Slashdot Mirror

Misogyny isn't limited to outright hatred - see miÂsogÂyÂnisÂtic - adjective - reflecting or exhibiting hatred, dislike, mistrust, or mistreatment of women. The wikipedia article goes on to further extend the definition as it's used today.

To argue (as some have tried) that we should stick to the meaning of the greek root term is facile. To do so would render most English terms useless. Example: blasphemy - it comes from two words that mean "stupid words". Combining them gives a different meaning, even in the original language. (Of course, it's not nearly as complicated as flammable and inflammable :-p

So my stance is that this sort of mistreatment is mostly a gender-specific problem, that it's much worse in IT than most other fields, and that it reflects ingrained cultural misogynistic/patriarchal attitudes on the people involved.

This isn't to say that men are "Teh EBIL!" or anything - most guys, the first time they unthinkingly drop an f-bomb or two around me, know what "that look" means and apologize, and make an effort to keep it clean (a futile effort, of course, because programming does tend to "encourage" people to swear, but at least they try, and that's good enough because it's the thought that counts).

And I certainly am not going to complain about men holding the door open for me, or any of the other common courtesies. It helps compensate for the animals, like the total stranger earlier this summer who tried to propose to me in the subway and then groped me and try to shove his tongue down my throat when I told him to get lost ... which made me wonder if I had picked up YALS (Yet Another L4m3r Stalker) ...

We have to recognize that equal doesn't mean identical. If you and your boss get into a shouting match, it's one thing ... but if a boss or co-worker loses it on me, I'm not going to be listening to what he's saying - I'm looking for the exit. It takes 2, and I'm not going to be an enabler of childish behaviour - plus it makes me *very* uncomfortable.

They did experiments where a dog just sat in the corner during meetings. Didn't interact with the people, just sat there. And the meetings were more productive, more cooperative, more got done, people just behaved better. It might help explain why so much more seemed to get done during the dot-com boom, where everyone brought their pets to work ... pets supply the "social lubricant" to get people to talk to each other about something other than business or code. It's a more "family-feeling" environment, and more productive. And yet ultimately it was replaced with what we have today - an environment that's less conducive to productivity, less open to cooperation, a structure that practically forces managers to be total jerks, so they don't feel to happy about themselves even as they're "passing it on" to those under them, and are powerless to change it. "It's the way things are."

A few years back, between jobs, I was doing the "visit companies, introduce myself, see if there's a need for my services" thing, and I was offered a job - not as a programmer, but as a temp receptionist/secretary/office manager. I took it, and I have to say, it's MUCH more enjoyable. I got to deal with the public, with vendors, with the workers, customers, ... compared to the comparative isolation in which we work as programmers, it was FUN! We really don't see how dysfunctional the IT environment is until we get out of it and see how the rest of the world lives.

This leads me to wonder if most of the people in IT gravitate to it because they're lacking some of the social skills to interact with "nermals". It would explain the toxic work environment, the insane hours that are seen as a badge of honour rather than what they really are - a total, TOTAL failure of

Misogynist - a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women.

Casual sexism is misogyny

Hags, dogs, whores, bitches. It's amazing how much hate you can pack into a few syllables. How do you spot a woman-hater? By the way they talk about women, treat women, react to women, represent women. Bitching about women, slagging off women â" even the language used to describe such slander comes from misogyny. The ubiquitous verbal violence supports physical violence and nobody, male or female, minds. If I were called a Paki in the street, I would have some hope of it being taken seriously. If I were called a slag â" as I was last summer by a man on a bicycle, in Stepney â" nobody would consider it report-worthy.

When a workplace misogynist comes calling

Beauty and misogyny: harmful cultural practices in the West pp 115ff, dealing with the workplace.

Misogeny isn't just about the greek root word, and not all misogynists are looking to beat the pulp out of women.

I'd prefer a reliable dictionary over wikipedia, like any one of:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misogyny

Or if we must, the first line of wikipedia:
Misogyny (play /msdni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls.

And not some random person's interpretation that happened to be picked by some wikipedia editor.

repeated at irregular intervals; intermittent: periodic outbreaks of the disease.

Link

What is "your're"? I know of you're (only 1 'r'), but not "your're".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/woosh

whoosh or woosh

— n
1. a hissing or rushing sound
2. a rush of emotion: a whoosh of happiness

The whole term is dumb. You don't photoshop something in GIMP, for instance... just like you don't xerox on a Cannon.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/xerox

noun 2. ( sometimes lowercase ) a copy made on a xerographic copying machine.
verb (used with object), verb (used without object) 3. ( sometimes lowercase ) to print or reproduce by xerography.

See also: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/photoshop — vb , -shops , -shopping , -shopped ( tr ) to alter (a digital photograph or other image), using an image editing application, especially Adobe Photoshop
Notice it says especially, not exclusively.


My point is that you most certainly do photoshop something in G.I.M.P..

The whole term is dumb. You don't photoshop something in GIMP, for instance... just like you don't xerox on a Cannon.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/xerox

noun 2. ( sometimes lowercase ) a copy made on a xerographic copying machine.
verb (used with object), verb (used without object) 3. ( sometimes lowercase ) to print or reproduce by xerography.

See also: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/photoshop — vb , -shops , -shopping , -shopped ( tr ) to alter (a digital photograph or other image), using an image editing application, especially Adobe Photoshop
Notice it says especially, not exclusively.


My point is that you most certainly do photoshop something in G.I.M.P..

Well...

I see a blocking problem on our "arbitrary" discussion, as I'm getting more and more confused on its use on your argument. Sometimes, we need to be picky in order to pursue a misunderstanding^w understanding about what the f*ck we are arguing about! =D

So, please, let's forget a while our argument about marijuana, and shift it to an argument about the argument itself (God, we are going to meta-argumenting - how slashdotting can this be?)

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary :

arbitrary [ahr-bi-trer-ee]
arbitrary [ahr-bi-trer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -traries.

adjective
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5. Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

noun
6.arbitraries, Printing . (in Britain) peculiar ( def. 9 ) .

I don't think definition number 1 can be, correctly, applied to your argument as most drugs ban are condoned by the majority of the population - not to mention that the guys that ruled the ban were elected as the people representatives. You can argue that people are being misguided to elect representatives that do not represent our real interests (and you'll probably be right), but this is another problem.

Definition number 2 was applicable in the past, but not anymore. Explicit legislation exists today to ban some drugs (again, you can argue about the correctness of the legislation, but again, it's anther problem).

Definition number 3 does not applies neither, as if it applies we simply could not be having this conversation. As a side note, Brazilian drugs law in the 1970`s were arbitrary by this definition, as any public pro-drugs statement would be classified as "drugs apology", a federal felony!

Maybe the definition number 4 would apply - but again, the majority of people either support or does not care about the issue, so I don't think the "unsupported" applies. Since there're ongoing efforts on studying the matter, the "unreasonable" does not applies neither. So it would be a weak argumentation.

Exampling, the Prohibition of alcohol can be tagged as arbitrary, because the people didn't support it at all - definitions 1, 2 and 3 full applies here (and 4 partially, as it was unsupported by most part of the people).

5 and 6 are completely off our topic, I hope we do not have to argue about it. :-)

(to be continued).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/percentage Get off your fucking high horse.

It's more likely it piqued your interest.

It's only correct if you stopped speaking English for that one word, otherwise the plural form is "viruses"

inalienable right: a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred

An inalienable right can not be denied, at all, period. Free speech is not an inalienable right. And, the First Amendment does not grant a right to free speech nor make such a right inalienable. It states that the "Congress shall make no law"... It prevents the government from making a law, it does not grant the right. It assumes the right exists and prevents the FEDERAL government from interfering with it. And, as proof that free speech is not inalienable, look at the laws preventing one from inciting rights and yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.

The First Amendment is a right FROM something. It is not, as this law would be, an inalienable right TO something.

It's not a mis-spelling: it's whinging. Comes from whinge.

So there.

As in, Bell also avoided any recognition that he invented the telephone in his future years, maybe guilt was on his conscience,

-Pedant Society

(The grammar society may also want to weigh in at some point)

words are things with single, hard definitions that never change and must conform

This absolutely must be the case. Imagine how useless mathematics would be if numbers arbitrarily changed value. Words are the tools we use to communicate. Just because someone thinks he's clever going around and changing the definition of words doesn't actually help progress, it hinders it.

Er, most English words have multiple definitions. It is absolutely, unequivocally not the case. Indeed, the more commonly a word is used, the more definitions it tends to have. While a mathematic set means only one thing, the word "set" itself has nearly 120 distinct meanings and can function as a noun, verb, or adjective. How do we know the difference? The same way a computer program understands which overloaded function or operator to use: context. Without that context, the words lose concreteness, which is why Wikipedia has all those nice disambiguation pages. This is why we see all those qualifiers on GNU sites for "free (as in speech)" vs "free (as in beer)." The most famous example I can think of for multiple meanings of the same word is the famous grammatically correct sentence "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" although that sentence is also generally used as an example of semantic saturation.

This inherent ambiguity in language is what causes jargon to come in to being. When language needs to be precise, such as mathematics, science, engineering, medicine, and so on, we use specialized languages which contain words that only have one meaning which has been agreed upon. In that sense, we define an overall context so that when we say "protocol" we know if we mean "protocol (medicine)" or "protocol (computing)."

An interesting thing to note is that one of the major causes of confusion in communication is when the context or meaning of words is not agreed upon. The fact that this happens reveals how complex communication actually is. As a speaker/writer, not only must I phrase my message using words and syntax that I understand, I must do so in a way which I believe my listener/reader will then translate back into the same meaning I'm trying to communicate. On some level I must anticipate how the words I use will be interpreted by the listener/reader, including things such as my tone of voice, inflection, pauses, punctuation, etc. As a reader or listener, I must account for this inherent ambiguity of language and try to pick up on the clues left in the message to try to interpret what is actually meant based on what I have heard. Accurate communication, then, requires near empathic levels of understanding. Words do not mean what only the speaker says or only the listener. Both are valid meanings. The art of communication is getting those two meanings as close to identical as possible.

Smug free screens on multi-touch displays

Freud strikes again?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smug

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smudge

I also liked this one, but couldn't make a joke out of it:

Raiser blades.

Razor blades.

Smug free screens on multi-touch displays

Freud strikes again?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smug

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smudge

I also liked this one, but couldn't make a joke out of it:

Raiser blades.

Razor blades.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/many

You keep saying that, but in reality, yes there has to be intent. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

No, just no.

"Pirated" copies do not use the original producers resources nor do they diminish them in ANY way.

Economically (in respect to the original producing company), there is no difference between a person who does not buy and does not listen/watch/read/etc the media, and a person who obtains and "consumes" an unofficial copy.

Technically even stealing a copy from Wal-mart wouldn't be stealing from the original producing company as the product has already changed hands and has been paid for.

I'm not even going to get into the moral side of the argument because I am not informed enough to do so, but every time I hear or read of someone trying to say torrenting / downloading is stealing it makes me metaphorically want to punch a baby.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
First entry for steal:

to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.

The watch in the example was indeed stolen; the owner had one less watch and the thief had one more. In the case of torrented or downloaded data the original producer does not lose a copy, but one who downloads gains a brand new copy created with the resources of whomever is seeding the torrent or hosting the download. IT IS NOT STEALING!

Yes it is copyright infringement, but as that was not what you were saying the point is moot.

Oh and after re-reading your post I found something, that I believe to be a mistake, that brings a great big smirk to my face. :)
You:"It is equivalent to going into a music store and taking a copy off the racks and walking about without paying."
Emphasis on "walking about"; it is not theft until you leave the store.

There are two meanings of the word "Universe" in this context that give the sentence two interpretations.

First: "[Everything that is and ever shall be] is ending in the eyes of LEGO."
Second: "[The MMO Lego Universe] is ending in the eyes of LEGO."

Two meanings of a word are being used for humorous effect. How is that *not* a pun, which is "the humorous use of a word or phrase so as to emphasize or suggest its different meanings or applications...."? The first interpretation is (slightly) funny, and not all definitions of "pun" even require humor [eg. "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son[/sun] of York"]. They aren't required to use homophones, either. Multiple meanings of the same word or phrase are fine.

Of all the AC's calling it not a pun, none have justified their view. I wish you would so I would see what common misconception you all have, or perhaps what I'm missing.

mayor

Major: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/major
Mayor: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mayor

This even in 1997 with Windows 95. When a modern desktop doesn't let you do what ordinary users casually did with Windows 95 YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.

That does not a compelling argument make. Sometimes leaving redundant features out is actually useful, and sometimes including some features doesn't make any sense at all. As such you cannot just make such an all-encompassing claim like that.

mayor

Major: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/major
Mayor: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mayor

This even in 1997 with Windows 95. When a modern desktop doesn't let you do what ordinary users casually did with Windows 95 YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.

That does not a compelling argument make. Sometimes leaving redundant features out is actually useful, and sometimes including some features doesn't make any sense at all. As such you cannot just make such an all-encompassing claim like that.

Nothing wrong with being liberal. Nothing the OP said fits the definition of liberal, so please stop misusing the word.

Liberal - adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.
8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

The "substance" changes, but not the "accidents". The "substance" is something that is unobservable. The "accidents" are the observable part of the bread and wine.

You can't win a debate by changing the definition of the words mid-argument. From the dictionary:

They didn't change the definition mid-argument. This stuff is just 500 Years old and they used these words from Substance theory, which is a philosophical theory. I believe Aristotle started using these words.

The "substance" changes, but not the "accidents". The "substance" is something that is unobservable. The "accidents" are the observable part of the bread and wine.

You can't win a debate by changing the definition of the words mid-argument. From the dictionary:

substance
  [suhb-stuhns]
noun

• 1. that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: form and substance.
• 2. a species of matter of definite chemical composition: a chalky substance.
• 3. controlled substance.
• 4. the subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc.
• 5. the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality.

Trans-substantiation means changing the substance, yes. However, substance is that which is real and observable.
Additionally, for the curious, the other made-up meaning really is:

accident [ak-si-duhnt]
noun

• 1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.
• 2. Law. such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought.
• 3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.
• 4. chance; fortune; luck: I was there by accident.
• 5. a fortuitous circumstance, quality, or characteristic: an accident of birth.

Thus, the claim of trans-substantiation is perfectly NOT compatible with science, because it's provably false. Also icky. Seriously, eating bits of human flesh and blood? Very unhealthy. Canibal cult anyone?

Are you just mad that you weren't first in line? Or are you mad that you didn't know that they were practically giving the phone away to the first ten customers each day? Perhaps you're mad because you paid through the nose for an iPhone instead of getting an arguably better phone right next door?

Hmm. So in a discussion about whether shipped = sold for Apple, the OP stated that most iPhones sold at telcos ignoring that Apple has a huge retail advantage in that they have their own stores. And your response is to levy insults. That adds a lot to this discussion.

Also, your claim that Samsung doesn't have a store is kinda broken when you link to an article indicating that they have a store

You should read that article again. This time look for the words "temporary" and "pop-up".

Origin: 1400–50; late Middle English falsifien Related forms
falsifiable, adjective
falsifiability, noun
falsification [fawl-suh-fi-key-shuhn] Show IPA, noun
falsifier, noun
nonfalsifiable, adjective
unfalsifiable, adjective
unfalsified, adjective

More importantly, you already knew the word was a valid and widely used word, but for some reason disregarded the link I already gave you. In the link it says

Falsifiability has even been used in court decisions in this context as a key deciding factor to distinguish genuine science from the nonscientific.

So ya, Falsifiability, is actually a requirement of the Scientific Method.
Falsifiability <- In our context

Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion or a theory is the logical possibility that the assertion (or the theory) can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that it in principle can be disproven by observation.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." —Mark Twain

Origin: 1400–50; late Middle English falsifien Related forms
falsifiable, adjective
falsifiability, noun
falsification [fawl-suh-fi-key-shuhn] Show IPA, noun
falsifier, noun
nonfalsifiable, adjective
unfalsifiable, adjective
unfalsified, adjective

More importantly, you already knew the word was a valid and widely used word, but for some reason disregarded the link I already gave you. In the link it says

Falsifiability has even been used in court decisions in this context as a key deciding factor to distinguish genuine science from the nonscientific.

So ya, Falsifiability, is actually a requirement of the Scientific Method.
Falsifiability <- In our context

Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion or a theory is the logical possibility that the assertion (or the theory) can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that it in principle can be disproven by observation.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." —Mark Twain

Origin: 1400–50; late Middle English falsifien Related forms
falsifiable, adjective
falsifiability, noun
falsification [fawl-suh-fi-key-shuhn] Show IPA, noun
falsifier, noun
nonfalsifiable, adjective
unfalsifiable, adjective
unfalsified, adjective

More importantly, you already knew the word was a valid and widely used word, but for some reason disregarded the link I already gave you. In the link it says

Falsifiability has even been used in court decisions in this context as a key deciding factor to distinguish genuine science from the nonscientific.

So ya, Falsifiability, is actually a requirement of the Scientific Method.
Falsifiability <- In our context

Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion or a theory is the logical possibility that the assertion (or the theory) can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that it in principle can be disproven by observation.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." —Mark Twain

Origin: 1400–50; late Middle English falsifien Related forms
falsifiable, adjective
falsifiability, noun
falsification [fawl-suh-fi-key-shuhn] Show IPA, noun
falsifier, noun
nonfalsifiable, adjective
unfalsifiable, adjective
unfalsified, adjective

More importantly, you already knew the word was a valid and widely used word, but for some reason disregarded the link I already gave you. In the link it says

Falsifiability has even been used in court decisions in this context as a key deciding factor to distinguish genuine science from the nonscientific.

So ya, Falsifiability, is actually a requirement of the Scientific Method.
Falsifiability <- In our context

Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion or a theory is the logical possibility that the assertion (or the theory) can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that it in principle can be disproven by observation.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." —Mark Twain

The profit margin only speaks greater to the efficacy of apple marketing (which is proportional to the dupability of fanboy consumers).

Just moments ago you were saying 'apple doesn't care about sales', and now you're pointing at per-unit profitability as a measure of success... I thought they didn't care? You are fanboy, defined.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fanatic

>> You can f.e. unlock a phone in phone mode by swiping to the right and unlock it in camera mode by swiping to the left.

Not to be a pedant, but just wanted to offer a suggestion: You should use "e.g." instead of "f.e." which has been long established as the common abbreviation of "for example" or "for instance."

            -dZ.

That's a)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/priority

priority: noun,
1.
the state or quality of being earlier in time, occurrence, etc.
2.
the right to precede others in order, rank, privilege, etc.; precedence.
3.
the right to take precedence in obtaining certain supplies, services, facilities, etc., especially during a shortage.
4.
something given special attention.

Here you go:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/destitute

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epic

Looks like (3) and (4) fit just fine for the event. It shouldn't be used by the news because they will start everything they broadcast/publish at the "epic" mark. Wait, they already do. :)

Learnt is past tense of learn. Learned is an adjective.

You are the one with the poor grasp of English. From the dictionary:
integrity [in-teg-ri-tee] Show IPA
noun
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.

And you need to learn to use a dictionary. It's not a multiple choice test with only one right answer, they are all valid definitions:

1.
adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2.
the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
3.
a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull.

In any case, this was translated from a Foreign language so the word "integrity" was chosen by the translator. It's possible the word which should have been used was "safety", since the website was less about exposing police abuses and more about simply publishing private information about individual officers. While technically speaking "integrity" would also fulfill this definition, that's not how we commonly use it in everyday practice.

Jean-Claude Delage, secretary general of the APN, said that '[t]he judges have analyzed the situation perfectly—this site being a threat to the integrity of the police — and made the right decision.'

integrity /integrit/ Noun: The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

It seems that they have a bit of a problem with their English. A site that shines light onto questionable behaviors promotes integrity, as you should be acting in private in such a way that you can defend your actions if they were to ever become public. It's an intrinsic quality. This is only a threat in newspeak, or if you think perception is reality. I guess that statement might make sense if he were talking about the cohesion of the police, but that would imply far greater dissent within their ranks concerning what behaviors have been revealed...

You are the one with the poor grasp of English. From the dictionary:
integrity [in-teg-ri-tee] Show IPA
noun
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.

The terms you're looking for are:

Slander
Libel
Defamation

Now, you may be liable for some form of damages/action in a civil lawsuit thereby...

Getting back to the root of the issue - Canada doesn't have proper free speech protections (as the abuses by their so-called "human rights commission" indicate). That's what makes such a seemingly minor court case seem so important - the protection of unpopular speech from repressive government action or repressive action by determined individuals does not exist in Canada. Even the ability to say "See, these guys over in (country X with proper freedom of speech protection) say the following" is curtailed, sadly.

The terms you're looking for are:

Slander
Libel
Defamation

Now, you may be liable for some form of damages/action in a civil lawsuit thereby...

Getting back to the root of the issue - Canada doesn't have proper free speech protections (as the abuses by their so-called "human rights commission" indicate). That's what makes such a seemingly minor court case seem so important - the protection of unpopular speech from repressive government action or repressive action by determined individuals does not exist in Canada. Even the ability to say "See, these guys over in (country X with proper freedom of speech protection) say the following" is curtailed, sadly.

The terms you're looking for are:

Slander
Libel
Defamation

Now, you may be liable for some form of damages/action in a civil lawsuit thereby...

Getting back to the root of the issue - Canada doesn't have proper free speech protections (as the abuses by their so-called "human rights commission" indicate). That's what makes such a seemingly minor court case seem so important - the protection of unpopular speech from repressive government action or repressive action by determined individuals does not exist in Canada. Even the ability to say "See, these guys over in (country X with proper freedom of speech protection) say the following" is curtailed, sadly.

The terms you're looking for are:

Slander
Libel
Defamation

Now, you may be liable for some form of damages/action in a civil lawsuit thereby...

Getting back to the root of the issue - Canada doesn't have proper free speech protections (as the abuses by their so-called "human rights commission" indicate). That's what makes such a seemingly minor court case seem so important - the protection of unpopular speech from repressive government action or repressive action by determined individuals does not exist in Canada. Even the ability to say "See, these guys over in (country X with proper freedom of speech protection) say the following" is curtailed, sadly.

Every age has some bandwagon we can all hitch ourselves to and make headlines. I guess this decade it's climate science. The "science" here is dubious; I think he's really stretching.

What I think bothers me more is the imprecise use of language in the article.

The European conquest of the Americas decimated the people living there

And then later

Smallpox, diphtheria and other diseases from Europe ultimately wiped out as much as 90 percent of the indigenous population.

So what's wrong with this? Well, see here

Because the etymological sense of one-tenth remains to some extent, decimate is not ordinarily used with exact fractions or percentages: Drought has destroyed (not decimated ) nearly 80 percent of the cattle.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimate

they cast doubt on the scientific evidence for a connection between tobacco and lung cancer, or between fossil fuels and climate change, or even between humans and our primate ancestors.

Conflate.

I don't think you're sentiment is as cut and dry as you think.

So you failed regular school as well as the Troll Academy.

The possessive pronoun is your, and the phrase you're (= you are) thinking of is cut and dried .

let me point you to the 2 word definitions you seem to never have been taught.

based
weird

cower in my shadow some more behind your castration apparel based pseudonym, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

let me point you to the 2 word definitions you seem to never have been taught.

based
weird

cower in my shadow some more behind your castration apparel based pseudonym, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

According to the current understanding, birds are a subfamily of dinosaurs.

According to the definition of the word "dinosaur", birds are not dinosaurs. (Note that, although one definition on that page says "one group of dinosaurs evolved into birds", that doesn't mean that they continued to be dinosaurs after they became birds.)