Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada


  • Please log in to reply
276 replies to this topic

#181 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,158 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:08 PM

"A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada"

I don't know...by the sounds of the story, there are at least 3 men out there who have no problem with it!
  • 0
Posted Image

#182 thepedestrian

thepedestrian

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 06

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:16 PM

As stawns noted the misogyny shines through... beginning with the title of the thread.


Does there really have to be hidden misogyny there? You can hate laws that greatly favour women without being misogynstic in the slightest.

This whole thing is just a great cluster .... .Just glad its not me in that situation. (Or anyone else on this board). I know a situation locally where a girl slept with four different guys in a week. She told the richest one that he was the daddy. She has no idea who actually is and he is now most likely raising someone elses kid.
  • 0

#183 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,091 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:02 PM

Does there really have to be hidden misogyny there? You can hate laws that greatly favour women without being misogynstic in the slightest.

This whole thing is just a great cluster .... .Just glad its not me in that situation. (Or anyone else on this board). I know a situation locally where a girl slept with four different guys in a week. She told the richest one that he was the daddy. She has no idea who actually is and he is now most likely raising someone elses kid.

then he can have a paternity test if he wants to determine that. The story is much different as the two were married and the husband, though deceived, believed he was the father and was their father up to the point of the truth coming out. Regardless of the information coming out, the father obviously loved the kids as his own, and I can't see why he wouldn't continue to do so. Thus, he should be responsible for them.

Bottom line is you don't punish the kids to get back at the mother. I suspect a lot of the posters in this thread are not parents, or don't have a prominent role in their children's lives
  • 2

#184 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:58 PM

One thing that has bothered me about this thread more than anything is the title, "A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada." I actually think being a man in Canada has worked out pretty well, for the most part.

I mean really, how easy should we really have it?

In what way relating to children do men have it easy on? Women are favoured in custody battles, women are given all rights over fetal matters, now a man who was lied to and took care of kids he thought were his is on the hook financially for children that aren't his once he finds out via paternity test.. man has no choice in the matter despite woman enjoying her freedom of choice to bang someone else and conceive another's child while with person.

I've yet to see where men have it easy on this issue, surely you can help me out.

Edited by debluvscanucks, 21 February 2013 - 07:15 PM.

  • 0

#185 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,443 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 21 February 2013 - 07:20 PM

You're looking at it through tunnel vision. "On the hook financially for" is the wrong angle on this. The money is secondary and the issue that sits on top of the list is that he was and should still be considered "Dad". If the only thing in his mind that determined that was sperm, then he should have had things checked out at square one - reason to or not, it's his issue. He's been Dad and should continue to be Dad.
  • 2

Posted Image


#186 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 February 2013 - 07:26 PM

You're looking at it through tunnel vision. "On the hook financially for" is the wrong angle on this. The money is secondary and the issue that sits on top of the list is that he was and should still be considered "Dad". If the only thing in his mind that determined that was sperm, then he should have had things checked out at square one - reason to or not, it's his issue. He's been Dad and should continue to be Dad.

Well put.

He is Dad in law and in fact - biology is unimportant vis a vis the children.
  • 2
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#187 smokes

smokes

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:53 AM

Biology is the utmost importance in this issue. Who's bloodline do these children carry? It's not the "father's" why should he be the one responsible for carrying someone else s bloodline. In a world where everyone else worries about themselves, this is a travesty. Canada unfortunately has turned into a country where it's citizens are forced to perform charity and in this case the father is required by law to perform a charity.
  • 0

#188 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:32 AM

You're looking at it through tunnel vision. "On the hook financially for" is the wrong angle on this. The money is secondary and the issue that sits on top of the list is that he was and should still be considered "Dad". If the only thing in his mind that determined that was sperm, then he should have had things checked out at square one - reason to or not, it's his issue. He's been Dad and should continue to be Dad.

So you're blaming the dad for trusting that his wife was faithful until that point..

And when I point out henceforth that guys should always check to make sure their kid is really theirs because the law/courts will screw them over if the kid is not and they (logically) want no part of it I can't wait to read what a misogynist I a-- oops too late.
  • 0

#189 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:34 AM

Biology is the utmost importance in this issue. Who's bloodline do these children carry? It's not the "father's" why should he be the one responsible for carrying someone else s bloodline. In a world where everyone else worries about themselves, this is a travesty. Canada unfortunately has turned into a country where it's citizens are forced to perform charity and in this case the father is required by law to perform a charity.

Blood purity and bloodlines. Not a huge surprise.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#190 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:47 AM

then he can have a paternity test if he wants to determine that. The story is much different as the two were married and the husband, though deceived, believed he was the father and was their father up to the point of the truth coming out. Regardless of the information coming out, the father obviously loved the kids as his own, and I can't see why he wouldn't continue to do so. Thus, he should be responsible for them.

Bottom line is you don't punish the kids to get back at the mother. I suspect a lot of the posters in this thread are not parents, or don't have a prominent role in their children's lives

This is not about getting back at the mother like retribution for infidelity .. its giving a man the freedom from responsibility (moral and financial) over a matter he likely won't (logically) want to be involved in any further. Maybe you would want to stay in that situation but I wouldn't . And contrary to the belief espoused in the last sentence I am a parent .. one who, in a prior relationship, also had a prominent place acting as a girls father with an ex of mine because her actual dad wanted nothing to do with her. Impositions like this help create loser dads like that skirting responsibility, and aid women who wish to act fraudulently and get away with it by forcing a guy who was lied to and cheated on to continue bearing responsibility for children that aren't his and rationally doesn't want to. This is not helping kids this is bending over honest and responsible dad's.
  • 0

#191 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 22 February 2013 - 09:17 AM

The "Best Interests of the Child" is a basic guiding principle for the courts in setting custody, support and access orders and it varies depending upon the individual facts and circumstances.

Whenever the court considers issues involving children, its first and foremost concern is the best interests of the children, not whatever the particular wishes of a parent are, no matter how well-intentioned those wishes might be: it's about child or children. As a result, in any application concerning children a parent must show that the outcome sought is the outcome which is in the child's or children's best interests.

Section 16(8) of the Divorce Act defines it thusly :

In making an order under this section, the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child.


In BC Section 24 of the Family Relations Act is titled "Best interests of child are paramount" and goes into detail about what children's "best interests" means:


When making, varying or rescinding an order under this Part, a court must give paramount consideration to the best interests of the child and, in assessing those interests, must consider the following factors and give emphasis to each factor according to the child's needs and circumstances:


(a) the health and emotional well being of the child including any special needs for care and treatment;

( B) if appropriate, the views of the child;

© the love, affection and similar ties that exist between the child and other persons;

(d) education and training for the child;

(e) the capacity of each person to whom guardianship, custody or access rights and duties may be granted to exercise those rights and duties adequately.


It is the obligation of a parent to support the child, not the government. And under the law the father in this case is considered the parent because of a past history of the parental relationship despite not being the biological father. The term parent in these circumstances has an extended meaning beyond biological parent.

The wrongdoing of the mother is irrelevant.


If you were so kind, you would note that I have not once mentioned the mothers' actions in this thread. They are irrelevant. You seem to forget that I'm not Zaibatsu on occasion.

Again, does the court force the "father" to act as a father figure or take any action beyond handing over part of his income? You repeatedly fail to explain why the financial burden falls on a man and not the state. You haven't presented any argument for why the children benefit from the father's, and would not equally benefit from the government's support - does the government money buy less school clothes? Does the man's money keep the children tucked in at night?

Taking the above factors into consideration, how do (a) through (e) affect the "father's" responsibilities? For example, what will the man be required by court to do if the child is learning impaired? I don't presume "access rights" means "you must see your child". In other words, being a father figure is not mandated, while being the financial support is.
  • 0
“Hi Nigel, just a quick note to say that I am always ready to do exactly what is asked but it would have been a great help to know in advance what the strategy was.”

- Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Conservative Senator.

#192 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:22 PM

If you were so kind, you would note that I have not once mentioned the mothers' actions in this thread. They are irrelevant. You seem to forget that I'm not Zaibatsu on occasion.

Again, does the court force the "father" to act as a father figure or take any action beyond handing over part of his income? You repeatedly fail to explain why the financial burden falls on a man and not the state. You haven't presented any argument for why the children benefit from the father's, and would not equally benefit from the government's support - does the government money buy less school clothes? Does the man's money keep the children tucked in at night?

Taking the above factors into consideration, how do (a) through (e) affect the "father's" responsibilities? For example, what will the man be required by court to do if the child is learning impaired? I don't presume "access rights" means "you must see your child". In other words, being a father figure is not mandated, while being the financial support is.

The support continues because the parent has provided such support in the past.

In the case of a biological parent the obligation of support arises due to being the biological parent.

In the case of other situations it arises due to the existence of a past parental relationship, as here.

At law it is the obligation of a parent to provide for children - in the absence of an ability to do so the government may step in to provide a basic level of support. However that obligation on the parent continues. If Social Services pays money to support a child when there is an existing support order, that order is assigned to the government and becomes enforceable in the hands of Social Services.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#193 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,091 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:57 PM

This is not about getting back at the mother like retribution for infidelity .. its giving a man the freedom from responsibility (moral and financial) over a matter he likely won't (logically) want to be involved in any further. Maybe you would want to stay in that situation but I wouldn't . And contrary to the belief espoused in the last sentence I am a parent .. one who, in a prior relationship, also had a prominent place acting as a girls father with an ex of mine because her actual dad wanted nothing to do with her. Impositions like this help create loser dads like that skirting responsibility, and aid women who wish to act fraudulently and get away with it by forcing a guy who was lied to and cheated on to continue bearing responsibility for children that aren't his and rationally doesn't want to. This is not helping kids this is bending over honest and responsible dad's.


so if you spent say 10 years raising these kids as your own, loving them as your own and find out they don't have your blood, you would cast them out of your life? That says a lot about you as a man and a human being. The kids did nothing wrong and should be not be punished.
  • 0

#194 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,091 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:58 PM

If you were so kind, you would note that I have not once mentioned the mothers' actions in this thread. They are irrelevant. You seem to forget that I'm not Zaibatsu on occasion.

Again, does the court force the "father" to act as a father figure or take any action beyond handing over part of his income? You repeatedly fail to explain why the financial burden falls on a man and not the state. You haven't presented any argument for why the children benefit from the father's, and would not equally benefit from the government's support - does the government money buy less school clothes? Does the man's money keep the children tucked in at night?

Taking the above factors into consideration, how do (a) through (e) affect the "father's" responsibilities? For example, what will the man be required by court to do if the child is learning impaired? I don't presume "access rights" means "you must see your child". In other words, being a father figure is not mandated, while being the financial support is.


he has, it's called the LAW
  • 0

#195 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:59 PM

so if you spent say 10 years raising these kids as your own, loving them as your own and find out they don't have your blood, you would cast them out of your life? That says a lot about you as a man and a human being. The kids did nothing wrong and should be not be punished.


You see two babies side-by-side at the maternity ward. Both are equally cute. One you know to be biologically your own child. The other you know as not your own. Which do you love more?
  • 0

#196 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,091 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:01 PM

You see two babies side-by-side at the maternity ward. Both are equally cute. One you know to be biologically your own child. The other you know as not your own. Which do you love more?


not even remotely the same situation. he raised them, loved them for their entire lives, not looking at them in the maternity ward
  • 0

#197 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:05 PM

You're looking at it through tunnel vision. "On the hook financially for" is the wrong angle on this. The money is secondary and the issue that sits on top of the list is that he was and should still be considered "Dad". If the only thing in his mind that determined that was sperm, then he should have had things checked out at square one - reason to or not, it's his issue. He's been Dad and should continue to be Dad.


Does that mean every father should have his newborn checked with a DNA test whenever his wife or partner gives birth? What kind of message does that send the mother?

Wouldn't it be nice if the mom could be totally faithful and honest about these things? If not, then shouldn't she bear the brunt of the consequences of her own misdeeds?

When something like this happens, it's time to break the news to the little ones that "Dad" really isn't Dad after all. Come as a huge devastating shock? Well, take a long hard look at Mom for bringing about this mess in the first place.

Edited by Buggernut, 22 February 2013 - 01:35 PM.

  • 0

#198 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:06 PM

not even remotely the same situation. he raised them, loved them for their entire lives, not looking at them in the maternity ward


Genetics does matter. Being duped into thinking they were yours should give you the right to back out of your mistake and not being a slave to raising them for life.

Edited by Buggernut, 22 February 2013 - 01:07 PM.

  • 0

#199 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:16 PM

Genetics does matter. Being duped into thinking they were yours should give you the right to back out of your mistake and not being a slave to raising them for life.

And to repeat yet again - which of two innocent parties is to suffer??? We have made a societal choice and it is not the children.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#200 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,091 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:18 PM

Genetics does matter. Being duped into thinking they were yours should give you the right to back out of your mistake and not being a slave to raising them for life.


Then that would say a lot about you as a man

Would it suck for the husband? Of course, but I would feel like they were my kids because I had raised them as such. It would be disturbingly sociopathic to turn that off like tht.
  • 0

#201 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:19 PM

Then that would say a lot about you as a man

Would it suck for the husband? Of course, but I would feel like they were my kids because I had raised them as such. It would be disturbingly sociopathic to turn that off like tht.

Just consider the source of such thinking.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#202 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:34 PM

And to repeat yet again - which of two innocent parties is to suffer??? We have made a societal choice and it is not the children.


Unsuffer the children on somebody else's back then.

Do you have any children? Have you ever raised any at your expense?

Would you have absolutely no problem whatsoever being a slave to the upbringing of the fruits of the ultimate betrayal in a marriage/relationship that is infidelity?
  • 0

#203 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:50 PM

Unsuffer the children on somebody else's back then.

Do you have any children? Have you ever raised any at your expense?

Would you have absolutely no problem whatsoever being a slave to the upbringing of the fruits of the ultimate betrayal in a marriage/relationship that is infidelity?


You're really just ignoring the main issue and instead spouting rhetoric. The law is clear. The policy is clear. Child post-divorce are entitled, by law, to the same resources that they had when within the intact family, no matter the cause of the divorce or the conduct of the divorcing parties. Saying "screw, let the mom find more money", or "screw it, go after the real dads" is a non-starter because that simply will not happen, nor should it happen. If the man has been supporting the children for up to 16 years, then he must continue to do so, no matter the cause of the divorce or his paternity.

I know that if I were in the same situation, I would pay child support. It's the right thing to do. And yes, I have two kids, one of which is a stepdaughter. If I were to get a divorce now, I would have no problem paying child support for both my biological daughter and my stepdaughter.

I might also add that the father may have a cause of action in a civil suit against the mother, which could allow him to recover some money. If I were to give him advice then I might suggest he look into that. But as far as child support goes, I would argue that it's not only his legal duty, but his moral and ethical duty to pay child support.
  • 1

#204 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:11 PM

You're really just ignoring the main issue and instead spouting rhetoric. The law is clear. The policy is clear. Child post-divorce are entitled, by law, to the same resources that they had when within the intact family, no matter the cause of the divorce or the conduct of the divorcing parties. Saying "screw, let the mom find more money", or "screw it, go after the real dads" is a non-starter because that simply will not happen, nor should it happen.


The real dads should be completely off the hook? :huh:
  • 0

#205 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:37 PM

Unsuffer the children on somebody else's back then.

Do you have any children? Have you ever raised any at your expense?

Would you have absolutely no problem whatsoever being a slave to the upbringing of the fruits of the ultimate betrayal in a marriage/relationship that is infidelity?

I have no problem with the law as laid out and applied in the best interests of the children.

Being a parent is more than biological.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#206 Monty

Monty

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,166 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:04 PM

There is all kinds of stupid in this thread. Just mindblowingly retarded thinking.
  • 0

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#207 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,158 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:22 PM

There is all kinds of stupid in this thread. Just mindblowingly retarded thinking.


In other words, an average CDC thread?
  • 0
Posted Image

#208 Monty

Monty

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,166 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:34 PM

In other words, an average CDC thread?


I don't know, that new Valentine's Day thread was pretty good. Word is the guy that started the thread is a pretty cool dude.
  • 0

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#209 :D

:D

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,024 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 06:16 PM

Ban children
  • 0

#210 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 February 2013 - 06:28 PM

Ban children

Ban sex.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.