|
Post by Balfour on Oct 23, 2007 16:22:56 GMT -8
I didn't realize this was only a Vancouver thing either. Halloween gets pretty insane up here, most of the schools nearby turn into warzones, and of course there are the wild drunken parties associated going well into the wee hours of the morning.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 23, 2007 16:47:02 GMT -8
Fireworks are not sold widely in Toronto around Halloween. However last year was the first year I noticed some of them going off. Mostly very late. Seems a bunch of kids put fireworks into everyone's jack'o lanterns/pumpkins and blew them up.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 23, 2007 17:35:27 GMT -8
My "Why the sky is blue?" question for the week is this: Apparently, there is a tradition in the Vancouver area (and virtually no where else in North America) for individuals to procure and set off fireworks on Halloween. I've never heard of this (until an hour ago), and as usual, enquiring minds want to know! - So, is this something that really happens?
- How widespread is it?
- Does anyone have any background info on why or how this became a tradition in parts of BC and nowhere else around these parts?
- Who thinks that consumer fireworks are more a nuisance than anything else? (I do!!)
As my cat would say, just curious................ I am / was 99% sure that Brian's question was satirical. To me, that's like asking if we Canadians have toilets in our homes. Then again, I've lived in Nanaimo all my life, so maybe Halloween fireworks are unique to our region? I've grown up with them, and so they're normal to me. It never occurred to me that this might be unique to my region. Again, are you serious? (yes, I realize that you were serious....but I'm still surprised)
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Oct 23, 2007 17:55:02 GMT -8
Actually, I am serious, based on some Googling around the Internet. It started with a question in another forum somewhere with someone asking where they could get fireworks in Vancouver this time of year. My first gut reaction was "Why would they ask this question?", since I had never heard of Halloween fireworks. Of course, I really am interested in things like this (well, at least cultural phenomenon in BC in general), so I started looking around. I searched every combination of "fireworks" and "Halloween" and "Canada" and similar terms that I could think of, and the only references to this phenomenon were assorted municipal sites. And, almost every time, they were places either in the GVRD area or in the Victoria area. And mostly local governments looking to regulate or outlaw the fireworks "problem". The final bit of info I found was in the Wikipedia listing on fireworks, which included the following line: "Both fireworks and firecrackers are a popular tradition during Halloween in Vancouver, although apparently this is not the custom elsewhere in Canada." OK, Wikipedia is not really the best source out there, but it's got me thinking that this is a phenomenon that's limited to a small region. So, I guess we are all learning something here today!
|
|
|
Post by stvfishy on Oct 24, 2007 7:39:05 GMT -8
BC/LowerMainland thing - doubt it. I remember as a kid seeing a nighttime grass fire on Nose Hill in Calgary while trick or treating. Kinda cool actually.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Oct 24, 2007 8:54:49 GMT -8
I know my wife was utterly amazed at the fireworks in Vancouver...being a foreigner et al. I think the fireworks go back to Guy Fawkes Day (Nov 5th) and have spread to Hallowe'en as people don't celebrate Guy Fawkes Day much anymore. A related story to that comment from Britain: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4408078.stmI actually saw a very interesting program about the history of Hallowe'en in North America, namely the US. Hallowe'en has always been a suppressed celebration in the US due to the Puritan foundations of the country, and has only really taken of in the last half century as the commercial aspects of it have been exploited. Due to the commercial success of Hallowe'en in North America, the celebration is gradually becoming more prevalent in the rest of the world. More on this at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HalloweenGiven Hallowe'en's proximity to Guy Fawkes Day, and Canada's proximity to the US, as I stated before, it is likely the two have merged in the Canadian adaptation.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 24, 2007 14:04:10 GMT -8
BC/LowerMainland thing - doubt it. I remember as a kid seeing a nighttime grass fire on Nose Hill in Calgary while trick or treating. Kinda cool actually. Where's Nose Hill in Calgary? I've been there several times and I don't remember any topography at all.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 24, 2007 16:18:07 GMT -8
BC/LowerMainland thing - doubt it. I remember as a kid seeing a nighttime grass fire on Nose Hill in Calgary while trick or treating. Kinda cool actually. Where's Nose Hill in Calgary? I've been there several times and I don't remember any topography at all. It's in the North-West quadrant, between the TransCanada Highway and the river, or maybe just north of the TransCanada. If you are downtown, looking north across the river, you can see bare brown hills, in the direction of the University. It's the large brown bare patch !
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 25, 2007 21:10:26 GMT -8
Flugel--thanks for the quick geography lesson. To think I was within 1 km of Nose Hill and never saw it...
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 7, 2007 13:08:29 GMT -8
re Christmas:
My argument is that "Christmas" is more of a society holiday, rather than a religious holiday.
The roots of the various things that most people associate with Christmas come from European pagan society.
The "Christian" church in the middle ages seemed to lack creativity, and plagiarized existing pagan festival ideas, in order to create a new festival called "Christmas". This allowed them to have milque-toast converts who really didn't live the "set apart" style of life that Jesus' disciples lived in Palestine in the 1st Century AD.
And so Christmas was born, a creation of society.
The comparison of Christmas tradition to orthodox Christian doctrine brings some startling conclusions: The "Christmas Story" has some major errors that are perpetuated every year, even perpetuated by Christian churches today: - The date of Dec.25th is likely many months away from when Jesus was actually born (shepherds would not have been "watching their flocks by night" during December in Palestine). - The focus on the "little baby Jesus" is not something that the 1st Century AD church would have cared about. I think that Ricky Bobby (movie "Talladega Nights") gives a good example of the absurdity of the focus on a "little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes....". - Many common Christmas Carols are filled with "bad theology", or at least aren't accurate (for those sticklers out there).
All this has led me to conclude that "Christmas" is not a Christian thing, but rather a secular festival that's full of sentiment and tradition. It poorly plagiarized a Biblical-event, to try and make it into a "Christian festival".
I personally enjoy the family and traditions of Christmas, but the crappy-theology of it all really bugs me.
So the use of the word "Christ" in Christmas really shouldn't offend anyone. If people of other faiths and culture really want to be offended, they should read the "actual words" of Jesus, as recorded in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Many of those words are sure to offend, for those who actually care what he is reported to have said. I suspect that many people in today's Christian churches would also be offended by what Jesus actually said......but that's a whole other can of worms.
------------------- (the above is my own personal opinion: stated here just for "why the sky is blue" colour and variety. Feel free to accept or reject anything that I've said).
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Nov 7, 2007 19:34:40 GMT -8
Arrggh... that term 'politically correct' does set my teeth to grinding. I'd like to see it banned from the English language so that people couldn't use it as a code phrase to dismiss all the beliefs and principles they don't happen to share. Better that we be up front about our political and social beliefs, and not pretend that those who disagree with us are part of some unthinking, dogmatic orthodoxy.
Perhaps, Mill Bay, your assessment of the current connotation of the word 'tolerance' comes as much from your own social biases as from an etymological examination of the word itself. I don't know you, so I wouldn't presume to say. I disagree with your definition. I don't think tolerance has come to mean that we need to accept and even participate in beliefs, activities, or whatever, that we feel uncomfortable with. What has happened, is that we are being asked to be tolerant of more things than we used to, and some people have some difficulty with that. It doesn't mean that the concept of tolerance has changed; we might never agree with women wearing veils, for various reasons- but we will tolerate it. Our society is so pluralistic that it's becoming harder to determine what the 'majority' holds in the way of societal or religious truths, and tolerance is essential for people to get along. That does not mean that we condone all belief systems that are foreign to us as individuals.
Although I'm not Christian, or really 'religious' in any sense, I share Flugel Horn's frustration with the portrayal of Christmas. The hollowness and commercialization can be kind of overwhelming. I tend to do a fair bit of Bible reading around Christmas. You don't have to be a 'believer' to want to be more in touch with the spirit that should be behind the 'holiday season', and only someone who is truly ignorant would dismiss or disrespect something which, for better and for worse, has been a cornerstone of much of civilization for two thousand years.
'Christmas' should not be a dirty word, and there's no harm in saying it's a Christian occasion.
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Nov 8, 2007 8:16:15 GMT -8
Good points guys (what, no gals? ), thanks for the open and honest discussion that is all I was really trying for in the end. I feel that I should clarify and should have made clear to begin with: My concern is with how we brand our forum to the world, nothing more. Like I said, my family and I celebrate Christmas quite traditionally and I really would have it no other way. I really appreciate Mr. Horn's reasoning for being frustrated and can only agree. You don't have to be a 'believer' to want to be more in touch with the spirit that should be behind the 'holiday season', Should? Opinion and personal bias is one thing, but the same that goes for why most everyone agrees that church and state should never mingle too closely, I feel, should atleast play a role in how we brand ourselves as a world wide discussion of something that has a lot more to do with politics than religion. If it weren't for Mr. Horn's reasoning that I've woken up to, as I'm no scholar myself and rely on the word of people who I trust for such interpretations, I could not agree that we should allow ourselves to be branded here as a ferry forum with anything other than what that entails, boats, the sea, and transportation in general, lest we wish to be branded by the world as subversive or biased (Yes, I realize this is a little deep for debating the recognition of only one holiday in our branding or not - I doubt we'd give the same lattitude to any other - but I hope you catch my drift); after all, the cozy relationship between church and state, for example, in parts of the world already allows for the societal intolerance to even recognize women as equals, among so many other indignities it affords.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Nov 8, 2007 9:40:14 GMT -8
With my etymological discussion, I was trying to show how exagerated the notion of tolerance has become, and how far some people try to push it until it becomes tantamount to full and complete acceptance of whatever subjective special interest is being put through.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Nov 8, 2007 10:15:38 GMT -8
With respect, I don't think you made your case. Society is still rife with racism, sexism, homophobia, and other manifestations of intolerance. Officialdom, in many instances, does what it can to alter attitudes toward minority groups, or those who have traditionally been marginalized, but we have a long way to go before we are a truly inclusive society. We're probably doing better than others, though- Japan, for instance, remains an openly racist nation, even legally.
The supposed trend toward 'excessive tolerance' is overstated. No one's asking you to put on a turban and join a Vaisakhi parade in solidarity with Indo Canadians. It's just about recognizing and respecting differences, even if we don't share them.
Just out of curiosity, what are some examples of what you see as exaggerated tolerance?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 9, 2007 23:51:28 GMT -8
Computer question:
I can't see any of the photobucket images that are posted on this forum.....including the flagship banner.
I use Internet Explorer.
Does anyone know if there's some sort of browser conflict with Photobucket?
just curious.....
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 10, 2007 6:44:08 GMT -8
There doesn't appear to be... I can see it all from here, and I'm on IE v. 7.0.5730.11 (which should be the most current, at the rate Microsoft flings patches at me).
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 10, 2007 9:54:13 GMT -8
I can see Retro's avatar & signature (which are both photobucket).
But I can't see the flagship banner, I can't see Neil's avatar, and I can't see any of Ferry-Nut-Seattle's items.
strange.....because it's all Photobucket, but some show for me, and others give the "red-x"
(So Jim, Neil, Chris & FNS can post all the porn and hate-images that they want, and I won't know the better of it... ;D)
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Nov 10, 2007 10:34:39 GMT -8
I can see Retro's avatar & signature (which are both photobucket). (So Jim, Neil, Chris & FNS can post all the porn and hate-images that they want, and I won't know the better of it... ;D) Wow you really can't see them cause they have been
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 10, 2007 11:50:37 GMT -8
Everything works for me... let me know if it keeps up.
One thing I'm getting a lot of recently though is the "new posting" symbol for threads I've already completely read.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 10, 2007 12:13:49 GMT -8
Here's an example of the problem my computer's having: tutorials.photobucket.com/tutorial_74.htmlOn this page, there are graphics under many of the items. None of these show up for me....just a "red-x" or the windows "picture symbol". This is getting really frustrating for me, as I can't figure out what the problem is. For some reason, I can't see any photobucket items from Jim, Dan, Hergfest, Mirlees, Chris. But I can see Retro's, Curtis', Scotts. .....and I also can't see some of my own tinypic items. Very confusing...... If anyone has experienced this, please let me know. --------------------------- ps: when I load the ferry forum webpage, I'm getting an error-message that says:"Problems with this web page might prevent it from being displayed properly or functioning properly." The error details are: - Line: 223 - Char: 22 - Error: expected ";" - Code: 0 - URL: ferriesbc.proboards20.com/index.cgi?action=login=========================
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Nov 10, 2007 13:18:12 GMT -8
At the odd time I have the exact same difficulties you are having, Flugel
[sarcasm]pnwtraveller, please don't blow my cover as to what I actually have been posting on this forum. I sent all of the Mods a virus where they won't be able to see the explicit photos.....[/sarcasm]
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Nov 10, 2007 17:45:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 10, 2007 17:51:46 GMT -8
Thanks for posting that, Curtis. I tried the link, and I got the error message "IE can't open this webpage". thanks for trying for me.
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Nov 10, 2007 17:59:05 GMT -8
Here are some steps back from my days working for MSN... Try these, Mike...
(These steps are for Windows XP)
Click “Start” Select the “Control Panel” option Double-click the “Internet Options” Icon (Make sure that you have switched to “Classic View”) Select “Delete Cookies”, click “OK” to the box that appears Select “Delete Files”, check the “Delete all offline content” box, then click “OK” Select the “Settings” button (Next to “Delete Files”) Under “Check for newer versions of Stored Pages”, move to “Every visit to the page” Under “Amount of disk space to use”, set the number to “10” MB Click “OK” Select the “Security” Tab Under the above tab make sure that “Internet”, “Local Intranet”, Trusted Sites”, and “Restricted Sites” are all set to the “Default Level” (Default Level on each of the options should be Grayed Out) Select the “Privacy” Tab Under the above tab, make sure it is set to the “Medium” level Select the “Content” Tab Under the above tab, select “Clear SSL State” Select the “OK” option on the box that appears Select the “AutoComplete” box Select “Clear Forms” ---> Click “OK” Select “Clear Passwords” ---> Click “OK” Click “OK” to the “AutoComplete Settings” screen Select the “Advanced” Tab Select the “Restore Defaults” button Scroll down to the bottom of the white box, and check the “Empty Temp. Internet Files folder when browser closed” option Click “Apply” Click “OK” Close the “Control Panel”
Click “Start” Select “Run” In the “Open” box type in the following: IPCONFIG /FLUSHDNS Click the “OK” button (a black DOS based window will appear, then disappear) Restart computer
If you are still having the issue, and you are running a form of IE7 do the following...
Click "Start" Select "Run" In the “Open” box type in the following: IEXPLORER.EXE /REREG Restart computer
If it is still not working, try to reset the cable modem...
And if it is still not working after all of this you may have to call your ISP.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 10, 2007 19:24:51 GMT -8
Thanks for those instructions, Scott. I've tried them, but no success.
Hopefully this is just some sort of photobucket glitch, and it will somehow get fixed in a few days.
Maybe it's the computer-God's way of saying that I should only look at pictures from Curtis, Michael, Retro, Scott..... who knows?
|
|