[DeathSilver]

suing who?

Oopps. I meant I hope he's not using anymore.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Elizabeth May is one of two sitting members and the leader of the Green party.
Bruce Hyer is the second sitting member; he was elected as an NDP MP, left the party over its gun registry position to sit as independent, and in December 2013 joined the Green party.

Elizabeth May did not vote in favour of going to war, but also was not able to speak on the issue because of a motion to close debate. One non-whipped vote can't fairly be said to represent the party as a whole, or to define the relative "progressiveness" of the party or even its (2) elected representatives.

Just to clarify, since this is still kicking around, my point wasn't about the Greens so much as it was the NOW editor declaring, as if it was an objective fact, that the Greens were not a "progressive" party. Putting aside that he was factually WRONG about the actual vote, it's not his right to make such unilateral statements. I've seen a lot of that this election, with both "progressive" and other loaded terms, and I don't like it.

I'm sure Hollet wouldn't consider me progressive but I think I am on the vast majority of issues. I happen to think Chow has run a weak campaign but she is the self-professed "progressive" candidate so that means "progressives," like the entire staff of NOW, are going to unquestioningly vote for her.

I don't label myself (as a progressive or a liberal or a Ford National or anything else) and situate myself based on what I see. There are some people who think John Tory is Doug Ford with a better vocabulary; despite some elements of his campaign that give me trouble, I think that's absurd. But if you're a "progressive," you don't have much of a choice but to think so, while pretending Olivia has just done a bang-up job with her "high-road" approach to the Fords and her non-stop repeating of stories about women who can't get on streetcars.

So, to sum up the rant, I don't like people who think it's their right to label other people. the Greens are, by any objective measure, a pretty progressive party and if some bleeding-heart type doesn't like the way one guy voted, that says more about him and his Bush Doctrine view of the world than about them. The municipal implications are legion, given how fired-up things have been.

 

[stoobiedood]

I wasn't even aware of any bus train plans. I'm not sure I believe that.

"Bus trains" are not planned, nor a solution. Also known as "caravans" or "parades," the "trains" are the result of bunching, where a long gap in service is followed by a group of 3 or more buses all bunched together. It's bad line management by the TTC, but it happens all the time on the busier (and some not-so-busy) routes. The first bus in the "train" is jam packed and the last one is nearly empty. I've waited 30 minutes on Vic Park, only to see three buses arrive all at once; the TTC will tell you that I am therefore enjoying "10-minute service."

 

[Greg Banks]

TTC put forward a comprehensive plan in August to improve service at about $50 or so million a year, plus capital cost for new buses, streetcars, and the rest of the new bus garage. Chow wouldn't commit more than the $20 million a year for operating that simply rolls back the Stintz/Ford cuts.

$20 million would require a fare increase of about 2½¢. The lack of leadership here is disappointing.

But..but...but O Chow got it covered doesn't she with the proposed additional 1% over 2M on the MLTT...She says it'll bring in 20M

 

[nfitz]

But..but...but O Chow got it covered doesn't she with the proposed additional 1% over 2M on the MLTT...She says it'll bring in 20M

Sure. But we need a lot more that $20 million a year according to TTC. I'm simply pointing out how trivially small an amount this is. it's a rounding error in the TTC's $1.5 billion (or so) operating budget.

The MLTT also doesn't cover the required capital costs for this. As pointed out by Steve Munro at torontoist.com/2014/10/olivia-chows-lost-momentum-on-transit and Olivia Chow’s Lost Momentum on Transit

 

[pattycakes]

A doc the Star interviewed said the butt node was really bad news, even though it's relatively close

I don't think "distant" means far away, I thinks it means not on the same organ as the original tumour. So if you had two tumours on your liver, it wouldn't automatically be stage 4, but if you had a tumour on your liver and another tumour on your lung of the same type of cancer, it's stage 4.

 

[DeathSilver]

I don't think "distant" means far away, I thinks it means not on the same organ as the original tumour. So if you had two tumours on your liver, it wouldn't automatically be stage 4, but if you had a tumour on your liver and another tumour on your lung of the same type of cancer, it's stage 4.

Now we can debate if Rob's butt is an organ!

 

[deidretree]

I honestly haven't decided. I was leaning towards Solnacki ... probably Goldkind or Chow. Chow because no one should have to ever had to have put up with the racial abuse that she has had in the last few weeks, more so than anything else. I suppose if 3 or 4 polls all suddenly said Ford was in the 40s, I might even vote do what I did last time, hold my nose and vote for Tory ... but I can't see that happening in the polls.

I urge you. respectfully, to reconsider....if your person doesn't win, at least the winner (and in this case, councillors) will know that a constituency voted a certain way....if you give your vote to Tory, he nor anyone else know that a lot of us, wait for it, see taxes as another mortgage/rent payment - what kind of house do we want? If you strategic vote, your vote, effectively, does not count. My vote is my say in the matter - uh, I decided yesterday to vote for Ari Goldkind - if he doesn't win, maybe he will run again in four years, and whoever does win, knows....that one resident anyway, wants to see fair taxes as a means to a fabulous City for everyone....imagine.

 

[nohostages]

Except that Tory was the one who blasted the TTC's proposed service improvements, because it costs money. And he skipped the TTC Riders debate.

Agreed. And what say the right who are so afraid of Chow's tax and spend ways. While Tory pledges 50 mil per year and Chow pledges 20 mil?

 

[NYCBoy2305]

Now we can debate if Rob's butt is an organ!

DEMETRI: Over the last 50 years a lot has been researched, mainly by surgeons, who have studied how cancers start in one place but then move elsewhere through the body either close to where they started, often in a lymph node, or far from where they started. Let's say if it starts in the breast, does it wind up in the liver or the brain, something very far from where it started? When it goes very far from where it started, that's a distant metastasis. The close ones, like a node metastasis or a regional metastasis may have important information about whether a cancer cell has the potential to spread distantly through the body and run the risk of killing the patient.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/takeonestep/cancer/interviews-demetri.html

So, as of now does not seen distant.

 

[nfitz]

I guess so, but I wouldn't know. My thinking is based mostly on my stepmother's experience. She was diagnosed with lung/brain cancer. Her oncologist was pretty blunt and said there was not point to treatment, so the program was palliative.

I've been pondering this for a while.

This could well depend on the patient. If in their 60s/70s, and the treatment was going to be very rough, with not much hope, then I can see why they'd recommend palliative.

But if in their 40s with small children, and a very strong will to live, I can see that they would at least start off aggressively, even if there is not much hope. If the cancer grows/spreads then switch to pallative.

I tell you, if they told me it was 99% that I was not going to beat it, I'd be hanging on to that 1%, and not wanting to leave my kids fatherless. If the kids were grown and I was retired ... well, maybe I'd just want to be comfortable.

 

[casita]

- uh, I decided yesterday to vote for Ari Goldkind -

I don't think Doug cares who we vote for.

As long as it's not John Tory!

 

[DeathSilver]

DEMETRI: Over the last 50 years a lot has been researched, mainly by surgeons, who have studied how cancers start in one place but then move elsewhere through the body either close to where they started, often in a lymph node, or far from where they started. Let's say if it starts in the breast, does it wind up in the liver or the brain, something very far from where it started? When it goes very far from where it started, that's a distant metastasis. The close ones, like a node metastasis or a regional metastasis may have important information about whether a cancer cell has the potential to spread distantly through the body and run the risk of killing the patient.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/takeonestep/cancer/interviews-demetri.html

So, as of now does not seen distant.

This is true. I was actually trying to be clever (i.e. Rob thinks with his ass, so his butt can be an organ).
You have lymph nodes in your butt though so if it spread through that it's not good I guess.

 

[DeathSilver]

Indeed. I have been told it is a very serious case. It was from the beginning.

 

[r937]

"Bus trains" are not planned, nor a solution. Also known as "caravans" or "parades," the "trains" are the result of bunching, where a long gap in service is followed by a group of 3 or more buses all bunched together. It's bad line management by the TTC, but it happens all the time on the busier (and some not-so-busy) routes. The first bus in the "train" is jam packed and the last one is nearly empty. I've waited 30 minutes on Vic Park, only to see three buses arrive all at once; the TTC will tell you that I am therefore enjoying "10-minute service."

i came here to say this, but you said it more thoroughly

bus trains just happen, and all the time

real easy to figure out why it happens, if one rides the bus