# 1977 vs 2007



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

recently came across this and thought some would enjoy (except perhaps DH....LOL):

Scenario: Jack goes qual hunting before school, pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in the truck's gun rack.

1977-Vice principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his own shotgun to show Jack.

2007-School goes into lockdown, the RCMP are called. Jack is hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors are called in to assist traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.

1977-Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2007-Police are called, SWAT team arrives and arrests Johnny and Mark. They are charged with assualt and both are expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario: Jeffery won't sit still in class, disrupts the other students.

1977- Jeffrey is sent to the principal's office and given a good paddling. He returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt the class again.

2007- Jeffery is given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. tested for ADD. School gets extra Provintial funding because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbour's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.

1977- Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.

2007- Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. Regional psychologist tells Bill's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some Aspirin to school.

1977- Mark shares Aspirin with the school principal out on the smoking dock.

2007- Police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.

1977- Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes on to college.

2007- Pedro's cause is taken up by the local human rights group. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that making English a requirement for graduation is racist. Canadian Civil Liberties Association files class action lawsuit against the Provincial school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is banned from the core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover Canada Day firecrackers, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up an anthill.

1977- Ants die.

2007- Canadian Firearms Centre and the RCMP are called and Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. CSIS investigates parents; siblings are removed from the home, computors are confiscated, and Johnn's Dad goes on the terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario: Johnny falls during recess and scrapes his knees. His teacher, Mary, finds him crying and gives him a hug to comfort him.

1977- Johnny soon feels better and goes back to playing.

2007- Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces three years in federal prison. Johnny undergoes five years of therapy.

and:
Scenario: Johnny wants a guitar.

1977- Johnny buys a used 1962 Gibson LP for $850.00. Sells it in 2007 for $25,000.00 on e-bay.

2007- Johnny buys a 2007 '62 reissue Gibson LP for $4,500.00 and finds one on e-bay used the next week for $850.00.

cheers
RIFF


----------



## simescan (May 15, 2007)

Kinda scary but true isn't it???.....thanks for sharing this one.


----------



## millenium_03 (Oct 11, 2007)

Ouchhh.... nice analyze !!!


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

I can't recall but was the media trying to scare everyone in '77. 

Is there a correlation there?


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2007)

"Not really funny."
+1!

I'll take 2007 over 1977 any day of the week

I'd prefer to see 2777!


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

Haha I actually lol'd at the "ants die" one. Somehwhat of a satire, but still funny:smile: Did you write them yourself?


----------



## Mahogany Martin (Mar 2, 2006)

C'mon guys, it's good for a laugh. Pretty good Riff Wrath.

'77 was a lot more wholesome than today. Kids could play outside and be adventurers and explore their neighbourhood without being afraid of being abducted. I did not know a single person back then with peanut allergy. Disco was at its peak :banana: :smile:

Here's one:

1977: Steve is busting his hump delivering newspapers and flyers everyday for 5 bucks a week

2007: Steve won't take a summer job under 25 bucks an hour. His parents deliver newspapers and flyers for extra money...:smile:


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

I thought it was hilarious. I was just commenting on how afraid and detached everyone is.

I stopped at the grocery store last night and made a mental note of something: From my car to the cashier I saw maybe around 50 people - over half of whom were either staring at their cells phones (texting) or talking on them. Everyone seemed to be in their own little world, oblivious to the world around them. No more idle chit chat in the check out line. Not so in 77.


----------



## Ti-Ron (Mar 21, 2007)

Riff you make my day. I'm not that old (sorry guys) but I came from the country and for my the city look like 2007 and the country like 1977. Maybe it's an utopia but to me this world need to change a little bit to be perfect. Maybe without money...
probably why I'm into litterature and music, it's an escape!


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> A lot of silly assumptions and exaggerations. Not really funny.



...just sounds like more conservative whining about how much better things were back when we were less enightened.

i am a huge fan of comedy and humour, so i have no problem giving this two thumbs down.

-dh


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

Hey, I didn't write the thing, just sharing. (well, I did do the last one LOL)
maybe this should have gone into the ploitics thread...LOL
I enjoyed it.I was born in 1950. perhaps the 1977 comparison should have read 1960? 
cheers
RIFF


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

RIFF WRATH said:


> Hey, I didn't write the thing, just sharing. (well, I did do the last one LOL)
> maybe this should have gone into the ploitics thread...LOL
> I enjoyed it.I was born in 1950. perhaps the 1977 comparison should have read 1960?
> cheers
> RIFF



...there's a lot i do miss about the past...those old cartoons, good quality denim, craftsmanship, communists under every bed, the don messer show, women in nylons...

geez, dude, yer almost as old as i am!



-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...there's a lot i do miss about the past...those old cartoons, good quality denim, craftsmanship, communists under every bed, the don messer show, women in nylons...
> 
> geez, dude, yer almost as old as i am!
> 
> ...


Rocky and Bullwinkle? Roger Ramjet? Beany and Cecil?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Steeler (Oct 31, 2007)

Thanks for the post. I enjoyed it. 

I grew up in those days of only having three TV channels with nothing worth watching, 

Unlike today when we have 100's of TV channels, with ......


Those were the days when I'd buy pre CBS Teles and Strats for around $150, and sell them to make a $50 profit, and be so proud of my accomplishment.
(True story, so true it hurts)


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

thanks riff- i liked it, much truth there. and i found it funny, ignore the naysayers.

steeler- i grew up in the country, we only got cbc- 
i was 24 years old when i first saw cable tv-was in 1994- i met a girl and she had cable, with the movie channel and all- i remember how stunned i was, sitting on the couch for days unable to sleep flipping thru channels.

david henman- i miss nylons too- and dresses and skirts and high heels. i guess they still wear em, just not when im around.


----------



## stratovani (Jul 1, 2007)

1977 - Montreal Canadiens dominate hockey. Lafleur, Shutt, Lemaire, Robinson, Dryden destroy everyone on their way to the Stanley Cup, and the ensuing dynasty. Montreal Forum is hockey's shrine.

2007 - Montreal Canadiens struggle for the umpteenth year. Can't even think of a single player other than Saku Koivu. Do they even have a single Francophone player? Montreal Forum is a cineplex.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

stratovani said:


> 1977 - Montreal Canadiens dominate hockey. Lafleur, Shutt, Lemaire, Robinson, Dryden destroy everyone on their way to the Stanley Cup, and the ensuing dynasty. Montreal Forum is hockey's shrine.
> 
> 2007 - Montreal Canadiens struggle for the umpteenth year. Can't even think of a single player other than Saku Koivu. Do they even have a single Francophone player? Montreal Forum is a cineplex.


bah- try bieng a leafs fan
i loved lafleur- interview between periods he was smoking lol- you dont see that anymore


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Rocky and Bullwinkle? Roger Ramjet? Beany and Cecil?
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Ram-jets!!!!

It's Roger Ramjet, buzzum-click !!!

"I'll just take a proton energy pill and take care of it the good old amercian way!"


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2007)

fraser said:


> ... i miss nylons too- and dresses and skirts and high heels...


I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok..








Sorry dude..couldn't resist.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

ahh i knew summthing like that would happen- i dont make an even reasonable facsimile of a woman larry-i barely pass for a modern human
my most flattering pic is this-








although you cant see the frilly underthings- they probbly arent there in yur mind are they?(anyways i hope not- damm)


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> It just reminds me of those lame "conservative vs. liberal" joke e-mails that circulate from time to time. Written to make a political point, not to be funny.




...yep. the author is definitely trying to make a point.

but, i am surprised that many find it funny. i don't think that the writer was going for humour. i just re-read it, and i still don't see where the author was trying to be funny.

except for "johnny wants to buy a guitar"!

*grin*

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...yep. the author is definitely trying to make a point.
> 
> but, i am surprised that many find it funny. i don't think that the writer was going for humour. i just re-read it, and i still don't see where the author was trying to be funny.
> 
> ...



Interesting that some don't see the humour. Like those funny pictures that were all the rage back in the 80's, where at first glance all you saw was a chaotic pattern but if you looked long enough and slightly unfocused your eyes you'd suddenly see a real picture.

I laughed out loud from the moment I first read the piece! It was the irony that immediately caught me - using cows as a real world example as a contrast against the "official" definitions. The definition of American capitalism for example, where one cow is "laid off" and the other worked to death, and then the management is still blind to their original mistake and wants some consultant to report back to them. Or "Enron Capitalism", where anyone who followed the twists and turns of that big business scam surely can't fail to snicker!

Then again, I love the "Dilbert" cartoon. I worked in a few big companies that seemed just as insanely run. The artist Scott Adams swears he doesn't make any of his strips up. Everything is based on emails sent to him from people who work in such situations every day. I can well believe it!

Yet I have some friends who genuinely just can't see anything at all in the strip. Could this be some kind of left brain/right brain thing?

The piece reminded me of what we used to call "Russian humour", back before the USSR fell apart. An American would say to a Russian "In my country anyone is perfectly free to criticize their president!" The Russian would reply "We're just as free! Any of us can criticize your president as much as we like!". An ironic jest on being officially free but not in practice. The Russian people developed this black humour as a way of coping with the harshness of their daily lives under the Communist system. Like the humour of some of the old black folks who grew up in the Jim Crow south, where they learned to laugh to keep from crying.

Or blues, for that matter!:smile:

I guess we all view the world in different manners...

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*Brain Cramp!*

Enough of this crap de-caf coffee! Cross-threaded myself with a list of political/economic definitions using cow ownership I had posted in the politics thread. Mea culpa for confusing the issue by dragging cows into the discussion!

Still, with Riff Raff's post I think the point is still valid. The basic idea is irony and hyperbole. To many of us there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between situations during our youth and the way they are handled today.

The problem is that today we hear "zero tolerance" until we're sick of it yet in practice it often means braindead, bureaucratic, "Dilbert-esque" approaches to problems where the attempt to cure becomes worse than the original disease. Having two children in school has shown me many examples of what sometimes seems silly and sometimes even becomes cruel to bullied children, making them victims twice.

Like all black humour, it's a way of coping. I think the problem in many schools today is that somehow common sense and assertiveness in discipline has been lost or even outright banned. Students are usually well aware of their rights and can offend with impunity. Parents of bullied children learn that usually the only solution is to send their child to another school because all that will happen is touchy-feelly approaches and boring bullies to death with anger management sessions. Yet when the system sees a chance to jump all over an innocent mistake in order to APPEAR to be on the ball they jump on the poor offender with both feet! A hunter has a gun in his truck so it becomes a call for the SWAT team. Meanwhile a Mark LePine can bring an assault rifle into a school in Quebec with no problem and kill a large number of innocent young women before he's finally stopped.

A real world example might be Chief Fantino's boast about over 1000 arrests of speeders under Ontario's new anti-street racing law. To many of us it seems odd that only a handful were actually street racing! They got one young mom on a country road near me the other day, where when the suburbs were all amalgamated into Hamilton the city imposed the same speed limit on bare country roads as in downtown Hamilton. Every so often they put a radar trap up out there for some easy revenue. They really got the chance to stick it to this poor woman. If that's the type of offender Fantino is protecting me from somehow I don't feel any safer. I'd like to see mostly racers arrested! Wasn't that the intent in the first place?

One of the original examples that struck home was this one:

"1977-Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2007-Police are called, SWAT team arrives and arrests Johnny and Mark. They are charged with assualt and both are expelled even though Johnny started it."

That's essentially what happened to one grade 2 kid at my daughter's school. He was being perpetually beat up by a bigger kid from grade 4. The teachers were well aware and kept putting the bully in anger management classes but meanwhile the little fellow still was getting wholloped almost every day! One day he tried to fight back and a teacher caught the fight. BOTH were sent home for the day! The parents were livid but finally gave up and transferred him to another school.

If you believe that most modern social engineering approaches are effective then I can understand why the humour of the piece would be lost on you. As I had said, many of us laugh to keep from crying. It's the shared experiences and observations about what is described in Riff Raff's post that generates a sense of ironic humour. 

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Enough of this crap de-caf coffee! Cross-threaded myself with a list of political/economic definitions using cow ownership I had posted in the politics thread. Mea culpa for confusing the issue by dragging cows into the discussion!.....


That's ok Bill, I followed you right along, it was relevant.

I read this piece before but it was US-based and seemed more apt, it was amusing then and now, and to an extent, true. I do like Riff's addition.

I still have an ID card from 77, not much different than 07. <shrug> And in 79 I had a pickup, in 09 I will have the same one. The more things change.....

Strange days indeed :wave:


----------



## BLUES FAN (Jul 25, 2007)

*Well its a shame*

You know alot of them were funny and I thought amusing. If we cant laugh at this kind of stuff then Riff Raff just proved a valid point .Lighten up people and slow down a bit and enjoy a few laughs.Actually some of that stuff is not to far from the truth either.

My daughter graduated from high school last year from the same school I graduated from.I picked her up from a dance one night there and to my surprise I found out they have police there checking kids for weapons on arriving to the gym. If that isnt F%&%# up I dont know what is. I in all my years growing up never witnessed that even at Large concerts I went to in TO.The only thing I ever got checked for was weed.


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2007)

fraser said:


> ...although you cant see the frilly underthings- they probbly arent there in yur mind are they?(anyways i hope not- damm)


Way back, I thought of playing *earache my eye..* dressed in a tutu.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

"Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.

1977- Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes on to college.

2007- Pedro's cause is taken up by the local human rights group. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that making English a requirement for graduation is racist. Canadian Civil Liberties Association files class action lawsuit against the Provincial school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is banned from the core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English."

This one is both xenophobic (it suggests that immigrants cause trouble, abuse the system) and racist (it regurgitates the old racist canards about immigrants not wanting to assimilate and South Americans being lazy).


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2007)

Hey..*Wild Bill*.








Wow man..do you sing this stuff too? You articulate what's on my mind many times.
I'd like to share a pot of coffee with ya some day.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> "Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.
> 
> 1977- Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes on to college.
> 
> ...


No. I think it's just meant to be funny. Lighten up man. :banana:


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Gawd, the way you people are taking offense at a joke, no wonder this country is the laughing stock of the world for overly PC citizenship 

OK, survey time. My bet is the majority taking offense, weren't even ALIVE (or barely) in 1977.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

laristotle said:


> Hey..*Wild Bill*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It'd be fun! Acton is not that far away from Stoney Creek.

As for singing, I used to do a lot of acoustic folk songs when I was a wee tad. Got up to doing some bastardized Travis picking to cover Lightfoot and Dylan tunes. Not sure the world is ready for a non-leftwing folksinger!

Then again, maybe we have a duty to provide some balance. When guys like Al Gore can get an Oscar for junk science and working men are forced to pay taxes for programs that are unnecessary and/or won't work till their kids start getting hungry...

I did sing Dylan's "Times They Are A'Changin' " at a Reform meeting about 15 years ago.

"Now senators, congressmen please heed the call! Don't stand in the doorways and block up the hall!"

Nah! I'm too old and fat!:smile:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Geek said:


> Gawd, the way you people are taking offense at a joke, no wonder this country is the laughing stock of the world for overly PC citizenship
> 
> OK, survey time. My bet is the majority taking offense, weren't even ALIVE (or barely) in 1977.


That's how the righteous keep proving their faith in their religion, Gregg! Seizing a chance to take offence means an opportunity to appear devout. Shouting down a "heretic" makes you look more "holy".

Editorial cartoons, anyone?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## evenon (Nov 13, 2006)

1977 : People read the original post, laugh or not and move on. 

2007: We have decided to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Maybe I have lived in Alberta too long, but... xenophobia ? racism ? politics ? religion ? wow... it was a joke.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

evenon said:


> 1977 : People read the original post, laugh or not and move on.
> 
> 2007: We have decided to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
> 
> Maybe I have lived in Alberta too long, but... xenophobia ? racism ? politics ? religion ? wow... it was a joke.


Classic. LOL!


----------



## BLUES FAN (Jul 25, 2007)

jroberts said:


> Here's a good one... You guys will think this is funny... How many ni66ers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Don't be offended when I give you the punchline. It's just a joke, after all.
> 
> For the record, I'm far more offended by what what a lame an attempt at humour that post is than by any of its substantive content.[
> 
> ...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Geek said:


> ...no wonder this country is the laughing stock of the world for overly PC citizenship


...this is news to me. 

do you have any sources for this?

-dh


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

You lead a very sheltered life.

Read the Globe and Mail or the Province (Vancouver). It pops up in the editorials about once per month.

I'm not usually a clipper of stories out of coffee shop provided newspapers.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

its funny how, as we here are all canadians, all kinds of ages are represented, all with an interest in music, and guitars in particular, none of us are really very different essentially- yet we can become so polarized in our views- how can we as a country coexist peacefully and put on a good show for the rest of the world when we cant even agree on wether a joke is funny or offensive- there are so many reasons why those who dislike the original post do so, there are so many levels, and i think that one person who dislikes the joke will not agree with another persons reason for not liking the post and ad infinitum...
all you guys make intelligent arguments here, but i think there needs to be some kinda firm line in the sand, otherwise every week we as a country keep changing the boundaries of right and wrong, until one day we evolve into 1920's russia, where nothing is acceptable.
im not saying anyone is right or wrong here- but i think that, just as we tolerate, or are told to tolerate, other religions and ethics and beliefs, we need to tolerate each others thoughts and senses of humour-
if this debate was to be judged- wild bill makes the best argument
and geek is right imo- about the overly pc citizenship- i have lots of european friends and relatives, and although they were / and still would be overly pc enough to allow a hitler to walk all over them and piss in theyre roses before doing anything about it- they can at least take a joke. as long as theres no swastikas displayed visually in said joke.
now i remember why i quit smoking pot.:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

jroberts said:


> How exactly do you "debate" whether something is funny or not?



hi jroberts- well i look at this whole thread as a debate- riff made a joke post- some thought it was funny, others not. 
then individual posters began giving examples, and facts, and opinions, in order to substantiate their feelings.
a debate then- no?
your definition of "debate" may differ from my own- and that was part of my point. because you guys have been debating wether this post is funny or not-since the first page-
you yourself even resorted to using a racial joke to prove your point- so you where committed to your belief obviously, and used that tool to prove your point. and that good sir is classic debate strategy.
i did not mean to suggest that wild bill was correct or "the winner here" merely that he -within the boundaries of my definition of debate- makes the strongest case.
i realize now i shouldve elaborated, but added it only as an acknowledgement to bills respectable debating skills, and never felt i would need to justify my point-
apologies to you man- i mean no offence

so i point out that the answer to your query-


jroberts said:


> How exactly do you "debate" whether something is funny or not?


is revealed in the previous pages of this thread.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Geek said:


> You lead a very sheltered life.
> Read the Globe and Mail or the Province (Vancouver). It pops up in the editorials about once per month.
> I'm not usually a clipper of stories out of coffee shop provided newspapers.


...editorials???...oh...i get it....sorry, i thought you might have something resembling a credible source.

i may, indeed, lead a sheltered life, but not so sheltered that i view editorials as anything beyond one person's opinion.

-dh


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2007)

"How exactly do you "debate" whether something is funny or not?"
You can't... It's way too subjective.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

jroberts said:


> No, that was in response to a post that essentially asserted that if something is couched as a joke, people shouldn't take offense to it. That reply of mine really had nothing to do with the initial post.
> 
> I still maintain that the initial post, if taken as an attempt at humour, is a very poor one. If taken as political commentary, it is what it is.


That begs me to ask, WTF happened to peoples sense of humor? I'm from NS and I used to hear (and laugh at) a good East Coaster joke just like everyone else. However a few years ago we seem to have gone well away from common sense. The (large) company I work for trotted out all this BS dignity and Respect training. And while I'm all for that, telling jokes has become a thing of the past cause Gord Forbid someone might overhear and take offense.. A funny thing happened, they showed a training video that used a Newfie Joke as an example and of course one of the people being trained took offence and launched a complaint. It's just gotten WAY, WAY out of hand..


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2007)

"It's just gotten WAY, WAY out of hand..."
That's one reason why I don't give a sh!t who I offend.... 

People need thicker skins. (Often to go with their thicker heads)

Everything is funny, to someone.... Just like everything is sexy, to someone.... It'd be pretty FN arrogant to think that your (no one in particular) humour barometer had to apply to everyone else....


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2007)

How about the self-righteous that feel offended
on someone else's behalf? They also tend to be
afflicted with _Schadenfreude_.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Oh ya, this place is Rife with that too! Man, I wish I didn't have to work for a living.....


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2007)

Starbuck50 said:


> Man, I wish I didn't have to work for a living.....


That would be sweet!








But then, can you face this
day in/day out?


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

jroberts said:


> As I've stated, I'm not the least bit offended by the subject matter of the post. It's just not funny. I don't laugh at every single thing that someone tells me is a joke. My sense of humour is a little offbeat. That doesn't mean I have a poor sense of humour. To the contrary, I think that people who laugh at every single "joke" they hear are the ones with the poor sense of humour. If you think the kind of fart jokes you hear on a typical "morning zoo crew" radio show are funny, you and I probably have different senses of humour. If you think "Corner Gas" is side-splittingly hilarious, we probably have different senses of humour. If you think the initial post is a laugh riot, we probably have different senses of humour.
> 
> You might think I have _no_ sense of humour. I just think I have a _different_ sense of humour than you.


I was not inferring you have no sense of humor. I was talking about the state of the universe in general. I'm with you, I do NOT get Corner Gas! :smile:


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2007)

"I do NOT get Corner Gas!"
And on the other side of the coin, I LOVE it!

YMMV


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

I too find those very amusing. Allbeit in a sad way cause Ain't it the truth!?


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "I do NOT get Corner Gas!"
> And on the other side of the coin, I LOVE it!
> 
> YMMV


Good for you! I'm not going to call you a Moron cause you do. Unless of course you want me to?


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2007)

Call me what you want.... It won't bother me in the least...

But what you call me will say way more about you than it will about me....

Humour? Redmeat.com Now THAT'S funny!! 
,-)


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

Funny...My three favorite funny shows on TV are (not Corner Gas), Chuck, The Reaper and of course The Office. :food-smiley-004:


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Wow, I just read through this thread. Very heavy.

For what it's worth, I found the original material to be somewhat truthful though quite exagerated (as most humour is), as well as whistful, and mildly amusing in a "Those were the days" kinda way.

For the record - I am not a fan of social engineering, but it has been going on since we crawled out of the sea - or were dropped into the garden (whichever you prefer). If you haven't been persecuted yet then wait for it - it may take a century or two but it will come.

In the meantime, the world would be a far better place if we cared just a little bit more about each other, got offended just a little bit less, and learned to laugh at ourselves a whole lot more.

Now do as I say.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2007)

"Now do as I say."
Yer not the boss of me!! 

Heh


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

evenon said:


> 1977 : People read the original post, laugh or not and move on.
> 
> 2007: We have decided to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
> 
> Maybe I have lived in Alberta too long, but... xenophobia ? racism ? politics ? religion ? wow... it was a joke.


There was the WWW in 1977?


You'd be sensitive about xenophobia if you lived in a country where the government cultivates it for political reasons.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> There was the WWW in 1977?
> You'd be sensitive about xenophobia if you lived in a country where the government cultivates it for political reasons.



..._especially_ given that canadian conservatives are steadfastly and blindly heading in that direction.

-dh


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

If the underlying sentiment of Riffs post didn't have a ring of truth too it, I might have found it funny instead of sad.
I think the social engineering that has been going on since say 77 to stay true to the post has done more to separate people than anything. Folks on either side of the political spectrum are wider apart than at anytime I can recall.
The Golden rule has been replaced by "my way or the highway".
I don't know the answers but I think Riff's post (and some of the replies) illustrates some of the problems.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wayward Son said:


> If the underlying sentiment of Riffs post didn't have a ring of truth too it, I might have found it funny instead of sad.
> I think the social engineering that has been going on since say 77 to stay true to the post has done more to separate people than anything. Folks on either side of the political spectrum are wider apart than at anytime I can recall.
> The Golden rule has been replaced by "my way or the highway".
> I don't know the answers but I think Riff's post (and some of the replies) illustrates some of the problems.


...to me, it hints at a kind of reverse "political correctness".

i wonder if the "social engineering" to which you refer isn't simply the attempts by many of us to get people to accept and respect those who are not white, male, well-off and heterosexual in our culture.

i think we can all agree that it has been an uphill battle, so any suggestions of backtracking are likely to be met with at least some degree of resistance, don't you think?

-dh


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

david henman;78279i wonder if the "social engineering" to which you refer isn't simply the attempts by many of us to get people to accept and respect those who are not white said:


> Well we're about to take a MONUMENTAL step backwards. Just my opinion.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071112/black_focused_school_071112


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

wow
I guess I haven't been paying attention to the TO school situation. They must be out of their minds to propose such a thing. In my opinion they should eliminate and almalgamate the catholic schools with the public. This is a backwards step re: the "black" students. I am not sure that other (excuse me if I am not totally politically correct, honestly, no offense intended ) ethnic/religeous groups, private schools should be allowed whether private funded or not. have your after hours social clubs, but universal public basic education is a must with such deversified multicultural mix we have in Canada.
Interestingly I went to school and lived in some of the areas in toronto where there are now predominetly non-white families. I do not remember having non-white class mates. That area was mostly of european descent.They have moved on and I suppose with future generations have mostly assimilated? Is my perception wrong or are cultures "ghettoing" too much, and preying on one another? This I know this is the case in every big city core areas, but now in suburbia. Is there really any fix? 
pondering...
RIFF


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> Perhaps someone who uses the term "social engineering" in a negative context can explain what exactly they mean. It seems to get used a lot on this forum by certain people. Social engineering, meaning undertaking activities that attempt to change people's attitudes and behaviour, _has_ always existed and _will_ always exist for as long as people live together in groups. It is because of "social engineering" that lynchings ar no longer acceptable, that women are allowed to vote, that domestic violence is a crime, that we no longer have a residential school program for aboriginals, etc., etc.



...amen to that, jroberts!

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Starbuck50 said:


> Well we're about to take a MONUMENTAL step backwards. Just my opinion.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071112/black_focused_school_071112




...there seems to be some confusion here. are they suggesting separate schools for blacks? in other words, blacks would go to a specific school for blacks only?

i agree that, whatever the problem is, it should be acknowledged, and solved, WITHIN the public system.

but my understanding is that they are proposing "black heritage schools", where ALL would be welcome.

-dh


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...there seems to be some confusion here. are they suggesting separate schools for blacks? in other words, blacks would go to a specific school for blacks only?
> 
> i agree that, whatever the problem is, it should be acknowledged, and solved, WITHIN the public system.
> 
> ...


That's a really good point. My understanding was a completely seperate school for blacks, with Black teachers and Admin etc. Just seems kinda like a backwards move. At the school board meeting the other night there was a big scuffle. Seems like at this point 1/2 the (Black) parents are for and 1/2 against.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

david henman said:


> ..._especially_ given that canadian conservatives are steadfastly and blindly heading in that direction.
> 
> -dh


Actually, I live in abroad. The supposedly liberal government manipulates sentiments of xenophobia and nationalism every chance it gets to further its political goals. Luckily, fewer people are taking the bait, which is why a conservative is leading the polls ahead of the presidential elections, which will be held in a couple of weeks.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> Actually, I live in abroad. The supposedly liberal government manipulates sentiments of xenophobia and nationalism every chance it gets to further its political goals. Luckily, fewer people are taking the bait, which is why a conservative is leading the polls ahead of the presidential elections, which will be held in a couple of weeks.


...wow, where is "abroad"?

i have read that many years ago, the american political parties were reversed in their stripes, with the dems supporting slavery and racial discrimination, and the repubs opposed.

weird how things get reversed sometimes. still, its difficult to imagine libs being xenophobic and nationalistic.

-dh


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...wow, where is "abroad"?
> 
> i have read that many years ago, the american political parties were reversed in their stripes, with the dems supporting slavery and racial discrimination, and the repubs opposed.
> 
> ...


Abroad as in "you can't drive there from Canada".

I'm in Asia.


----------

