🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fawzi-2309960022500001@news1.vir.com>, fawzi@vir.com says...
>
>In article (Dans l�article) <324487b3.24134236@news.mbnet.mb.ca>,
>software_answers@cyberspc.mb.ca (S.Pickell) wrote (�crivait)�:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 19:03:55 -0400, fawzi@vir.com (Fawzi) wrote:
>> 
>> >Second, by making such statements you and others who think like 
>> >you, are implicitely making threats.
>> >What M.Pickell stated is as close as you can get to the "Go ahead, 
>> >make my day!" type of statement.
>> 
>> I find this hard to beleive, what I said was,that I didn't think the
>> rest of Canada would side idle while revolutionaries like yourself
>> tear our country to pieces.
>
>First I would call that a threat wouldn't you?
>
It would depend on whether you consider it a defensive as opposed
to an offensive comment.

>Second, a revolutionary takes power by force.  I have no such 
>violent intent.
>
So if parts of Quebec vote with a clear majority that they do
not want to separate from Canada, you will not force their areas
into a new Quebec?

>Third, tearing a country to pieces or destruction of a country, 
>is something quite different than changing the political status 
>of part of that country.
>
Hmm, and here I always thought a country was defined by its
political status.(ie. federation, confederation, socialist, etc.)

>So, we obviously don't have the same perception of reality.
>
>> I think you read what you wanted into it.
>> Why would you make such assinine remarks, and then attempt 
>> to get more mileage out of the remark than it deserved.
>
>A threat is a threat.
>
Unless it is a misunderstanding, usually caused by a lack of
communication.
>
>> > It will change absolutely nothing to the way you live:

>> That's only guess work on your part, you have no facts to 
>> prove that statement to anyone.

>> >There won't be less money in your pocket, you'll still have 
>> >your home, you'll still feel canadian. 
>> >So what's the big deal?
>
>> It seems you don't get it do you, and quite possibly never will.
>
>Please make me get it...  Is what I said untrue?
>I'm curious to hear you say how you love us and don't want us 
>to "go" but still are willing to declare war if we choose our 
>own future as a country.
>And by the way, we're not "going" anywhere, and you'll still 
>be able to travel from sea to shinnig sea, and you'll still be 
>able to come and see the Manoir Richelieu.  So as I said, the 
>difference a sovereign Quebec would make in your life style is 
>hardly a reason to declare war.  Try to put things back into 
>perspective...
>
Again, if parts of Quebec chose not to go with Quebec, where is
the guarantee from your government that their democratic rights
will be respected?  Or, is it only tyranny when Canada has the
majority?
> 
>> >Quebecers won't close down english schools or close down 
>> >english radio stations, every acquired right of any minority 
>> >in a sovereign Quebec is to
>> >be respected...  So again what's the big deal?
>
How are they to "acquire" their rights if the Quebec government
has already shown an ability to legislate against English in the 
past?  Where is the written guarantee and if the government doesn't
even respect Quebec's laws, how will it be upheld?

>> Here again you are just guessing, with no facts to back you 
>> up again.
>
>It is no guess, it was in the law that was to be adopted when 
>I voted Yes last october 30th.  
>
>Get informed.
>
And just where might I find this "law" that was supposed to be
adopted?  Why can it not be adopted now?
>
>Fawzi Dormeyer

G.C.