dlowan wrote:Er - that came across a little darkly - sorry Cav!!!!!!
I am sure you ar ein the happy 50%!!!
Pfft...no worries, life is too short to take things too seriously.
shewolf, I thought you were already married. Is this about the hubby's haircut?
I did not call the statistics themselves into question. I merely reacted to the evident absurdity of the result they produced in several cases in which I have a good deal of first hand experience.
I agree, I can no more prove the truth of my impressions of those cities than can the bureaucrats who assembled these ststistics and then presumed to make sweeping judgements based on them. However there are far more people competing economically and otherwise to live in San Francisco than Cleveland, Cincinnati, or Chicago for that matter. One must think, and observe, for himself.
My scorn is for the overgeneralizations that are all too frequently put out by bureaucracies of all types (UN and other). It is based on their sophomoric analyses of a small set of statistics to make sweeping - and meaningless - conclusions.
One should not take this crap literally - in this case the Emperor has no clothes at all.
cavfancier wrote:Pfft...no worries, life is too short to take things too seriously.
I hate that he was right.
Well, he was always right, even if his life hadn't been too damn short.
I was just thinking that I miss his dab hand around here.
Better to be missed......
thanks for bumping this, good to see at least the memory of cav around the place
He was the Greatness of Canada
Well, perhaps Canada is worth a second look after all ! The Conservatives have won a plurality in the Parliament ending 15 or so years of ruke by the Liberals.
They'll get a minority censervative goverment now, it seems: 125 seats, well short of the 155 they needed for a majority.
That's what "plurality" means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality
or as we say in Canada, a minority government
works for me
I am unfamiliar with the verb "to ruke." What were the Liberals doing, and how did they do it?
By the way, November 1993 to January 2006 is just over 12 years, not 15 years.
"rule" "13"--thanks. That clears up everything.
November, 1993 to January, 2006-twelve years, three months . . .
