure in a public err private place like a bar acceptable?Why is control over work in a private workplace acceptable? Is it because it's well accepted? 

Perhaps the slippery slope of caution is too far gone and one day when helmets are enforced somewhere else, ski hills will be held up as sensible reason to extend the practice.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

BigDL said:


> If you are the only one on it who cares? When the public is invited to participate now that might change the water on the beans.
> 
> Why is control over pleasure in a public err private place like a bar acceptable?Why is control over work in a private workplace acceptable? Is it because it's well accepted?
> 
> Perhaps the slippery slope of caution is too far gone and one day when helmets are enforced somewhere else, ski hills will be held up as sensible reason to extend the practice.


Where does it end?

I can go to my local skating rink and skate around without wearing a helmet and I am sure it is the same in Nova Scotia. I am not talking about playing hockey just skating. Let's see them apply it there.

Wait maybe when the Rideau Canal freezes over not only will you have to wear a helmet but also a full floatation suit.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Joker Eh said:


> Ok. I will create a thread and call it "Ontario - You're such a joke now." or one better "Markham - You're such a joke now."


How about "Joker Eh - You're such a joke now."  beejacon


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

SINC said:


> How about "Joker Eh - You're such a joke now."  beejacon


:lmao::lmao:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> How about "Joker Eh - You're such a joke now."  beejacon





Joker Eh said:


> :lmao::lmao:


Nope. Can't say I would support such a thread... I will never appreciate/support such a wholesale discrimination thread.... (even though I know where you are coming from SINC)

Some choose to laugh and say "I am taking it too seriously"... the fact of the matter is threads with this kind of title are insulting anyway you cut it... 

Personally I will not respond to any thread that says "... you are such a joke now" from now on as it is *not* meant as a joke and is meant in all seriousness.

The subject of this thread has merit on an issues basis, but not with the title it has now....

I really wonder what the response would be if the title of a thread were, "Attawapiskat you are such a joke now".

If Joker Eh can't see where I am coming from then fine, he can continue to start threads that fit in with his moniker all he likes, I for one will always feel they are childish and prejudice... not funny in the least or were they ever intended to be.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

seriously, if you can't the difference between "Halifax you are such a joke now" and "Attawapiskat you are such a joke now", perhaps it's just as well.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Joker Eh said:


> Where does it end?


 I suspect the precaution genie is so long out of the bottle there is no getting it back in. 



Joker Eh said:


> I can go to my local skating rink and skate around without wearing a helmet and I am sure it is the same in Nova Scotia. I am not talking about playing hockey just skating. Let's see them apply it there.
> 
> Wait maybe when the Rideau Canal freezes over not only will you have to wear a helmet but also a full floatation suit.


In many rinks in NB children have to wear helmets. Adults as far as I know are not required but I have heard "head injuries do not improve because of age" so it may be a matter of time.

When I coached Speed Skating in New Brunswick everyone, I mean everyone have to wear a helmet as well a neck guard on ice . The reason; to reinforce the message of the importance of safety gear to the children.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Joker Eh said:


> Ok. I will create a thread and call it "Ontario - You're such a joke now." or one better "Markham - You're such a joke now."
> 
> *It is just a title. Sorry if offends you, that is not my intention.*





screature said:


> Nope. Can't say I would support such a thread... I will never appreciate/support such a wholesale discrimination thread.... (even though I know where you are coming from SINC)
> 
> Some choose to laugh and say "I am taking it too seriously"... the fact of the matter is threads with this kind of title are insulting anyway you cut it...
> 
> ...


Well of course I would not make a thread title like that about Attawapiskat, because people there are suffering from what I know. As you can see in my quote above from previous post sorry if offends you, that is not my intention.

If the mayor or mods feel there is an issue they will let me know via PM or on this thread.

Man way to end a TGIF day.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> seriously, if you can't the difference between "Halifax you are such a joke now" and "Attawapiskat you are such a joke now", perhaps it's just as well.


Especially during the Ha! Ha! Ha!ifax Comedy Festival.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Love Halifax. One of my favorite places to play. 2 band mates are total Haligonians.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> Well of course I would not make a thread title like that about Attawapiskat, because people there are suffering from what I know. As you can see in my quote above from previous post sorry if offends you, that is not my intention.
> 
> If the mayor or mods feel there is an issue they will let me know via PM or on this thread.
> 
> ...





BigDL said:


> Especially during the Ha! Ha! Ha!ifax Comedy Festival.


The principal stands... it seems some don't get it.. so be it....

Attawapiskat, RIM, Pakistan, Forbes, South Africa, China, Canada it is all the same... saying "you are such a joke now" is confrontational, bigoted and provocative to say the least....

And yes I agree,



> Man way to end a TGIF day.


There is nothing you have posted that would warrant an intervention by the Mayor. I am simply saying as one ehMac member to another I don't appreciate such titles for the reasons I have expressed... 

You are completely free to act in any way you choose... I have never said "such posts should be banned or disallowed", etc. It has always been a matter of that I don't think such titles of threads are appropriate because of the denigration they imply. 

It is IMO... and isn't that why most of us are here...? To express our opinion....

Your opinion differs from mine and in a free internet I have every right to not see the humour in the title of your thread.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Nope. Can't say I would support such a thread... I will never appreciate/support such a wholesale discrimination thread.... (even though I know where you are coming from SINC)
> 
> Some choose to laugh and say "I am taking it too seriously"... the fact of the matter is threads with this kind of title are insulting anyway you cut it...
> 
> ...


*"I will not respond to any thread that says "... you are such a joke now" from now on"..and six post later we see posted



screature said:



The principal stands... it seems some don't get it.. so be it....

Attawapiskat, RIM, Pakistan, Forbes, South Africa, China, Canada it is all the same... saying "you are such a joke now" is confrontational, bigoted and provocative to say the least....

And yes I agree,



There is nothing you have posted that would warrant an intervention by the Mayor. I am simply saying as one ehMac member to another I don't appreciate such titles for the reasons I have expressed... 

You are completely free to act in any way you choose... I have never said "such posts should be banned or disallowed", etc. It has always been a matter of that I don't think such titles of threads are appropriate because of the denigration they imply. 

It is IMO... and isn't that why most of us are here...? To express our opinion....

Your opinion differs from mine and in a free internet I have every right to not see the humour in the title of your thread.

Click to expand...

after five more posts in the same thread I have to question commitment, restraint and cogency. *


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> *"I will not respond to any thread that says* "... you are such a joke now" *from now on"*..and six post later we see posted
> 
> after five more posts in the same thread I have to question commitment, restraint and cogency.


Does limited understanding preclude anyone from considering he would not continue to defend his position, began in this thread and that it is ongoing? 

The remark was obviously directed at any more threads using the, to him, objectionable title catch line. I mean really, gimme a break.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Does limited understanding preclude anyone from considering he would not continue to defend his position, began in this thread and that it is ongoing?
> 
> The remark was obviously directed at any more threads using the, to him, objectionable title catch line. I mean really, gimme a break.


The word any means all threads that contain something then followed by the quoted words*"... you are such a joke now" *

Now I did end my post with a wink.

I found it ironic that a firm sounding commitment was contradicted so soon. I pointed out the irony as I found it humorous.

Why would one follow a thread especially by title that were disgusted by, including and especially this thread? 

Do I find it ironic that someone with a newspaper background does not understand the meaning of the word any "every, all." 



MacDictionary said:


> any |ˈenē|
> adjective & pronoun
> 1 [usu. with negative or in questions ] *used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or many*: [as adj. ] I don't have any choice | do you have any tips to pass on? | [as pron. ] someone asked him for a match, but Joe didn't have any | you don't know any of my friends | if there is any left, throw it away.
> • [as pron. ] anyone : it ceased payments to any but the elderly or disabled.
> ...


This may be my understanding as a result of quasi legal work negotiating contracts and listening to trained legal council expound on the subject of english and its meaning. 

Not limited understanding but understanding words in a proper context that I have been sensitized to. I have to conclude that my conscious has been raised.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Do I find it ironic that someone with a newspaper background does not understand the meaning of the word any "every, all."


No, you shouldn't, any more so that I find it obvious that a man on a mission to debunk anything he disagrees with would stoop to, and that's obvious in most situations involving this type of nit-picking post by yourself.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> No, you shouldn't, any more so that I find it obvious that a man on a mission to debunk anything he disagrees with would stoop to, and that's obvious in most situations involving this type of nit-picking post by yourself.


So projecting onto others again is it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> So projecting onto others again is it?


Not at all, consider your own suspiciously biased posts on screature's points, suggesting some personally contrived (by you) conspiracy by him to break his earlier post to no longer participate in future "joke" threads. That is the real joke here.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

My, my! Who'd thunk it? Oh I know!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> My, my! Who'd thunk it? Oh I know!


A mirror is most appropriate.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

What next? My dad can be...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Oh man...this thread is a 









...and








.
.
.
ibtl


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

kps said:


> oh man...this thread is a
> 
> 
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

All I can say



+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> *"I will not respond to any thread that says* "... you are such a joke now" *from now on"*..and six post later we see posted
> 
> after five more posts in the same thread I have to question commitment, restraint and cogency.





SINC said:


> Does limited understanding preclude anyone from considering he would not continue to defend his position, began in this thread and that it is ongoing?
> 
> The remark was obviously directed at any more threads using the, to him, objectionable title catch line. I mean really, gimme a break.


SINC it seems that some will deliberately play silly trite word games when their meaning is quite obvious within the context of the use of the words. To satisfy BIgDL's quasi judicial petulance I suppose I should have said for clarity sake "any *other* threads going forward" as opposed to "any threads from now on".

However, you obviously understood my meaning and I dare say so did BigDL. He just seems to like being a s**t disturber just to fulfill his self appointed role of being "The Right Horrible". He nary has a good thing to say about anyone or anything in my observation... it seems he just can't help himself.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Jeebus it's like the energizer bunny.

Ok. We get you don't like the thread title. It was pointed out it wasn't serious. Now put down the club, and for the love of god drink some coffee. Spiked if you desire.

That is all.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Jeebus it's like the energizer bunny.
> 
> Ok. We get you don't like the thread title. It was pointed out it wasn't serious. Now put down the club, and for the love of god drink some coffee. Spiked if you desire.
> 
> That is all.


LOL! I agree, time to let it go.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

In all fairness to my part in the derailment...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> In all fairness to my part in the derailment...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------

