User talk:Vfp15/Archive002

Archive 1 4 April 2005 to 11 April 2005

こんにちは。Aphaiaです。はじめまして。 お時間がありましたらWP:JCOTWの投票にご参加くださいませ（化けて編集画面で読みにくいので英語でも書いときます） If you have an interest, pleaee visit WP:JCOTW and vote, thanks. --Aphaea* 04:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Yamanote Line

Thanks. You may want to visit Template_talk:Yamanote_Line because not everyone feels the same way. It was modified to get rid of the circle, and I reverted it back, pending a resolution in the talk page. Neier 11:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Quebec page as living in or being associated with Quebec. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Quebec for instructions.--Rmky87 03:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Roger Ackroyd

I sympathize with your spoiler dilemna, but that's the whole reason for the spoiler tag, and there are plenty of other books on Wikipedia (e.g. Hary Potter) with massive spoilers in place. On the other hand, most of the Christie entries here do not reveal the plot. Not sure if that is due to the length of the articles, but there it is. So I would not opposed to doing so on the Ackroyd page, but there are two related issues. First, we can't say "as you can find on the web": it's against Wikipedia style. Better to not mention it at all. The bigger problem is that this particular spoiler is inherently important if one is to talk about the book in an encylopedic manner: the reaction to it is mentioned on the page. However, if you can find a way to remove the direct spoiler, or at least move it towards the bottom of the page, I'll probably be happy with it and not revert again. FWIW, I think this could go on the talk page. Someone going there should have at least read the book.

This book is one of my all-time favorites by the way, very sorry to hear that it was ruined for you. Hopefully the others weren't as well. Turnstep 03:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I would be fine with your proposal. You might want to make a note on the talk page to forestall any future edits by other people. ABC murders - that was a pretty good one. One of Poirot's earliest (and most famous) cases, as I recall. Turnstep 02:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Roger Ackroyd

I disagree with your comments on two grounds. One, mentioning the unreliable narrator doesn't give the ending away. It points out that the narrator isn't to be believed, but that doesn't mean that he's the killer. Two, more importantly, the article can't just be tailored to people who haven't read the book, but has to also consider people who have read the book and are looking for more information on it. I think the second group is a lot more significant, since it would be foolhardy to look up an article on a mystery novel one hasn't read. | Klaw Talk 16:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"You keep saying "can't" as in 'the unreliable narrator can't be left out'. You just want to make a selfish point." I'm not sure why you feel the need to throw around insults like "selfish;" surely two editors can have a civil debate over what does and does not belong in an article. It's the second time you've made a personal attack, so I'll ask you to keep your comments civil.

There is a spoiler warning towards the top of the Ackroyd article that reads: "Plot and/or ending details about the murderer's identity follow." (emphasis mine) The reader is thoroughly warned that reading the remainder of the article may result in the direct or indirect revelation of the ending of the novel. Endings are revealed all the time on Wikipedia in book and film articles, and as long as a {{spoiler}} warning appears, it's acceptable. On my Talk page, you listed six films with plot twists at the end and argued that knowing the ending would ruin the films. You should have checked the Wikipedia entries on those films. In three of them, the articles reveal the plot twists (after spoiler warnings) in the text: The Others (2001 film), Unbreakable, and The Shawshank Redemption. And one can deduce the twist in The Crying Game from the article's mention that Dil is played by Jaye Davidson.

The use of the unreliable narrator is the single distinguishing characteristic of this novel versus other Christie novels, and it is the source of the controversy that is mentioned several times in the article. The fact that the killer confesses at the end is not controversial. In other words, if you don't mention the unreliable narrator, you can't mention the controversy, because they are inextricably linked.

Looking at the Talk page, it appears that at one point, you ignored the spoiler warning and read the rest of the article anyway. The warnings are there for a reason, and you are mistaken in your attempts to keep spoilers out of articles that contain these warnings. | Klaw Talk 03:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I got your point, and I found your actions to be petty. (FWIW, I had seen all of those movies already.) Regardless, I have demonstrated that it is standard Wikipedia practice in articles on novels and films to disclose relevant plot details, including plot twists, as long as they are properly marked with the {{spoiler}} warning. You refused to heed a spoiler tag when you came to this article, but that doesn't mean other readers won't heed it, and it doesn't entitle you to deprive other readers of an explanation of the book's controversy. If you disagree with the handling of spoilers, then go to the community portal and start an RfC. | Klaw Talk 04:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please review the official Wikipedia policy that bans personal attacks, as well as as the policy on civility, both of which you have repeatedly violated in the last 48 hours [1]. | Klaw Talk 15:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

John Rawls

Hi Vfp15, thanks for fixing the subtle error in the Rawls article! (I completely missed that one!). I've reworded the crit section to make it clearer... let me know what you think... regards, Mikkerpikker ... 16:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for your message. In reply to yours: rightly or wrongly Rawls is most famous for the difference principle ("Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged"). The Right, of course, believes this is unfair & constitutes "class warfare" (Nozick's argument that progressive taxation is tantamount to slavery comes to mind). In other words, the Right hates Rawls because he's for (fairly radical) redistribution and that's anathema to their ideology. (the left likes Rawls for exactly this reason). You're correct of course that Rawls considers individual liberty the most important part of justice ("lexical priority" etc.) but this is forgotten by left and right alike... Mikker ^... 15:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely that the right's argument is weak; I'm basically Rawlsian in my political outlook and think his argument is unassailable (except that I think the veil of ignorance is "too thick" - but that's another matter). As for your view about the "win-win" issue - makes sense to me, although not all positive sum games would be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged so Rawls's criterion is stricter than what you imply. (i.e. the set of transactions acceptable to Rawls is a strict subset of all win-win transactions.). Anyway, regards, Mikker ^... 18:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Creative Commons licensing of Ny-Alesund picture

Greetings -- would you be willing to relicense your Ny-Alesund picture as Creative Commons v1.0 by-sa, so it can be used on Wikitravel's Ny-Ålesund article? Jpatokal 03:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lomborg / Quotes

You are correct that the use of quotes around a term can denote that the writer intends to have the reader infer that the so-enclosed text is non-factual. One problem here, though. There were no quotes around the word "official". Those marks were used, per Wikipedia procedure, to cause the text to appear italicized, just like that word, "italicized". And italics do not come with the same connotation as do the quotes. It's not that big a deal, it just read more smoothly with the italics. I'll leave it alone, because it's okay the way you had it. But I think with the italics more people—especially Lomborg's critics—would like it. To them it is important to recognize that just because he was cleared by the Ministry doesn't mean everyone thinks that he's fantastic—many ostensible scientists are still furious with him. Unschool 06:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

About the two Canadas

I saw your post on Liberlogos' discussion page and could not resist replying to you...

First, when the ancestors of today's Franco Ontarians settled areas north of the Great Lakes in the 19th century they were French Canadians. These people where never Québécois in today's sense of the word. Québécois and Franco Ontarions are both culturally descended from French Canadians.

You are quite confused here. Franco-Ontarians are descendants, for the most parts, of Franco-Quebecers (Québécois) and Acadians. You are making a distinction that does not make sense historically, even in the English language.

Thank you for telling me I'm confused. It warms my heart to see people care. Seriously, I'm not confused. The term "Québécois" today has nationalist connotations that it did not have before the révolution tranquille in the 1960s. French Canadians from all provinces feld a bond. That's why Louis Riel is considered a hero in Québec though he was from Manitoba. Should we call him a Québécois?

I do care. I don't like when people with great hearts and good intentions are mislead by sophistry. Yes, as I wrote "just like the words Canadian or American, it is also used to convey a cultural sense which is less universal of course." That's what you call "nationalist connotations". Because of the ambiguity of the word "Canada", its archaic meaning coexisting alongside its new modern meaning in the French language, it is Quebecers who were confused. Reading The 1867 Speech of Louis-Joseph Papineau at the Institut canadien and various of his writings dating of the post-1845 era helps to clear things up:

"Very blind are those who speak of the creation of a new nationality, strong and harmonious, on the northern bank of St Laurent and the Great Lakes, and who are unaware of or denounce the major and providential fact that this nationality is already very well formed, great, and growing unceasingly; that it cannot be confined to its current limits; that it has an irresistible force of expansion; that in the future it will be more and more made up of immigrants coming from all the countries of the world, no longer only from Europe, but soon of Asia, of which the overpopulation is five times more numerous and no longer has any other outfall than America (1); composed, says I, of all races of men, who, with their thousand religious beliefs, large mix of errors and truth, are pushed all by the Providence towards this common rendez-vous that will melt in unity and fraternity all of the human family." - LJ Papineau, 1867

The very blind people are us. For generations Franco-Quebecers will be split between those who realized, by checking the facts, that Quebec is, undisputably, our homeland, only it was renamed, and those who thought that since we were "Canadiens", the new Dominion of Canada was of course our country. We even had politicians entertaining the confusing willingly by saying "Le Quebec ma patrie, le Canada mon pays". How convenient! A nation that has a patria (fatherland) that is distinct from its country! If someone were to arbitrarily rename your son from Canada to Quebec and then introduced a second person named Canada in the picture, who would be your son, Quebec or Canada? What if Canada was not your son at all, but your great grand-father you of course never met, and you had never learned of the big fraud that saw him renamed to Quebec, who would be your grand-father? The only right answer in both cases is Quebec, but failure to follow the most basic laws of logical reasoning or ignorance of simple facts will lead people to think the answer is Canada.

« Il a grandi pour moi, cet amour du pays, avec toutes les fortes émotions que j'ai éprouvées. Il grandira avec toutes celles que j'éprouverai, jusqu'au moment suprême où la dernière pulsation de mon coeur sera pour la patrie et la nationalité franco-canadienne. » - LJ Papineau, Discours à l'assemblée du marché Bonsecours, 5 avril 1848 (Paru dans L'Avenir, les 8 et 9 avril 1848)

Second, when Gervais's father elected to live in the United Kingdom, the term "québécois" meant in French (it was never used in English) that someone came from the province of Québec, that's all. Even nationalists referred to themselves in those days as French Canadians, took great pride in being Canadian, and considered themselves true canadians, as opposed to upstart the loyalists in Ontario. Read the works of Lionel Groulx and see how often he mentions French Canada. Read books from the 1930s or 1940s.

In French, the term Québécois still means someone "from Québec". That is the meaning the word formally has in every text of law or any official state document. Informally, just like the words Canadian or American, it is also used to convey a cultural sense which is less universal of course. Yes, nationalist or not, Franco-Quebecers, from Quebec, New England or any province of the Dominion called themselves Canadiens français between 1840s and 1950s. However, it is completely wrong to think the Dominion of Canada has anything to do with the Canada that nationalists identified to from the birth of the "Québécois" nationality up until now.

When our ancestors started calling themselves Canadiens, Canada was essentially the St-Lawrence river valley. What is now Ontario was not Canada, it was a dependence of Canada named Les Pays d'en Haut (Read on this here http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/crccf/passeport/I/IA.html). The ethnonym Canadien precedes the birth of what we today call Canada in English and French by a good century and a half at the very least. There is much evidence of this and I can provide you with many many sources if you read French. When Canada, the biggest colony of New France, a royal province of the Kingdom of France, was legally ceded to the British crown in 1763, Canada was officially renamed the Province of Quebec. But our ancestors proudly kept calling themselves Canadiens even when the meaning of the word changed later on. This was known from the very start by the new British rulers and there are many many sources in English that you can find, in the writings of governor Murray and Carleton for example.

In 1774, the territory of the Province of Quebec was greatly expanded to include the territories that were formerly Les Pays d'en Hauts and Les Illinois during French rule (the whole of the Great Lakes where all the good fur was). That's about as big as Quebec ever got geographically speaking. In 1791, to provide for the settlements of the Loyalists, Quebec was divided along ethnic lines creating Lower Canada out of what was formerly known simply as Canada before and Upper Canada out of what was known as Les Pays d'en Hauts (which may be the reason for the "Upper" adjective here). No, the Franco-Catholic majority did not renamed themselves Bas-Canadiens even then: they of course continued to call themselves simply as Canadiens. The more recently settled British immigrants continued to call themselves English, Scottish, or Irish. When they did call themselves "Canadians", it was often a sign that they had assimilated to the majority culture which occured quite often through interethnic marriage.

The forced union of 1840 created a United Province of Canada out of two provinces that had evolved as two distinct societies: a young one, aged three quarters of a century, Upper Canada (Ontario), and an older one, aged over two centuries, Lower Canada (Quebec).

In former Upper Canada, a growing minority of people are born in a colony they call Canada, of settlers of British or British America origin (British Isles, USA). These ones will identify to their native land and will begin the process that was already very much over in Lower Canada, that is the rise of a national consciousness distinct from that of the mother country. We will end up with two "Canadian" nationalities.

When 1867 arrives, only 27 years after the forced union, the word "Canada" takes another meaning again: this is the birth of what most Canadians call "Canada" today. Canadians tend to consider everthing before 1867 as "colonial time", something Quebecers cannot do, especially those who know their history.

What happens to the first nationality, the one born under French rule? It is in big trouble. The St-Lawrence river valley has pretty much all been colonized. The nation cannot contain its own expansion: between 1840 and early 1930, some 900 000 Quebercers leave their home country, which they still call Canada out of tradition, for the United Sates, mostly the New England states. They are so numerous that the leaders of Quebec are panicking at first. To make a long story short, they will open up new countries (Saguenay, Lac-St-Jean, Abitibi, Témiscamingue) to try to attract the exiled ones back home to Quebec. The exile will also see the Quebec population spill to Ontario.

Third, "French Canada" is a usage you don't like. It is however factual and indicates all the areas in Canada where French is spoken as a native language: Québec, Acadie (New Brunswick and Nova Scotia), Ontario (where my grand mother was born), and Manitoba. There are also small French Canadian towns in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

That's the kind of errors ignorance of what "French Canada" used to be leads to. You are forgetting all the French Canadian towns of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, which saw many more French Canadian settlers than Ontario ever did, because you confuse the old Canada, born in 1608, and the Dominion of Canada, the one that didn't exist before 1867 and contains the old one as one of its province, namely Quebec. That is why former Prime Minister of Canada Lester B. Pearson spoke of Quebec as "the nation within the nation".

Fourth, proper encylopedic usage is to always indicate the country of origin (check in your Larousse the entries for Gilles Vignault and René Lévesque). The country is still Canada, not Québec.

That is unfortunately true. My passport says I am Canadian just like yours I presume.

Fifth, French Canadian is not "un usage ancien". I was born in 1965, I used the term in grade school, in high school, in CEGEP, and university. I may be entering middle ages, but I wasn't born in the middle ages ;-)

"French Canadian" tends to be replaced by "Francophone Quebecer" or "Francophone Canadian". This is a moving target of course. Acadians, who do not consider themselves French Canadians (because they know their own national history) prefer Francophone Canadian. You realize the added confusion here. In Quebec, speaking of "French Canadian" is almost out of usage in English and IS archaic in French outside historical context.

Finally, Wikipedia is not a political platform. You should present reality as it and as it was, not as you wish it to be. While it's fair to say Ricky Gervais has living Québécois relatives, like it or not he will always be of French Canadian ancestry, never Québecois. Vincent 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who that person is, so I cannot comment on his genealogy.

My conclusion is: I hope one day we can defeat the centralist-nationalist bunch of bigots who work so hard to divide Franco-Quebecers and its diaspora in the ROC and the USA. The Jews would have never built the State of Israel and resurrected the Hebrew language if they had not been united beyond their differences of language and culture. We should take them as an example (except for the part where they colonize their Palestinian neighbours ;-) -- Mathieugp 04:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confused, sorry. The term Québécois has nationalist connotations that did not exist in the nineteenth century, or even in the 1940s and 1950s. Before the 1960s, French Canadians from all provinces felt a common bond. In the 1960s the French Canadian nationalist movement split. The out-of-Québec francophones were recognized by Ottawa, and most of their grievances met. The Québec francophones were not satisfied with the new French powers from Ottawa and the French Canadian nationalist movement in Québec (meaning the affirmation of cultural identity) became a provincial movement aiming for independence. That’s when the current meaning of Québécois was really born, with all its emotional baggage.

I feel Trudeau the sophist behind your thinking here. "French power", "recognized by Ottawa", "most of their grievances met". All can be refuted by simple facts. 1) Out-of-Quebec Francophones' assimilation rates have increased since the adoption of Official Languages Act. Read Charles Castonguay's Getting the facts straight on French : Reflections following the 1996 Census, in Inroads Journal available online.

Personally, I am ambivalent. I prefer Canada to stay whole and I like being Canadian. And as long as the separatists wave flags and sing tearful songs about how perfect the world would be if Quebec became a sovereign nation, I oppose them. On the other hand, if more people like Boisclair and Dumont, smart pragmatic business people, convince a clear majority that Quebec works best as a separate country, then I'll concede defeat.

Depiction of "nationalists" as irrational, emotive women signing songs is an image implanted in so many people's head by centralist ultra-colonisated self-hating macho clowns like Trudeau. Supporters of Quebec independence within a Canadian union (René Lévesque) or without union (almost everyone else) have no mathematical lessons to receive from PET who never bothered to search for the evidence to support his ridiculous extravagant and meant-for-circus political claims. I can assure you that placing the hard facts before classes of mathematicians, programmers, scientists of all kinds would see a majority recognize the truth of our claims and placing our political claims before classes of jurists and philosophers would have a majority adhere to our cause, the universal cause of justice and equality in the name of Human dignity and reason. Statehood for free peoples, collective freedoms being absolutely necessary to individual freedoms.

But I've been living abroad so long now that it's not really my fight anymore... Vincent 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Living abroad, which I did by living in Alberta for 4 years (a nice country by the way except for naive politics), made me a Quebecer by choice whereas I was only a Quebecer by default before then. When Quebec is a free nation, you won't feel defeat, you will feel victory too, I can assure you. OK, enough 18th century Rhetoric for tonight. Sorry to bother you with my uncontrollable need to teach what I know to others... :-) -- Mathieugp 03:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me paraphrase what you wrote. Here goes...

Living without Christ, which I did by living as a humanist for 4 years (a nice philosophy by the way except for naive theology), made me a Christian by choice whereas I was only a Christian by default before then. When Christ reaches you, you won't feel defeat, you will feel victory too, I can assure you. OK, enough preaching for tonight. Sorry to bother you with my uncontrollable need to teach what I know to others.

I talk to you about reason and political liberty and you compare that to religion. My French User page makes it clear I have no religious belief. I can't figure it out. -- Mathieugp 15:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

No hard feelings. You seem ready and humble enough to take the piss out of yourself, and I respect that.

When people do not know how to argument using facts and logical inferences, they will often commit the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. Reading Artistole's On Sophistical Refutations will teach you how to spot fallacies and refute them. -- Mathieugp 15:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am too (sometimes anyway). However, I will feel defeat. I like being Canadian. Alberta is not a foreign country. I lived in BC for six months (worked on a CPR railroad crew) before moving to Tokyo, with BC and Alberta rednecks, with Newfies, with other Quebécois, with Indians (i.e. First Nations). One frustrated redneck did tell me to speak white, but no one else did. La Vérendrye's Rockies belong to me. If we ever learn to live with the First Nations we'll be richer for it.

I was never told to speak white by anyone. The Rockies do not belong to you or me. They are Humanity's heritage (read http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ca) and the collective proprety of multiple States. I would never claim ownership of a place just because I have lived there of visited the place, especially if it meant denying a homeland to multiple nations. Your nice encounter with all these people in a work context was made possible because of a common language English. A common language is good when it is chosen and respectful of peoples and individuals. You could also have worked in French in many cities of the word and made friends with people of all kinds of nationalities. Same with every language of the world. These are not arguments against the freedom of nations, on the contrary.

Here's where you could take the piss out of me: "Yeah, yeah, wouldn't it be nice if we could all live together in harmony blah blah blah... The tug of war with Ottawa, the frustrations at a soured relationship, these are sadly becoming good reasons for a divorce. Or we can sit down and count our blessings. I support the latter rather than the former. Vincent 04:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would never piss out on you, even with a gun to my head. That is not the way of gentlemen. The Quebec/Canada cannot be legitimately compared to a divorce. When did we fall in love? When did we choose to live together forever? Where is the contract?

"Les pays d'en haut" doesn't mean "Upper Canada"

Upper Canada and Lower Canada refer to the Fleuve Saint Laurent. Upper Canada (Ontario) is at a geographically higher elevation than Lower Canada (Québec). "Les pays d'en Haut" on the other hand refer to the Laurentides mountains. I think the Samuel de Champlain usage went out of style late 18th century at the latest.

No, Les pays d'en Haut doesn't refer to the Laurentian mountains. It refers to the land elevation as you wrote. The land elevation is very noticeable when riding a canoe either North or West of Montreal. :-)

Governor Frontenac ceded 4 seigneuries, Terrebonne, des Mille Iles, Deux-Montagnes and Argenteuil in what we call Les Laurentides. The British American Loyalists settled on the banks on the riviève des Outaouais as of 1785 and in 1791, Upper Canada is created out of the Northern part of the Great Lakes. After War of 1812, the borders were confirmed. The "Upper" in Upper Canada may not have anything to do with "Les Pays d'en Haut", but the land elevation does in both cases, hence my speculation it is related. "Les Pays d'en Haut" did refer to a huge piece of land around the Great Lakes made out of multiple countries inhabitated almost solely by Ameridians until Loyalist settlements in 1785 and American settlements in the Illinois and other parts down South. With the exception of Fort Detroit and Fort Michilimackinac, there were not permanent European population settlements North or West of Montreal in the time of New France. Things changed when the new British province named Upper Canada was created in 1791, 6 years after the 1785 settlements.

If you are interested in the country of Séraphin, you can read on the curé Antoine Labelle's colonisation des Laurentides which didn't start before 1877.

Remember Séraphin in "Les belles histoires des pays d'en haut"? No? Viande-à-chien, avac toutes les taxes qu'l'gouvarnement vient m'prendre, y' vous mont'ent rien à l'école :-) Séraphin was of course a sick conniving miser and viande-à-chien was his patois. Vincent 04:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW would you please answer posts all in one block? It's easier to keep track of things.

That is a pretty standard way to reply in Wikipedia. Point by point. Argment by argument.

Trudeau

Uh yes, he influenced me. What of it? So did Aristotle, Ayn Rand, Winston Churchill, Marcel Proust, Victor Hugo, Isaac Asimov, and J.R.R. Tolkien. Aristotle believed in slavery, Ayn Rand was blindly doctrinaire, Marcel Proust was long winded, Victor Hugo's was a little too holier-than-thou, Isaac Asimov was a bleeding heart liberal. Only Tolkien was beyond reproach (I guess). Great men have great flaws along with their great qualities.

Trudeau was a great man. I have a signed letter from him framed and on my desk right now. His motto was "La raison avant la passion". He is a hero of mine, but he is not above criticism. (He visited Mao and Castro for Pete's sake! Why not Hitler while you're at it...) René Lévesque was also a great man. (Stephen Harper and Jean Charest are not, or at least they're smaller great men.) A book about the 1980 referendum featured Trudeau and Levesque on the cover. The title was Clash of the Titans (ironic given they were both under 5'8").

Whaterver you feel about how great Trudeau was, history wil judge him for what he did not based on the image the Anglo-Canadian media fabricated to have him elected. I don't idolize people, whatever their physical size. Trudeau was not about reason, I can assure you of that. It is only because Levesque was so passionate that he appeared to be a man of reason.

Nationalism: Emotional or Rational

You wrote: "Depiction of "nationalists" as irrational, emotive women signing songs is an image implanted in so many people's head by centralist ultra-colonisated self-hating macho clowns like Trudeau."

Not at all. I lived through those times, I remember the songs, the flag waving. Don't you remember "C'est le début d'un temps nouveau!" when the PQ got into power? And doesn't it choke you up even now? (It does me, and I'm a federalist!) Don't you remember the "Une fois cinq" show in the 1970s? Don't you remember everyone singing "Mon cher René" at his funeral?

I was born in 1979. I surely do not remember this. I did notice how the who of the artistic community supported the PQ and how the media created images that distorded reality. It must be difficult to make the distinction between what the facts where and what the media showed for people who were there at the time.

Don't you remember Parizeau's drunken slur "C'est la faute aux ethnies?" Don't you remember more recently Bernard Landry's shameful comments when Michel Tremblay dared to express his opinion that maybe Québec didn't have to split from Canada?

Fact 1: Parizeau was not drunk.

Fact 2: He never said "C'est la faute aux ethnies?", He said "C'est vrai, c'est vrai qu'on a été battus, au fond, par quoi? Par l'argent puis des votes ethniques, essentiellement."

Fact 3. Ottawa spent millions to get leaders of various anglicized minority groups to instill fear of the evil Quebec nationalists, hence the ethnic votes of some large communities. In the analysis of voting patterns, an "ethnic vote" is a vote where members of a given ethnic group strongly support a candidate or an option in a distinct manner. For example, Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote that French-Canadians have historically voted for the candidate with a French name instead of voting for the candidate with the best policy for Quebec, thereby implying that our vote was ethnic, not civic like.

Fact 4. During the 1995, only Francophones, of all origins, voted in a civic manner, with 60% voting YES and 40% voting NO. Parizeau was wrong by supporting the ethnic vote theory. In Quebec, the votes are linguistic, not ethnic.

Fact 5. Some cultural communities close to Quebec Francophones, Haitians for example, voted YES in much higher proportions than cultural communities that are more integrated as part of the Anglophone community.

Fact 5. Ottawa broke Quebec referendum law by transfering public money to private organizations located in Quebec. Money and fear vote is what Parizeau should have said to be accurate on the facts.

Look, I don't mean it's bad to feel good about an independent Québec. I mean it's bad to decide on independence because it feels good. Give me Boisclair and his like any day. He's the PQ version of Bourassa: the young technocratic genius.

And yes, I realize I also get emotional. But when I stop and think, I still prefer to remain Canadian: greater influence in the world, a bigger country to live in, more variety, fewer business constraints, etc. Hey, I'm pro globalization and pro free trade. I want to see borders come down. Would it be logical for me to support their creation? Vincent 04:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to be ashamed of having emotions. What is shameful is to depict supporters of Quebec independence as irrational women and people against it as rational men. It is not rational to just be against borders. I am against some borders for some reasons under certain conditions. That is rational. -- 15:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe you're right. Thanks for teaching me about Aristotle and about Trudeau and assuring me of so many things. I appreciate it. Cheers, Vincent 00:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)