From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English school: quotes
Date: 23 Sep 92 21:02:45 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 3446

From article <Bv19It.6sD@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
> In article <1992Sep22.080925.10839@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>From article <12920@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
>>> In article <1992Sep17.091214.29627@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>> ]I might say that England was an independent country/state long before
>>> ]the European Union was created. Denis would probably then say that
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> ]Quebec was an independent country (of sorts) before it was "invaded" by
>>> ]the British.
>>> 
>>> Don't you think there is a big gap between 1534 and 1760-63 (or 1867
>>> if you prefer)?
>>> 
>>
>>Of course. Perhaps you could explain it to Denis.
>                                             ^^^^^
> 
> So, Steve, you invent something I never said (I never said Quebec was
> independent before).  Then, someone comments and you then said I shall
> be informed.  Where are the smilies?  What are you trying to do?  

My comment was in relation to a reference to England's position with
respect to the EEC. (The EEC is a not a confederation, btw). I had suggested
that I might say that England was an independent country/state long before
the "European Union" (borrowing somebody else's words) was created. :-)

You complain bitterly, and regularly, that Quebec was invaded by the 
British. If two or three hundred years have passed since then it doesn't
alter your judgement that the "British" of today are still somehow
responsible. :-(

A reasonable inference from your stated position is that "Denis would
probably then say that Quebec was an independent country (of sorts)
before it was "invaded" by the British." :-)

I thought you might use my own, suggested, argument (w.r.t. England)
against me (w.r.t. Quebec). :-)

I should have put smileys - there was no offense or provocation
intended.

> Invent something very bad I would have think and then from your
> imagination finding me some reason to bach you and then for the reason
> you would have invented, answer me back, even if I said absolutely nothing
> in that?
> 

You surprise me.

> Am I so powerful or do you think I am very representative of oppressive
> Quebecois that if you can convince me, then you can convince everybody?
> 

Convince you of what?

> Please stop using my name like that.  You don't and can't read in my mind,
> thus you can't find my actual opinions. 

Quite right.

> You're not a god, you're just an immigrant that was poorly informed
> about target country.
> 

I am not a god.

Do you distinguish between "immigrant" and "citizen"?

hmmm

By "citizen" I mean "Canadian citizen", of course.

Perhaps "immigrant" and "(Canadian) citizen" mean the same thing to 
people like you.

Certainly Bill 101 doesn't distinguish. Anyone who landed here after
26th August 1977, (Canadian) citizen or landed immigrant, has less
rights than anyone who landed before that date.

What is your definition of "immigrant" (for those of us who are unable
to read or understand your mind), Denis?


-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||