Home > politics > On my way to school, I saw beautiful flowers

On my way to school, I saw beautiful flowers

admin’s note: As Nimrod commented in an early thread, “the tankman photo was a snapshot …, the whole incident is a lot more powerful than the snapshot; in the same way that the whole 1989 movement makes a more powerful statement than the snapshot of 6/4.” Previously, we posted personal accounts of students from Tianjin or Shanghai to give readers a taste of the spread, both in terms of time and space, of the 1989 student movement. Today, we post an account from a student in Beijing on what he saw on that fateful day 20 years ago. Needless to say, the views on the movement among the participates have diverged and shifted considerably over the past 20 years. However, the raw emotions we felt on that day, shock, anger, confusion, and above all, profound sadness, are afresh in our minds on this anniversary.

My Daughter, who is in the first grade, was reading her homework to me, “On My way to school, I saw beautiful flowers. Some flowers were hanging on stems …”

“That’s very good” I said.

“Others felt on the grass after a thunderstorm, but they are still beautiful” She continued.

“Yes, they are.”

Every life is a flower. Twenty years ago, in the morning of June 4th, 2009, I saw flowers fell.

At the end of May, 1989, like many other university students in Beijing, I already left the TAM square after participating numerous protests big and small and a long hunger strike.

On the night of June 1, I was sitting on a bench outside our campus, chatting with several students. Suddenly I heard someone was shouting: “the devil has come to the village; the devil has come to the village” (this is a phrase used to refer the Imperial Japanese invasion army in movies). I saw three or four student-looking people shouting and riding rapidly south on bikes.

The army was ready to enter the city. The previous evening, I saw squadrons of motorcycles cycling around the Tiananmen Square, with riders chanting “defend the students!”

The following night I heard the crowd had blocked several buses carrying plain-clothes soldiers. There was physical confrontations and violence.

At the noon of June 3rd, I heard rumors that the 27th army and the 38th army had begun fighting outside the city and a civil war had started. In the evening, announcements were broadcast in radio and TV advising everyone to stay home to ensure their personal safety. It seemed that the army was ready to expel the students from the square.

I went to Renming University with two of my classmates. We heard from loudspeakers set up by student organizations that the army had opened fire. One girl in her tearful voice said that her boyfriend was shot and taken to the hospital.
I thought he was hit by rubber bullets. They could be dangerous too. What is going on? As an active participant of the early protests and the hunger strike, my heart was still with this movement and I determined to see in my own eyes.

I went back to my dormitory and took my bike. I rode south towards the Chang’An Avenue and picked up a student along the way. We can gradually hear gunshots from a distance. I also faintly smelt of burning rubber. I thought it must be the smell of rubber bullets.

<update: a map shows BMY’s bike route>
bmy_6-4_1989-route

When we were getting closer to Muxudi (木樨地), the sound of gunshots became clear and the smell of burning rubber got intense.

Near Muxudi, I saw there was fire. Gunshots and the cries of the crowd were coming from there, and ambulances were roaring out one after another. In the middle of the road, a Uighur student was shouting and waving, trying to direct the traffic.
I got off from my bike. The student I picked up waved goodbye to me and disappeared into the crowd. I dared not to go any further. Two times, people crouched and I stood there at a loss. There might be bullets flying overhead. I still need to be careful even though they are rubber bullets, I thought. So I hid behind a tree.

The sound of gunshots moved gradually eastward. I then went to the Muxudi intersection. I saw two burning cars and two buses used to block the road. The smell was coming from the burning cars. There were several bullet holes on the wall of the subway station. There was also a bullet hole on the metal fence of the pedestrian crossing in front of the subway station. I finally realized that the bullets were real. About a dozen meters down the road, there was a cart with broken yogurt glass bottles in and around it. Clearly, those yogurt bottles were used as weapons.

Concerned about my own safety, I went through an alley to the Xuanwumen avenue, a street parallel to the Chang’an avenue, and continued to ride east towards the square.

Very soon, I saw a long line of military trucks full of soldiers stopped along the road. Some Beijingers were talking to the soldiers, saying that the students are not causing turmoil, they just want to get rid of corruption. The soldiers lowered their heads and did not say a word. A few of them shook their heads. I thought they must be ordered to not talk. There are several officers were talking with civilians along the road.

I stayed for a while, and then moved on. I saw there were a bus parked sideways and some other road blockers ahead of the leading military vehicle. Some residents were removing smaller road blockers.

I arrived at the southwest corner of the Square at the early dawn. I saw the area between the Memorial Hall and the Qian Gate was filled with sitting soldiers. Not far away, a group of men were shouting indignantly against the soldiers, “1, 2, fascist! 1,2, fascist!”
I also saw the last group of students filing out to the southeast corner of the square with their banners. Behind them, there is a phalanx of armored vehicles slowly moving from north to south to fill the void left by the students.

It was broad daylight now. I can see the faces of every soldier in front of me. They were of similar age as me, wearing helmets, griping rifles and sitting facing south. Many soldiers look like country boys with naive eyes and rosy faces.

Several Beijingers and I whispered to the soldiers, “Students are not engaged in unrest.” A soldier retorted, “look what a mess you have made”. Other soldiers kept silent. A middle-aged military officers suddenly stood up and shouted toward a woman next to me, “no pictures, hand over the camera and it is confiscated.” He stepped forward and grabbed the camera. The lady begged,” could you please take away the film but return the camera.” The officer shouted, “All confiscated.”

All of a sudden, a series of gunshots erupted behind me. Soldiers in front of me all stood up and looked to the direction of my back. I quickly turned around and saw another group of soldiers sitting eastward about 10 meters away. There were one official and a soldier stood. The official yelled at a group civilians mixed in age and gender about 2-30 meters away. The soldier was firing upwards.
Then suddenly an ambulance came and someone was taken into it. The ambulance rushed away in sirens. An old gentleman pointed at the officer and said something indignantly.

Feeling unsafe, I wanted to go back to the campus. I rode westward and at the first intersection, I decided to go back along the Chang’an avenue. I turned north into an alley. At the end of it, a tank was parked there with its cannon pointing toward the alley. Two or three soldiers wearing helmets were standing beside the tank. I rode past them nervously along with a few civilians and entered the Chang’an avenue.

There were already some people riding on the Chang’an Avenue. An armored vehicle traveling from the west going super fast and the people were scattered to avoid it. I felt angry at the recklessly APC driver.

I felt lethargic while riding the bike. A student wearing black plastic framed glasses was shouting something. I stopped. Beside him, there were two mangled bicycles. There were also two bodies whose faces and upper bodies were covered. Between the bikes and the bodies, there was a pool of red and a pool of white. I had never seen corpses before. I felt even dizzier and my breathing became difficult. I was two meters away from the shouting student and I could see tears dripping down on his cheeks. Yet I still could not quite understand him. On the back of my mind I thought he was shouting “could somebody help me?” “Could someone help me move the bodies?” I did not have the courage to move the body. I left in humiliation, without saying a word or looking back. I felt I was a coward.

I rode my bike like a robot and a person rode along with me asking, “Student, do you know what happened last night?” I did not answer. I cried.

Near Muxudi , I saw a body lay in the middle of the road with its face covered.

And not far away, a few people were yelling and chasing a person in military uniform.

I did not stop.

Going north, on the road near the Purple Bamboo Park, I saw a lonely tank with its hatch door open. I did not see the troops.

It was almost 11 o’clock when I finally came back to the dormitory. My roommate asked me where I had been. I replied that I took a walk, and then I went to sleep.

At noon in June 5, I went to Muxudi again; the bullet holes were still visible. I went to the nearby hospital (复兴医院). There was a notice posted outside, requesting family members to claim bodies. A crowd gathered outside and I followed the flow of people walking inside. I saw from a window that there were about a dozen corpses lay on the floor with face covered.

On the utility pole near the entrance of our university, a bulletin was posted stating two students in our institute were killed. Mourning halls were set up for them. I went to the one for a sophomore. I bowed 3 times in front of his portrait.

It was rumored that the army was going to be stationed on campus. Some students swore to defend the campus with their lives. Others wanted to empty the campus in protest. Once when I passed through the Beijing University, I saw two young men in black clothes rode on the street, with axes strapped around their waists.

Classmates started to go home one after another. Teachers came to request us leaving.

My two classmates and I were the last three students in our class to leave campus. On June 9, in a campus used to be full of vim and vigor, there were only 3 of us, walking lonely for 15 minutes from the dormitory to the school gate.

When our bus passed the Capital Indoor Stadium, I saw the courtyard was filled with heavily armed soldiers, their helmets glittering under the sun. Most passengers turned to watch the soldiers, silently.

In the morning of June 11, after lost touch with my family for several months, I finally went back home. My dad said slowly, “You must be hungry, go get your breakfast.” My mom, with tears flashing in her eyes, turned back her face.

There were many other parents waiting for their children to come home. For some of them, the wait was in vain.

Categories: politics Tags: , ,
  1. Steve
    June 25th, 2009 at 07:02 | #1

    @ R4K: Great post! Just a few comments:

    “In that, they would not budge even if we managed to dig up old dead Japanese Imperial soldiers who openly confess to everything.”

    There have actually been Japanese soldiers who served in the War that have made numerous trips to China to help war victims and apologize profusely for what occurred. They said that they had been taught that Chinese (and I think everyone else not Japanese) were sub-human, comparable to killing a pig or horse. Sick, but true. When they realized what they had done, they were horrified and have spent the rest of their lives trying to right the wrong they committed. Let’s give credit where credit is due. And let’s condemn the morons who said it never happened… especially since we have movies like this that show otherwise.

    My best friend is from Hiroshima (went to college in the States) and she agrees. She and her husband also think the Emperor is a living anachronism. I think the media exaggerates the percentage of Japanese who are ultra-nationalistic.

    “Seriously, a major difference between the continual numerous atrocities committed by the Japanese military in WWII, vs. 1 valid exercise of public order (even if proven excessive force).”

    Sure, there’s a major difference in every possible way. But the pattern of denying and ignoring history is the same. Didn’t more Chinese die from famine in the Great Leap Forward than in the entire Sino-Japanese war?

    “I think your idea of general amnesty is idealistic. The exiles and protesters thrive on confrontation, in fact, some would argue that their livelihood depends on their continual hostility to the CCP. You might as well argue that US should lay off criticism of China as a form of “general amnesty”. Not with NED and CIA around. Not realistic. (though I would be happy, if you can surprise me.)”

    If you grant amnesty and explore the circumstances in the light of day, you’ve just taken away the argument of those who thrive on confrontation. Their livelihood would disappear on its own because the only way they are relevant is if others think they are relevant. No one jumps on the German government for the atrocities of the Nazis, because they have shone the light of truth on what happened. Paraphrasing Gertrude Stein, there is no there there.

    Your next sentence honestly makes no sense (at least to me). The US government doesn’t criticize the German government for WWII. They would not criticize the Chinese government for Tiananmen if the subject is handled once and for all. NED and the CIA? Uhh… China has a CIA equivalent and probably engages in more spying than any other country in the world (yeah, I know Lao Tzu is big on spying) soi isn’t that also the pot calling the kettle black? NED? How about the Confucian Institutes? Both NGOs, both criticized by the countries where they operate. Anyway, you already said that Chinese people are too smart to be taken in by NED, right? ;)

    Wow, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard neo-Confucism called Compassionate Confucism. Is George W. Bush your new media advisor? :P

    Seriously, I don’t think the Chinese are better or worse than anyone else. All people are basically the same. There are good, bad and indifferent. It’s just that some cultures are better than others in controlling the bad, and some cultures are more polite and hospitable to strangers and guests than others. When my father complimented China, he was complimenting your culture as compared to others he had experienced.

    Chinese history seems to have been long periods of social order and stability followed by long periods of chaos and instability, then back to the stability again. I’m not sure what that means, except that China hasn’t seemed to have been either more or less stable than most other countries, just bigger and with more people.

    Are Beijing people more patriotic and hot tempered than in other areas? I’ve heard that Beijing people and northerners are more direct and honest in their speaking, while Shanghainese (not my opinion) will charm you with false compliments and are the most clever. Southerners care more about money while Shanghainese care more about family. Sichuan girls make the best wives, etc. Seems there are a lot of stereotypes running around China. ;)

    Didn’t the Chinese general let the Manchurian army through the gate into the country? Wasn’t it something about the emperor at the time taking this general’s mistress as his own? I never know if these stories I hear are true or just old wives’ tales.

    My question about how strong China needed to be was a relative one. China is much stronger than it used to be, on that I think we can all agree. What I was wondering is, relative to today’s strength, how much further did China need to go before you would consider her strong enough to face her past? Is she 50% of the way there? 80%? What specific changes would need to happen before you considered her strong enough?

  2. Steve
    June 25th, 2009 at 07:06 | #2

    @ SKC: Did I miss MAJ’s Part 1 while I was gone? Was it worth the price of admission? ;)

  3. S.K. Cheung
    June 25th, 2009 at 07:21 | #3

    To Steve:
    ‘fraid so. And yes it was. Just scroll back into the previous entries…I believe he posted it in early May.

  4. Wukailong
  5. raventhorn4000
    June 25th, 2009 at 11:34 | #5

    SKC,

    It’s a multi-factor test. Why are you considering only 1 part as “already means nothing”? Well, again, you don’t know the law, NOR how to even learn it.

    Look up “MULTI-FACTOR test”. It’s NOT a 1 factor test!!

    Ambulances may be “more than taxis”, so are a long of things, hiring a helicopter, hot air balloon, etc. Doesn’t make it “PUBLIC” emergency!!

    You have to deal with the fact that Canada doesn’t consider ambulances as “governmental function”, no matter what bizzarre assumption you come up with.

    *
    “—no, what I am saying is that the first was an act of disobedience, and it is foreseeable that, when the method of enforcement escalates, so too might the method of disobedience.”

    Nope, the law doesn’t not assume “resistance to enforcement” after 1 act of disobedience, especially non-violent. Otherwise, cops will be beating people down with clubs after a sit in protest.

    *
    “—I believe a number of folks with your POV, like the Oli’s of the world, have said as much. Obviously, they’re saying so 20 years later. Whether that represents foresight or hindsight is a question you would have to put to them. But I’m hoping they berate the students not merely based on knowing what they know now, but based on what they knew then.”

    Hindsight is not “foresight”. None of these people ever represented their view as “foresight”.

  6. raventhorn4000
    June 25th, 2009 at 12:00 | #6

    Steve,

    I have no specific knowledge of how most Japanese would feel about the matter. But judging from what I have seen from the Japanese immigration laws, Japan is very xenophobic even today. They treat immigrants from Korea and China terribly, and they blame their societal problems on the immigrants more than US does (given how few immigrants there are in Japan).

    In the 1980′s, 1 of my buddies in the US navy was visiting Tokyo, and the only English sign he found was “Americans not allowed”.

    Today, that’s probably changed quite a bit. But I still found the story ironic.

    *
    I do not think China denies what happened in the Great Famine. It’s actually common knowledge. I heard stories from my teachers in school back in China. And the reformers in CCP criticized mistakes made in the past by foolishness of hardline CCP cadres.

    But you have to put that famine in historical perspective, China had 3 Great Famines from 1900 to 1949, each of them devastated the population with millions of lives lost.

    Historians, including Western Historians, have been able to gather government reports for the Famine of 1959, (not censored), and attributed the causes. (Read – J.A.G Roberts’ Concise History of China)

    So, I do not think China denies the deaths of the Famines of 1959. But come on, given the poverty of China in 1950′s, the poor transportation infrastructure, and backward agriculture technology, was it really that much a surprise??

    *
    “Handled once and for all”. I didn’t say I’m surprised at the existence of NED or CIA. I merely said it’s unrealistic that they would ever admit that China “handled TAM once and for all”.

    You might as well ask NED and CIA to quit their jobs.

    *
    “Compassionate Confucianism”. It was the Han Dynasty Emperors who first adopted the “compassionate Confucianism” to lessen the harsh effects of strict Legalism.

    *
    “stability”.

    Even when China were in Civil Wars, there were often pockets of stability and peace.

    *
    “stereotypes”.

    Beijing people are very direct, but honesty depends. My only trip to Beijing started with a Beijing Taxi driver taking me on a LONG detour around the city for 45 minutes (instead of the direct 20 minute route), and then charging me for the 45 minutes.

    Shanghai people are what we called “Little Citizens”. Meaning, we don’t care much for politics, only practical businesses that would benefit the individuals and his families. But that doesn’t mean that we are not patriotic. Just we are less impulsive, more reserved, more thoughtful of situations.

    Some of these are “stereotypes”, and not necessarily true for individuals.

    But if one see what happened on 6/4 to Beijing and Shanghai, you can see a clear difference. Shanghai mayor was far more practical and nuanced in his speech than Li Peng. And Shanghai People were less inclined to make protests (generally).

    Each region has its own unique social/cultural atmosphere. That is perhaps the basis of the “stereotypes”, but I would call them “stereotypes of the cities”, not of the people.

    *

  7. raventhorn4000
    June 25th, 2009 at 13:00 | #7

    SKC,

    1 more point,

    It’s not an “escalation”, when the PLA was already sent in once on May 20th, and they were sent in a 2nd time later.

    It’s merely “trying the same method again”.

  8. Steve
    June 25th, 2009 at 17:53 | #8

    @ R4K #160: “Xenophobic” is a pretty strong word, since it implies fear or hatred. I don’t think that’s necessarily true of Japan or Korea. I think its more of a “superiority” feeling and feelings of racial purity. I find the whole “racial purity” thing especially strange in Korea, which has been invaded countless times through her history and I’d guess very few there are “pure blood” Koreans, whatever that means.

    Now to be honest, I’ve also encountered the “pure blood” thing in the Chinese community here in the USA. Many Chinese American mothers we know want their kids to marry other Chinese Americans so their grandchildren will be pure Chinese. The funny thing about it is that many of these women are divorced from their Chinese American husband and later remarried white Americans. Talk about hypocrisy! :)

    Immigration into Japan is really tough. My best friend is from Hiroshima and when she returned to Japan after university, she was careful not to let people know she had lived in the USA for six years because at that time (late ’70s) they would have felt she was “contaminated” and not pure Japanese. These days, she doesn’t care and the attitude has changed, but it’s still difficult to be foreign and live there. I didn’t have any problem in China but I also lived in Shanghai, which is a really international city.

    I completely disagree with you about the famine of 1959. It wasn’t caused by drought, flood, agricultural methods or poor transportation. It was caused by a change in government policy directed by Mao. Remember, this was the time of “backyard furnaces”. It was a man-made disaster.

    Who would admit what is simply speculation on your part. No one knows what any organization would do or say if policy changed. And if the Chinese people themselves were satisfied the issue had been handled, they could not be influenced by outside opinion. In fact, I believe the “blame it on the CIA and foreign NGOs” is ridiculous. I think their actual influence is minimal, but they are a convenient scapegoat whenever actual popular dissatisfaction arises. I’ve noticed the Iranian government is now trying to blame all the agitation there on “outside influences”. Yeah, right… wink, wink, nudge, nudge, mum’s the word. (with apologies to Monty Python)

    Like I said, when I was studying Chinese history, it was labeled “neo-Confucianism”. I’ve never heard the term “compassionate Confucianism”. Could you reference where that term originated? I’m curious. I googled it and didn’t find anything.

    “Even when China were in Civil Wars, there were often pockets of stability and peace.”

    You can say the same thing about any Civil War. It wasn’t just Civil Wars in China during her history, but multiple kingdoms that formed and were conquered over time.

    I’ve had taxis try to cheat me in both cities. On my last trip to Beijing, I hailed one taxi that didn’t have a meter (though it was an officially marked taxi) so he asked me to quote a fare and tried to bargain with the fare I quoted. I’m good at directions and fares so I found another taxi and my quote was within 1 RMB of the true cost. A few days later on the way to the airport, the taxi I picked up from my hotel had the meter angled where I couldn’t see the fare and when we arrived, he told me it was 40 RMB over the true fare. I just laughed, told him the correct fare in Chinese along with making the one handed sign for “six” since it should have been 60 RMB, and he laughed since I had won the “game”. ;)

    In Shanghai, I used to fly into the Hongxiao Airport (HK to Shanghai flights still went through Hongxiao at that time) and my hotel was by the Hong Kong Plaza on Huai Hai Lu. Every once in awhile, instead of taking Yan’an to my hotel, they’d try to take me on the loop south past the Shanghai Stadium and then north on Zhaozhou/Xizang. As soon as they turned on to the loop, I’d start to bitch and they’d say it was because of traffic. Since you are Shanghainese, you certainly know that you ALWAYS hit traffic going the longer way so we’d end up getting stuck in traffic and they’d offer to waive the fare when I got to the hotel (I just paid them what it would have cost if they had gone the more direct way) so I’ll give them credit for that. For some reason, the women taxi drivers were more apt to try it than the men.

    I really liked Shanghai and Shanghainese. They reminded me of New Yorkers in a lot of ways (I’m from northern NJ originally) and I always felt most comfortable there. But I have to say that all the Chinese I knew from other parts of China didn’t like the Shanghainese at all! The usual complaint was that they bragged, acted superior, were not trustworthy and spouted false compliments. When my wife and I were about to move there from San Diego, all her Taiwan women friends kept telling me to “watch out” for those evil Shanghai girls. Aiya! Shanghai girls seem to have the worst reputations among Taiwanese women! :P

    I agree that most Shanghainese are more interested in making money and taking care of their families rather than being heavily involved with politics. But there are plenty of exceptions (like R4K!).

  9. S.K. Cheung
    June 26th, 2009 at 02:07 | #9

    To R4000:
    “Look up “MULTI-FACTOR test”. It’s NOT a 1 factor test!!”
    — dude, yes, got the part about the “multi”; I was taking each component of your “multi”, and showing how neither component makes any sense. And when the components individually make no sense, the combo is certainly not worth any more than the sum of its parts.

    “Ambulances may be “more than taxis”, so are a long of things, hiring a helicopter, hot air balloon, etc. Doesn’t make it “PUBLIC” emergency!!”
    —I am still at a loss how a lawyer can debate the way you do. Anyhow, there are helicopters, and in fact small jets, that are used as air ambulances. Hot air balloons, not so much, unless you really want to take your sweet time getting to the hospital. And no, the type of vehicle does not a public emergency make; (do you not cringe sometimes at the arguments you try to make); but certain vehicles do serve as public vehicles whose job it is to respond to public emergencies, and hence are performing a governmental function. It’s not the vehicle that makes it unique; it’s the people who drive them (ie capability of providing initial medical care).

    “You have to deal with the fact that Canada doesn’t consider ambulances as “governmental function”, no matter what bizzarre assumption you come up with.”
    —you have no idea of what you speak. But you know what…whatever floats your boat. You can continue with your Canada, and I’ll live in the reality of mine.

    “Nope, the law doesn’t not assume “resistance to enforcement””
    —for the umpteenth time, you needn’t assume that violent resistance was a foregone conclusion, or guarantee; the point is that it could have and should have been foreseen as a possibility.

    “Otherwise, cops will be beating people down with clubs after a sit in protest.”
    —not necessarily; but certainly within the realm of foreseeable possibilities.

    “None of these people ever represented their view as “foresight”.”
    —I suppose we’ll have to ask them to be sure. But berating students based on hindsight alone would seem pretty lame.

    “It’s merely “trying the same method again””
    —well, they sent in the same people; as for whether those people were tasked in the same way (ie what their orders were), I guess we’ll have to get that from the folks who gave the orders….ooops, those guys aren’t talking. Such a shame. Now, if it was the “same method”, I suppose we can look at that in one of 2 ways: (a) if at first you don’t succeed….; or (b) what do you call folks who do the same thing over and over, and expect different results? The CCP may be a lot of things, but I never took them for the people described in (b).

  10. raventhorn4000
    June 26th, 2009 at 02:38 | #10

    SKC,

    “— dude, yes, got the part about the “multi”; I was taking each component of your “multi”, and showing how neither component makes any sense. And when the components individually make no sense, the combo is certainly not worth any more than the sum of its parts.”

    You clearly still do not under “MULTI-factor test”. You can’t dissect EACH and make exceptions on EACH. You are supposed to LOOK at ALL of them TOGETHER!! That’s the WHOLE point of “multi-factor test”!!!

    If 1 factor can make a clear difference in determination, then you don’t need a “MULTI-FACTOR test”!!!

    *
    “—I am still at a loss how a lawyer can debate the way you do. Anyhow, there are helicopters, and in fact small jets, that are used as air ambulances. Hot air balloons, not so much, unless you really want to take your sweet time getting to the hospital. And no, the type of vehicle does not a public emergency make; (do you not cringe sometimes at the arguments you try to make); but certain vehicles do serve as public vehicles whose job it is to respond to public emergencies, and hence are performing a governmental function. It’s not the vehicle that makes it unique; it’s the people who drive them (ie capability of providing initial medical care).”

    I’m sure these people still have skills when they are OFF duty too, doesn’t make what they do for “public governmental function”.

    I’m sure you are not a lawyer, because you just don’t want to accept laws that don’t make sense to you. well, like I said, it’s not laws according to you.

    Get over yourself, lots of laws won’t make sense to you. BIG news flash!!

    *
    “—you have no idea of what you speak. But you know what…whatever floats your boat. You can continue with your Canada, and I’ll live in the reality of mine.”

    Get OVER YOURSELF and your “reality”!! You don’t know what you are talking about!! You have no clue about laws, and you complain that they don’t make sense to YOU??!! Well, DUH!!!

    *
    “—for the umpteenth time, you needn’t assume that violent resistance was a foregone conclusion, or guarantee; the point is that it could have and should have been foreseen as a possibility.”

    Seems like you are assuming that they should have “foreseen”. Why?

    *
    “Otherwise, cops will be beating people down with clubs after a sit in protest.”
    —not necessarily; but certainly within the realm of foreseeable possibilities.”

    I guess, you should sue all cops for all such injuries. Really, go ahead and give it a try!

    *
    “None of these people ever represented their view as “foresight”.”
    —I suppose we’ll have to ask them to be sure. But berating students based on hindsight alone would seem pretty lame.”

    Why? You seem to be doing it to other people’s “foresight” with your “hindsight”.

    *
    “It’s merely “trying the same method again””
    —well, they sent in the same people; as for whether those people were tasked in the same way (ie what their orders were), I guess we’ll have to get that from the folks who gave the orders….ooops, those guys aren’t talking. Such a shame. Now, if it was the “same method”, I suppose we can look at that in one of 2 ways: (a) if at first you don’t succeed….; or (b) what do you call folks who do the same thing over and over, and expect different results? The CCP may be a lot of things, but I never took them for the people described in (b).”

    Intentional orders are covered by immunity.

    And frankly, your assumption of what CCP might do is irrelevant, and you have no supporting facts on that point.

    So, get over your “assumptions”, for the “umpteenth time”!!!

  11. raventhorn4000
    June 26th, 2009 at 02:49 | #11

    Steve,

    I disagree with your general assessment of the Great Famine of 1959. You are mixing it up with the “Great Leap forward” movement, with the backyard furnances.

    The “Great Leap Forward” was substantially stupid, but it didn’t really have that much impact on the agriculture, where most of the harm was done to the industrialized cities.

    The cause of the “Great Famine” was primarily due to local officials concealing the initial impact of local famines, and hiding the existence of the food shortage in some of the provinces.

    Several Western Historians upon examination of records, found that local officials were hiding the truth of the famine from the Central government for the 1st year. This in turn, caused the inability of the Central Government to send food to where needed until much later.

    Substantial evidence existed, because once the Central government learned of the problems, food shipment to the outlying provinces lessen the impact of the famine after 1962.

    There was no long lasting damage to the Agriculture sector in China.

    If Mao’s policies had been the cause, Chinese agriculture would have been in ruins, and the famine would have lasted much longer than 3 years, (especially since Mao didn’t reverse much of his policies after 3 years.)

    I think some Western historians over simplify the problem of the Great Famine to Mao.

    *on CIA and NED, I believe History speaks for itself on that one. CIA helped direct the overthrow of Iranian government, and placing the Shah in charge. And undoubtedly CIA helped Saddam achieve his power and helped him invade Iran.

    Iranians have reason to doubt the CIA.

    And frankly, CIA hasn’t gone quietly into the night. It is still massively well funded for covert operations against many countries.

    If China needs to account for TAM, then CIA better account for Every million dollar it has spent in the last 60 years.

    Let’s just say, we haven’t seen too many “love in’s” sponsored by the CIA around the world.

    *
    On Shanghainese, I would agree that some are too greedy and pay too much false compliment.

    My mother-in-law, as opposite example, is a woman well accomplished in the fine art of many compliments. And she does so without making it awkward.

    Unfortunately, what you would call “Shanghainese” today, are not true traditional or “old Shanghainese”.

    “Old Shanghainese” are families that have been in Shanghai since before 1940′s. Whereas, the “New Shanghainese” are typically people who migrated to Shanghai after 1949. (afterall, the city has grown multiple folds in population in the last 50 years.)

    I, not to brag, am from an “Old Shanghainese” Family. My grandparents were living in Shanghai, when the Communists rolled into town.

    We do not use our status as indication of our superiority, nor do we act to so, but the distinction is only there because the “New Shanghainese” sometimes portray themselves as “Shanghainese”, when they act unlike “Shanghainese”.

    “Old Shanghainese” means the true spirit of Shanghai.

  12. Wukailong
    June 26th, 2009 at 03:05 | #12

    @SKC, raventhorn4000: On a personal note, this discussion of yours is affecting my everyday life. I happened to see an ambulance the other day, and got a very ominous feeling… Never happened before.

  13. S.K. Cheung
    June 26th, 2009 at 03:12 | #13

    To R4000:
    “That’s the WHOLE point of “multi-factor test”!!!”
    — if part (a) makes no sense, and part (b) makes no sense, how much sense does “A + B” make; and hypotheticals aside, your part (a) made no sense, your part (b) made no sense, and parts (a) and (b) together didn’t fare much better, as I’ve described.

    “If 1 factor can make a clear difference in determination, then you don’t need a “MULTI-FACTOR test”!!!”
    —once again, hypotheticals aside, this is what you’ve failed to show thus far.

    “I’m sure these people still have skills when they are OFF duty too, doesn’t make what they do for “public governmental function”
    —another non sequitur. Obviously we’re talking about them using their skills while on duty in the performance of a government function…or was that not obvious enough previously?

    “you just don’t want to accept laws that don’t make sense”
    —I do enjoy laws that make sense. But what you speak of is not even the law in Canada.

    “You have no clue about laws, and you complain that they don’t make sense to YOU??!! ”
    —apparently I know a lot more about Canada than you do…no surprise there.

    “”you needn’t assume that violent resistance was a foregone conclusion, or guarantee; the point is that it could have and should have been foreseen as a possibility.”
    Seems like you are assuming that they should have “foreseen”. Why?”
    —for exactly the reasons I’ve been saying all along. These students were willing to resist. THey were willing to break the (martial) law. If you up the ante, it’s foreseeable that they will too. And since you’re the army and they only have stones and molotov’s, it’s further foreseeable that, if it came to that, they will be taking some serious damage.

    “you should sue all cops for all such injuries. Really, go ahead and give it a try!”
    —when it comes to proportionate use of force, people have, certainly in Canada, and in the US as well, i believe. You should also google Dziekanski inquiry.

    “Intentional orders are covered by immunity”
    —so you’ve said. And still they won’t talk about it…go figure.

    “”You seem to be doing it to other people’s “foresight” with your “hindsight”.”
    —oh come on. You know I give the CCP more credit than that. I think they did foresee it, and did it anyway, which is why they’re not so eager to talk about it, even after all these years. As Steve points out, if you’re in the right, you usually have no aversion to talking about it; and the opposite is also true.

    “So, get over your “assumptions”, for the “umpteenth time”!!!”
    —that would be easy just as soon as the air is cleared and the facts are out there. You let me know when that happens.

  14. raventhorn4000
    June 26th, 2009 at 03:39 | #14

    SKC,

    “— if part (a) makes no sense, and part (b) makes no sense, how much sense does “A + B” make; and hypotheticals aside, your part (a) made no sense, your part (b) made no sense, and parts (a) and (b) together didn’t fare much better, as I’ve described.”

    You give exception to part (a) only, and then you argue (a) + (b) don’t make sense. That is not rational. X = A and B (in this case, it’s more complex than a mere “and” function), X does not equal to A by itself!!!

    If I could prove X is true, whenever A is true, then I don’t need X = A and B!!!

    *I “failed to show so far”??? Maybe you need to get to basic boolean math, before I can explain to you further.

    I keep showing multiple factors, including A, B, C, and D, and you insisting that it doesn’t make sense, because well, X doesn’t always equal to A!

    Did I say X always equal to A??

    Did I say that “payment from private individuals” alone is sufficient to determine what is “governmental function”?

    *
    “The money factor is irrelevant, since you’ve even used the passport argument. So really, it hinges on the second factor ie the act of driving someone to hospital.”

    If the test “hinges” on 1 factor, then it’s NOT a multi-factor test!!!

    You fail to show me that you make any sense at all! Your dissections clearly indicate that you tried to analyze a multi-factor test as “1 factor at a time” test. You just don’t get this very basic concept do you?? Well, Big news flash!

    *
    “—another non sequitur. Obviously we’re talking about them using their skills while on duty in the performance of a government function…or was that not obvious enough previously?”

    Obviously, if your 1 factor doesn’t make sense, why tell me another factor like “on duty”?

    *
    “—apparently I know a lot more about Canada than you do…no surprise there.”

    except the laws in Canada, DUH! No surprise there!

    *
    “—I do enjoy laws that make sense. But what you speak of is not even the law in Canada.”

    Eh, you don’t know the laws, anywhere, I thought you already admitted that.

    *
    “—for exactly the reasons I’ve been saying all along. These students were willing to resist. THey were willing to break the (martial) law. If you up the ante, it’s foreseeable that they will too. And since you’re the army and they only have stones and molotov’s, it’s further foreseeable that, if it came to that, they will be taking some serious damage.”

    That’s your assumption, Get over it!

    *
    “—when it comes to proportionate use of force, people have, certainly in Canada, and in the US as well, i believe. You should also google Dziekanski inquiry.”

    Not against the leaders who made the decisions to “send them”, you are changing the issue to your tangent again, to cover up the fact that you were making sh*t up!

    *
    “—so you’ve said. And still they won’t talk about it…go figure.”

    So why do you keep bringing up the “intentional orders”??

    *
    “—oh come on. You know I give the CCP more credit than that. I think they did foresee it, and did it anyway, which is why they’re not so eager to talk about it, even after all these years. As Steve points out, if you’re in the right, you usually have no aversion to talking about it; and the opposite is also true.”

    Why are you still talking about “intentional orders”? I thought you wanted to talk about “negligence”??

    *
    “—that would be easy just as soon as the air is cleared and the facts are out there. You let me know when that happens.”

    You let me know when God tells you the Truth. While at it, get clear on your boolean math, Get over yourself.

  15. Steve
    June 26th, 2009 at 04:05 | #15

    @ R4K: What on earth are you talking about? The GLF went from 1957 to 1960. The famine occurred in 1959 and 1960. And you see no connection between the famine and the GLF? Even Mao admitted the GLF was a failure. There were two aspects to the “reforms”, agricultural and industrial. The “backyard furnaces” were part of the industrial reforms of the GLF. Collectivization was the main thrust of the agricultural. How many of those commune members were working the furnaces, making useless junk, when they should have been working the fields and taking in the harvest? By late 1960 the GLF was declared a failure and the reforms were undone. That’s why there was more food by 1962. All this is thoroughly documented from Chinese authors.

    And exactly WHY did local officials conceal the famine and food shortages? Last I checked, local officials were part of the government. Long lasting damage to the agricultural sector? There was long lasting, in fact, there was permanent damage to tens of millions of people. Seriously, you may want to read up on this one a bit more before your next post.

    I’m talking about the CIA of today. You’re talking about the CIA of the past. Do you also compare the China of today with the China of 1953? Do you get the two of them confused? I think you do when it comes to the CIA. Blaming everything on the CIA without any evidence isn’t much of an argument. Why don’t we just blame Canada instead? I know a really catchy song for that. :D

    You might want to check out the Church Committee Report from 1975. What you’re asking was already done. And are you telling me that China openly reports what it spends on its worldwide spy network? Does any country? Let me give you a hint; in China it’s a “state secret” so if you divulge the numbers, I wouldn’t recommend setting foot inside the country anytime soon. ;)

    And what in God’s name does TAM have to do with another country’s spy agency? Let’s see… TAM was Chinese attacking Chinese in the largest public square in the world, with the world press observing. And the CIA is a national spy agency for the United States. Hmm… not quite making the connection here.

    Our China sales manager told me her family had been in Shanghai from at least the 1840s and I never met anyone else who could trace it back anywhere near as far. Some long time Shanghainese told me there were three basic classes in the city: the people who were originally from Zhejiang Province, the ones from Jiangsu Province south of the Changjiang River and the ones from Jiangsu Province north of the Changjiang River. Their social status was ranked in that order. I noticed that the Zhejiang people had lighter skin and a different look to their faces.

    Of course, the natives considered people who had moved to Shanghai in the last few years as yellow trash. The ones that had moved to Shanghai from other parts of China said the “Old Shanghainese” were all part Japanese from stuff that happened during the war which shall remain unsaid. They said the Shanghainese dialect sorta sounded like Japanese to them :P

    Personally, Shanghai is my favorite Asian city and one of my top 5 favorite cities in the world.

  16. S.K. Cheung
    June 26th, 2009 at 04:25 | #16

    To R4000:
    “You give exception to part (a) only, and then you argue (a) + (b) don’t make sense.”
    —once again, what are you talking about? In #144, the passport analogy goes toward part a; in #154, the taxi analogy goes toward part b.
    If a is false, and b is false, then you’ll really have to explain to me how a + b is worth the pixels it’s displayed with. It’d be even better if you had something specific alluding to the basis of this discussion, rather than the hypothetical alpha-numerics.

    “Eh, you don’t know the laws, anywhere, I thought you already admitted that.”
    —umm, wrong once again. You’re on a real roll here. I’m not a lawyer, and you’re not a lawyer in Canada. Which is what I’ve been trying to tell you, and it’s clearly not getting through some very dense barriers…your knowledge of the law, at least in this case, has no relevance in Canada.

    “That’s your assumption, Get over it!”
    — you really are a little slow on the uptake sometimes. I’d love for it not to be your assumptions or mine; but for that to happen, “somebody” needs to open up to a parsing of the “facts”. You can have 3 guesses who that “somebody” is. Let me know if you’ll need all 3.

    ““—when it comes to proportionate use of force, people have, certainly in Canada, and in the US as well, i believe. You should also google Dziekanski inquiry.”
    Not against the leaders who made the decisions to “send them”, you are changing the issue to your tangent again, to cover up the fact that you were making sh*t up!”
    —hey buddy, you’re the one with the goofy police-beating-up-people-in-a-sit-in scenario. I’m just responding to that. You’re the one going on another non sequitur. You’re accumulating quite a collection of those bad boys.

    “Why are you still talking about “intentional orders”? I thought you wanted to talk about “negligence”??”
    —drawing the intestines once again…if they weren’t intentional orders, then it goes back to the fact that the CCP should have foreseen the consequences of the PLA moving in, etc etc, thus establishing duty of care, etc etc, and on the road towards negligence. On the other hand, if they were intentional orders, then no negligence, but I can certainly see why they’re a little shy about talking about it, as per the principles Steve stated. Hope that helps.

    “You let me know when God tells you the Truth. While at it, get clear on your boolean math, Get over yourself.”
    —way to finish off with a flourish…yet another non sequitur. Maybe that’s your legal specialty.

  17. raventhorn4000
    June 26th, 2009 at 20:09 | #17

    Steve,

    Coinciding dates do not mean that 2 events necessarily have causal relations to each other. Mao admitted GLF is a failure, doesn’t mean that he admitted it also caused the Famine.

    Agriculture collectivization policy was not reversed until Deng’s reform began in the 1970′s. Obviously if that policy caused the Famine, the Famine would have gone on for much longer.

    *
    I don’t think “Old Shanghainese” had much mixing with the Japanese. We might be “friendly”, but we are not total kiss-assers.

  18. raventhorn4000
    June 26th, 2009 at 20:27 | #18

    SKC,

    Your argument is illogical, ““The money factor is irrelevant, since you’ve even used the passport argument. So really, it HINGES on the second factor ie the act of driving someone to hospital.””

    You obviously applied only 1 factor at a time as “Hinged” to the conclusion of whether some function was “governmental function”.

    That is NOT how multi-factor tests work!!

    GET over your ridiculous assumptions and completely irrational argument!!

    *
    “—umm, wrong once again. You’re on a real roll here. I’m not a lawyer, and you’re not a lawyer in Canada. Which is what I’ve been trying to tell you, and it’s clearly not getting through some very dense barriers…your knowledge of the law, at least in this case, has no relevance in Canada.”

    Umm, wrong for you. I know more about laws than you do.

    You make silly assumptions that “ambulance drivers perform governmental functions”, and then use your silly assumption to question legal tests for “governmental functions”. You are doubly DENSE!

    *
    “— you really are a little slow on the uptake sometimes. I’d love for it not to be your assumptions or mine; but for that to happen, “somebody” needs to open up to a parsing of the “facts”. You can have 3 guesses who that “somebody” is. Let me know if you’ll need all 3.”

    You are still waiting on the facts, and making up irrational assumptions of laws as you go. You already used up all your GUESSES!!!

    *
    “—hey buddy, you’re the one with the goofy police-beating-up-people-in-a-sit-in scenario. I’m just responding to that. You’re the one going on another non sequitur. You’re accumulating quite a collection of those bad boys.”

    I didn’t raise the “negligence” issue. You were the one who wanted to talk about “negligence” in the “order” to send PLA, NOT me! My scenario was to illustrate your total ignorance of law!

    *
    “—drawing the intestines once again…if they weren’t intentional orders, then it goes back to the fact that the CCP should have foreseen the consequences of the PLA moving in, etc etc, thus establishing duty of care, etc etc, and on the road towards negligence. On the other hand, if they were intentional orders, then no negligence, but I can certainly see why they’re a little shy about talking about it, as per the principles Steve stated. Hope that helps.”

    Already told you, your speculation of 1 alternative scenario doesn’t prove your argument for the “negligence” issue. You are going tangent. Why are you going tangent?

    *
    “—way to finish off with a flourish…yet another non sequitur. Maybe that’s your legal specialty.”

    You brought it up. I’ll wait for your answer. I guess you don’t have one on when you will get an answer, based upon your assumptions of the laws.

    Keep arguing using your ignorance of law. I guess you will get somewhere with questions framed and limited by your own ignorant assumptions!!

    Get over yourself!!

    Let me give you a “1 factor test”.

    Your knowledge of the law, HINGES upon the limitations of your mistaken assumptions of Law. Hence, your questions of law are IRRELEVANT, since you bring in wrong assumptions!! You can’t even make sense on your application of a “multi-factor test”!!

    Dig your hole, and float your “boat”. That’s all you know.

  19. Steve
    June 26th, 2009 at 20:55 | #19

    @ R4K: If you are unwilling to see the causal relationship between these two events, nothing I or anyone else can say or show will convince you otherwise. So be it.

    About the Japanese and “Old Shanghainese”, I don’t make the news, I just report it. :P

  20. raventhorn4000
    June 26th, 2009 at 21:10 | #20

    Steve,

    All I can say is, I have read multiple theories on the cause of the Famine. The most data do not show a direct link of GLF to the Famine, since the Agricultural collectivization was carried on all the way to 1970′s.

    There were many factors, including natural disaster, etc.

    Western view of that event tend to be simplistic and without much data for support.

    *
    Your reported rumor about Shanghainese is amusing, but still rumor.

    I can trace my family history in Shanghai for about 300 years, and my personal family history in China to almost 2500 years ago.

    There are a lot of old “sub-classes” of Shanghainese people from various provinces and towns. Always some stereotypical stories.

    But I think it depends on who you talk to. There is no universally acknowledged “ranking” for Old Shanghainese.

  21. Steve
    June 26th, 2009 at 21:22 | #21

    @ R4K: It was a joke told by non-Shanghainese when I lived there, it’s not a rumor. There is no similarity between Shanghainese and Japanese. I was just teasing…

  22. raventhorn4000
    June 26th, 2009 at 21:23 | #22

    Steve,

    Oh, thanks for the joke. But I have been told that I look very Mexican with my curly hair.
    :)

    Which is quite amusing, considering how old my Chinese ancestry is traced back to.

  23. S.K. Cheung
    June 27th, 2009 at 05:21 | #23

    To R4000:
    you are dense beyond all belief. Like I said before, I feel for your “clients”.
    “That is NOT how multi-factor tests work!!”
    —listen…if this test involves “A and B”, then not only must A stand on its own, and B stand on its own, but then the two put together as a pair must still remain standing. So “A and B” is in fact a more stringent test than A alone or B alone. I’ve already shown you that A was nonsense, and B was nonsense. Maybe you can show me how two pieces of nonsense, as tests go, produce something that’s somehow less nonsensical. Good luck with that. Like I’ve said before, take your time. Oh, and you’re digging again. If you need a bigger shovel, just let us know.

    “I know more about laws than you do.”
    —the point, once again for those of us keeping score at home, is how little you know about Canada’s laws. For once, you should look to find the modesty and graciousness required to admit that fact, and save us all some time. I mean, each state has a bar exam, and I assume even Allen is only qualified and certified to practice law in California. So it’s no big shakes if you don’t know the law in another state, or country. But to keep going on and on about it is unbecoming…though I suppose not so much for you.

    “You make silly assumptions that “ambulance drivers perform governmental functions””
    —like I said, maybe not in the US, though i don’t even really believe that, since you don’t seem like a reliable source. If Allen concurred with you, then I’d be convinced. But in Canada, different story, and you are not in the know, though you seem even unaware of that fact.

    “You are still waiting on the facts, and making up irrational assumptions of laws as you go. You already used up all your GUESSES!!!”
    —you are quite a piece of work…not a good piece, but quite a piece nonetheless. Here’s to drawing intestines yet again: it’d be great if we had all the facts. It’s the CCP’s fault that we don’t. So we all make some assumptions. And here’s something for ya…you’re making assumptions as well. If that disturbs you, don’t look at me, complain to the CCP.

    “My scenario was to illustrate your total ignorance of law!”
    —sadly, your scenario only managed to highlight the goofiness of your scenario. Solid work. Was that billable?

    “your speculation of 1 alternative scenario doesn’t prove your argument for the “negligence” issue.”
    —I never said it proved anything. So let’s all hold our breath and wait for the CCP to objectively disperse and discuss “the facts”….starting….now.

    “You can’t even make sense on your application of a “multi-factor test”!!”
    —it’s tough to make sense of a multi factor test when the factors you’ve introduced are retarded, as I’ve already shown you. Is that so hard to comprehend.? Make up some “factors” that make sense, then we can talk. In the meantime, well, I suppose you’re busy digging….

  24. barny chan
    June 27th, 2009 at 05:36 | #24

    r4000: “I can trace my…my personal family history in China to almost 2500 years ago.”

    I’ll probably end up regretting asking this, but how can you trace your personal family history so far back?

  25. raventhorn4000
    June 27th, 2009 at 16:03 | #25

    SKC,

    “—listen…if this test involves “A and B”, then not only must A stand on its own, and B stand on its own, but then the two put together as a pair must still remain standing. So “A and B” is in fact a more stringent test than A alone or B alone. I’ve already shown you that A was nonsense, and B was nonsense. Maybe you can show me how two pieces of nonsense, as tests go, produce something that’s somehow less nonsensical. Good luck with that. Like I’ve said before, take your time. Oh, and you’re digging again. If you need a bigger shovel, just let us know.”

    WRONG, if X = A and B. X is not always = A. If A = 1, B = 0, X = 0. X does not equal A! Just because X does not equal to A in 1 case, does not mean X = A and B doesn’t make sense!

    You need to own up your lack of understanding of MULTI-FACTOR test. I’m tired of explaining to you.

    If you are looking at 1 factor to make sense to your result, you are NOT using a “multi-factor” test!!

    “—the point, once again for those of us keeping score at home, is how little you know about Canada’s laws. For once, you should look to find the modesty and graciousness required to admit that fact, and save us all some time. I mean, each state has a bar exam, and I assume even Allen is only qualified and certified to practice law in California. So it’s no big shakes if you don’t know the law in another state, or country. But to keep going on and on about it is unbecoming…though I suppose not so much for you.”

    The point is, how your dense head is filled with so many assumptions, that you don’t even know that you don’t know the law any more.

    “—like I said, maybe not in the US, though i don’t even really believe that, since you don’t seem like a reliable source. If Allen concurred with you, then I’d be convinced. But in Canada, different story, and you are not in the know, though you seem even unaware of that fact.”

    stop looking for validations from other people, you don’t know how multi-factor test works. You have nothing but your ignorant assumptions of the law. You don’t know jack about Canadian Law.

    “—you are quite a piece of work…not a good piece, but quite a piece nonetheless. Here’s to drawing intestines yet again: it’d be great if we had all the facts. It’s the CCP’s fault that we don’t. So we all make some assumptions. And here’s something for ya…you’re making assumptions as well. If that disturbs you, don’t look at me, complain to the CCP.”

    You are quite a piece of lower intestine, yet again. All that comes out of your mouth and brains are made up CR*P, why blame other people for not giving you “facts”, when you are perfectly happy to make ignorant assumptions, even when information is available to you??

    Go learn some real laws, then you can talk!

    “—sadly, your scenario only managed to highlight the goofiness of your scenario. Solid work. Was that billable?”

    I don’t charge to tell you about your ignorance.

    “—I never said it proved anything. So let’s all hold our breath and wait for the CCP to objectively disperse and discuss “the facts”….starting….now.”

    Then you were just wasting my time with your irrelevant tangent. Another sign that you were avoiding your “hole”.

    “—it’s tough to make sense of a multi factor test when the factors you’ve introduced are retarded, as I’ve already shown you. Is that so hard to comprehend.? Make up some “factors” that make sense, then we can talk. In the meantime, well, I suppose you’re busy digging….”

    Sure, it’s retarded when it doesn’t make sense to YOU!!! Says everything about you, doesn’t it?

    Isn’t it always the same excuse with you and your ignorant assumptions? don’t make sense to you: Oh, it’s “retarded”, or not explained well enough for you!

    Nope, you are just ignorant and Lazy!! Because you don’t even understand how X = A and B works. Duh, X doesn’t equal to A!!!

    No boolean functions where you “hole up”???!!

  26. raventhorn4000
    June 27th, 2009 at 16:06 | #26

    BC,

    “I’ll probably end up regretting asking this, but how can you trace your personal family history so far back?”

    I have a family record of names passed down for at least 300 years, which traced my bloodline back to Spring Autumn Period of China.

    Fortunately, my last name is one of the more rare family names in China, and most of us with that last name only live or are from an area around Shanghai. So, that makes it a little easier to trace back.

  27. Steve
    June 27th, 2009 at 16:46 | #27

    @ BC & Raventhorn: Yes, it’s true. Raventhorn is indeed a very rare family name in China! :P

  28. raventhorn4000
    June 27th, 2009 at 18:13 | #28

    Steve,

    I said my last name is rare.

    4000 is a very rare last name.
    :)

  29. S.K. Cheung
    June 27th, 2009 at 18:52 | #29

    To R4000:
    how’s the digging going? Pretty well, I see.

    “Just because X does not equal to A in 1 case, does not mean X = A and B doesn’t make sense!”
    —so here’s the thing. If you offer up X=A AND B, then you need to show how that makes sense. You haven’t come close to doing that. Now, let’s go back to your goofy little “test”:
    ““The fact that the Canadian government charge individual money for ambulance, AND there are private means that can drive a person to hospitals, means it’s “non-governmental function”.” (R4000 #146)
    —people are charged by government for ambulances, just as they are for many things AND while taxis can similarly transport a person to hospital, the cabbie is much less likely than an ambulance attendant to be able to offer preliminary medical care en route, the provision of which, in Canada at least, is a government function that is simply beyond debate. So, in the 37 comments since you brought up this goofy little test, you’ve yet to come close to showing how your test proves anything, and I’ve shown you that it proves nothing.
    Again, to clear it up more for you since you seemingly need clarification in endless amounts, ambulances do more than just “drive” someone to the hospital. The value-added stuff that an ambulance provides above and beyond mere transportation is what makes it a government function. So as I said before, part B is simply flawed as a component of your test. So care to rephrase, or what? How much clearer can it be made for you that you’re making no sense.

    “The point is, how your dense head is filled with so many assumptions, that you don’t even know that you don’t know the law any more.”
    —once again a completely non-responsive non sequitur, which is seemingly all that you’re good for these days. And those characteristics to which I alluded are clearly ones that you sorely lack.

    “stop looking for validations from other people, you don’t know how multi-factor test works.”
    —where do you get this stuff? As I’ve suggested before, you might want to try stand-up, though Dane Cook/Russell Peters you ain’t.

    “even when information is available to you”
    —oh, you mean the stuff the CCP doesn’t talk about, but good folks like you have already crystallized as facts according to R4000? No thanks…that stuff can turn your stomach, and make you violently ill.

    “Then you were just wasting my time with your irrelevant tangent.”
    —I’d love to know what you think you’ve “proved”. This should be good…

    “Says everything about you, doesn’t it?”
    —it sure does. Me, I like stuff that makes sense. Clearly, you are not as discerning an individual, and let me assure you, that aspect reveals itself every time you open your mouth. Not a pretty sight.

  30. raventhorn4000
    June 27th, 2009 at 19:34 | #30

    SKC,

    I say you are up to your eyeballs with ignorance “hole”.

    “—so here’s the thing. If you offer up X=A AND B, then you need to show how that makes sense. You haven’t come close to doing that. Now, let’s go back to your goofy little “test”:
    ““The fact that the Canadian government charge individual money for ambulance, AND there are private means that can drive a person to hospitals, means it’s “non-governmental function”.” (R4000 #146)
    —people are charged by government for ambulances, just as they are for many things AND while taxis can similarly transport a person to hospital, the cabbie is much less likely than an ambulance attendant to be able to offer preliminary medical care en route, the provision of which, in Canada at least, is a government function that is simply beyond debate. So, in the 37 comments since you brought up this goofy little test, you’ve yet to come close to showing how your test proves anything, and I’ve shown you that it proves nothing.”

    “preliminary medical care en route”? As I have already shown you that there are plenty of private ambulance services. Here is one for Canada.

    467 Charlton Ave. East
    Hamilton, Ontario
    L8N 1Z4
    By Fax: (905) 528-8833
    By E-mail: candice@opt-med.com
    Online: http://www.opt-med.com

    “in Canada at least, is a government function that is simply beyond debate.”

    You mean, beyond your ignorance!!!

    “cabbie is much less likely”???

    “less likely” doesn’t mean can’t. Your own admission on that point puts your assumption of “government function” at debate!!

    Just because it requires more training, doesn’t make it “governmental function”, since when does government has exclusive control of “preliminary medical care”?

    *
    Frankly, you are dodging the hole.

    You had no clue about how to apply the “multi-factor test”, you applied it like it’s a 1 factor test.

  31. raventhorn4000
    June 27th, 2009 at 19:40 | #31

    SKC,

    “—once again a completely non-responsive non sequitur, which is seemingly all that you’re good for these days. And those characteristics to which I alluded are clearly ones that you sorely lack.”

    Speak for yourself, you are the one with all the assumptions about this is/isn’t “government function”, when you don’t even know what the legal test for “government function” is!!

    “—where do you get this stuff? As I’ve suggested before, you might want to try stand-up, though Dane Cook/Russell Peters you ain’t.”

    You know about as much about Comedy as you know about laws and boolean functions. Yeah, I’m sure you crack yourself up with repetitions of your “holes” and “digging” 1 liners. Says much about you, doesn’t it?

    “—oh, you mean the stuff the CCP doesn’t talk about, but good folks like you have already crystallized as facts according to R4000? No thanks…that stuff can turn your stomach, and make you violently ill.”

    Nope, you make up garbage on Canadian law, that’s enough to show me that you are just ignorant.

    “—I’d love to know what you think you’ve “proved”. This should be good…”

    If you don’t know by now the extent of your ignorance, it must be very “good” for you. At least you get to “float your boat” again.

    “—it sure does. Me, I like stuff that makes sense. Clearly, you are not as discerning an individual, and let me assure you, that aspect reveals itself every time you open your mouth. Not a pretty sight.”

    Nope, you clearly can’t make sense out of anything, not even boolean functions. Clearly, I know you are pretty messed up.

  32. raventhorn4000
    June 27th, 2009 at 19:49 | #32

    SKC,

    Here is another private Canadian ambulance service.

    http://www.telusplanet.net/public/guardrd/index_files/Page346.htm

    The four major components of our Service are:

    1. Emergency Medical Services

    2. Inter-Hospital transportation

    3. Special Events standby

    4. EMS Management consulting

  33. raventhorn4000
    June 27th, 2009 at 19:57 | #33

    http://www.medstat.durham.net/

    Medstat E.M.S. is one of the oldest and most experienced private emergency medical services in Ontario, Canada. In many area’s we have been a unique forerunner, in the events medical and mobility transfer business, becoming an historical cornerstone in the industry.

    http://www.parkviewems.com/event/event_services.html

    Parkview owns and operates fully equipped B.L.S. Ambulance vehicles. The vehicles are equipped to B.L.S. standards as set out by the Ontario Ministry of Health. Ambulance Dispatch Centers.

    GROUND MEDICAL SUPPORT

    Preferred Provider of Ground Transportation Services to numerous Air Ambulance and Insurance/Assistance Companies Worldwide
    Basic and Advanced Life Support Service available
    Operate our own fleet in Toronto, Canada
    Quality Control to insure superior service
    Limousine, Taxi and Stretcher Van service
    24 hour/365 day Service

  34. S.K. Cheung
    June 27th, 2009 at 23:23 | #34

    To R4000:
    I see you’ve moved out of your hole, and are now back to comparing apples and oranges. It seems you engage in a limited number of pursuits.

    Your links are to “transfer ambulances” and “ground medical transports”. Those take non-emergent patients, and “taxi” them from one place to another. Those are distinctly different from the ones you get when you dial 911, who respond to emergencies. So if this is where you want to go with it, then sure, “elective” transfer of patients may not be a government function. But if you were having a stroke and dial 911, you would not be getting the type of ambulance you suggest, since that, ahem, would be an emergency.

    ““cabbie is much less likely”??? “less likely” doesn’t mean can’t.”
    —you are hilarious…and not in a good way. I think most people, if they had a medical emergency, would prefer an ambulance attendant to care for them en route to hospital, and not a cabbie (no offense to cabbies). Plus, I’ve never seen 2 cabbies in one cab picking up a fare. If the cabbie is driving, and trying to provide medical care simultaneously, my guess is that he/she would not be doing either job particularly well.

    “since when does government has exclusive control of “preliminary medical care”?”
    —I am truly speechless.

    “You had no clue about how to apply the “multi-factor test”, you applied it like it’s a 1 factor test.”
    —I can’t help it if the application of the test is poor, when the test itself is fatally flawed, as I’ve shown. You have yet to show how you would apply your little test in any way that makes sense.

    “you don’t even know what the legal test for “government function” is”
    —are you still referring to your goofy little test?

    “You know about as much about Comedy as you know about laws and boolean functions”
    — this is what i know about you. You are a laugh, when you don’t mean to be. But if you were to try to be funny, I’m not sure how successful you’d be.

    So, this amusing aside about how ambulances are emergency vehicles doing government work has been most entertaining. But wouldn’t it be so much nicer if the CCP would just share with everyone what they were thinking before 6/4, and figure out why 6/4 unfolded the way it did? Or do you not care, since you seem to have all the facts you’ll ever need, or be able to handle?

    BTW, really enjoyed how your last link even mentions limousine and taxi service. Quite enjoyed that one.

  35. raventhorn4000
    June 28th, 2009 at 00:09 | #35

    SKC,

    I see you are still trying to stuff apples and oranges into every conversation.

    I see you can’t read the “Basic and Advanced Life Support Service available” part.

    I thought you might neglect to read some of that.

    “—you are hilarious…and not in a good way. I think most people, if they had a medical emergency, would prefer an ambulance attendant to care for them en route to hospital, and not a cabbie (no offense to cabbies). Plus, I’ve never seen 2 cabbies in one cab picking up a fare. If the cabbie is driving, and trying to provide medical care simultaneously, my guess is that he/she would not be doing either job particularly well.”

    Personal preference doesn’t make a “government function”. That’s just your personal Preference. You are still ignorant.

    ““since when does government has exclusive control of “preliminary medical care”?”
    —I am truly speechless.”

    You should be, when you are “speechless”, that’s the ONLY time when you are being honest.

    “—I can’t help it if the application of the test is poor, when the test itself is fatally flawed, as I’ve shown. You have yet to show how you would apply your little test in any way that makes sense.”

    Try blame it on your ignorance instead. Quit while you are ahead, and remain “speechless”.

    ““you don’t even know what the legal test for “government function” is”
    —are you still referring to your goofy little test?”

    you don’t know the TEST, NOR the actual laws. You are the goofy one.

    “— this is what i know about you. You are a laugh, when you don’t mean to be. But if you were to try to be funny, I’m not sure how successful you’d be.”

    Yet again, you bring your own irrelevant assumptions. What else can we expect from you, more personal comments about other people’s writing style, their comedy skills? As usual, that’s your cowardly way of retreating out of your obvious ignorance of the actual subject!!

    Your display of ignorance is quite habitual.

    “So, this amusing aside about how ambulances are emergency vehicles doing government work has been most entertaining. But wouldn’t it be so much nicer if the CCP would just share with everyone what they were thinking before 6/4, and figure out why 6/4 unfolded the way it did? Or do you not care, since you seem to have all the facts you’ll ever need, or be able to handle?”

    If you cared about the truth, you wouldn’t be making up BS about Canadian laws. God only knows you just assume everything you don’t understand as “goofy”.

    Here is my fact for you, you can’t take the Truth, Boolean function is too “goofy” for you.

    “BTW, really enjoyed how your last link even mentions limousine and taxi service. Quite enjoyed that one.”

    You can click on the advertisement on that link too, if you want. I don’t give a damn how tangent you want to go on your time. It’s irrelevant in here.

  36. S.K. Cheung
    June 28th, 2009 at 00:27 | #36

    To R4000:
    you know, this is becoming an epidemic for you. You ignore the point, but instead focus on word-choice, and sometimes not even focusing all that well.

    “Personal preference doesn’t make a “government function”. That’s just your personal Preference.”
    — what I said was “I think most people”, so certainly not referring to just my personal preference. But that’s not even the point; the point is that cabbies in one cab are simply not equipped, in training and in number (ie only one cabbie per cab usually) to provide any form of medical care en route to hospital. Which is probably why the government serves that function, and doesn’t leave it to cabbies.

    “I see you can’t read the “Basic and Advanced Life Support Service available” part.”
    —of course it’s “available”. If you’re transporting a patient, there’s always the possibility that they’d pull a Michael Jackson on you. Imagine the liability if you were electively transporting a patient from A to B, their heart stops, but the attendants aren’t trained to administer resuscitation. As a lawyer, you would have a field day. But the role is still different from responding to a 911 emergency.

    “Try blame it on your ignorance instead. Quit while you are ahead, and remain “speechless”.”
    —no, the blame is on your lousy test. But I am ahead, you’re quite right about that. First time for everything, I suppose.

    “you don’t know the TEST, NOR the actual laws.”
    —I think I’ve given you ample opportunity to show how your test is remotely relevant, or applicable. But still….nothing…..I think that silence is rather revealing, don’t you?

    “Yet again, you bring your own irrelevant assumptions.”
    —dude, when it comes to you, I’m way past merely assuming.

    “If you cared about the truth, you wouldn’t be making up BS about Canadian laws”
    —I’m trying to bring the discussion back to TAM and the PLA, and this is your response? Is this the best you can do? Like I’ve said, I expect very little from you, and even then, sometimes you disappoint.

  37. raventhorn4000
    June 28th, 2009 at 00:39 | #37

    SKC,

    “you know, this is becoming an epidemic for you. You ignore the point, but instead focus on word-choice, and sometimes not even focusing all that well.”

    You chose the words! Deal with your own admissions.

    “— what I said was “I think most people”, so certainly not referring to just my personal preference. But that’s not even the point; the point is that cabbies in one cab are simply not equipped, in training and in number (ie only one cabbie per cab usually) to provide any form of medical care en route to hospital. Which is probably why the government serves that function, and doesn’t leave it to cabbies.”

    Most people in their preferences are still “private personal preferences”. Private ambulances have the same trainings. You don’t have a point.

    “—of course it’s “available”. If you’re transporting a patient, there’s always the possibility that they’d pull a Michael Jackson on you. Imagine the liability if you were electively transporting a patient from A to B, their heart stops, but the attendants aren’t trained to administer resuscitation. As a lawyer, you would have a field day. But the role is still different from responding to a 911 emergency.”

    Available means they are TRAINED!!

    “—no, the blame is on your lousy test. But I am ahead, you’re quite right about that. First time for everything, I suppose.”

    No, QUIT while you are “speechless”. Only ahead of yourself again. 1st time? Delusional as usual. Blame on your delusions.

    “—I think I’ve given you ample opportunity to show how your test is remotely relevant, or applicable. But still….nothing…..I think that silence is rather revealing, don’t you?”

    I think I given you ample opportunity to learn boolean functions. You can’t learn, that’s simply obvious.

    “—dude, when it comes to you, I’m way past merely assuming.”

    When it comes to you, you never stop assuming (and blabbing your ignorance). It’s obvious.

    “—I’m trying to bring the discussion back to TAM and the PLA, and this is your response? Is this the best you can do? Like I’ve said, I expect very little from you, and even then, sometimes you disappoint.”

    You already tried more than 20 times to go tangent on personal attacks, 1 liners, and irrelevant issues (like intentional). I expect you will be continuing your pattern of generally being ignorant, assuming, and ill mannered. That’s why you get that response. That’s all you deserve for your “goofy” 1 liners.

  38. raventhorn4000
    June 28th, 2009 at 00:57 | #38

    SKC,

    Still fiddling with your apples and oranges.

    You know you would make a terrible clown. But you amuse me with your antic.

    I think I gave you ample opportunities to demonstrate your proofs. But oh well, you disappoint.

    Do you get billed for your bad grammar?

    I am speechless at your goofy stunts.

    Now, I’m trying to get the discussion back to TAM, and this is the best you can do? What do we expect from you?

    Want to try to dig some more hole with your shovel, or float your boat to make yourself feel better?

    *
    Yep, that covers every thing SKC knows to say, rinse, repeat, dry.

  39. S.K. Cheung
    June 28th, 2009 at 04:01 | #39

    “Private ambulances have the same trainings. You don’t have a point.”
    —unbelievable once again. The point, for the umpteenth time, is that private ambulances do not serve a government function, since they don’t respond to emergencies; they’re transporting patients, kinda like the taxis I was talking about. In a warped way…wait for it…I agree with you, if for no other reason that that is completely beside the point. The ambulances that do respond to emergencies, however, are not private ambulances, since they are performing a government function. Those, in case you’re still keeping track, would be the ones we’ve actually been talking about. Look, you can ignore the point all you want, and I will be happy to remind you each and every time. You seem like someone who would need such reminders.

    “You chose the words!”
    —i did indeed. It’d be nice if you quoted me accurately. Oh well.

    “Available means they are TRAINED!!”
    —I never said private ambulance attendants weren’t trained. I said taxi drivers weren’t trained to provide medical care. That private ambulance attendants are trained has absolutely no relevance to our discussion about public ambulances serving a government function. So I have no idea why you even bring it up. But now that you do, you’re still not making sense, even on that level. How do you manage to stand up in court, anyhow?

    “You can’t learn, that’s simply obvious.”
    —it’s not the concept of the multi-factor test that’s the problem; it’s your specific idiotic iteration of such a test that’s the problem. Again, how many times does a guy have to say that before it sinks in?

    “That’s why you get that response. That’s all you deserve for your “goofy” 1 liners.”
    —I’m guessing this is all you’re capable of. Not your fault, really. Must be the fault of somebody in “the West”. And still unable to return to TAM and PLA, when given way more than ample opportunity. Like I said, it speaks volumes.

    As for #192, as I’ve said before, imitation is the best form of flattery, but rest assured that I desire no such flattery from you, for large part since it isn’t worth much. Furthermore, one-liners are best employed in a proper context; their random use renders you no better than the guy muttering to himself on a street corner. Yet again, here endeth the lesson.

  40. raventhorn4000
    June 28th, 2009 at 11:52 | #40

    SKC,

    “—unbelievable once again. The point, for the umpteenth time, is that private ambulances do not serve a government function, since they don’t respond to emergencies; they’re transporting patients, kinda like the taxis I was talking about. In a warped way…wait for it…I agree with you, if for no other reason that that is completely beside the point. The ambulances that do respond to emergencies, however, are not private ambulances, since they are performing a government function. Those, in case you’re still keeping track, would be the ones we’ve actually been talking about. Look, you can ignore the point all you want, and I will be happy to remind you each and every time. You seem like someone who would need such reminders.”

    for the last time, you are putting forth an assumption before the proof, making up your own definitions of “government function”, and then testing the test. Who says ambulances (private or public) perform a “government function”??!

    “—i did indeed. It’d be nice if you quoted me accurately. Oh well.”

    Quoted you exactly as you used them. Stop you whining.

    “—I never said private ambulance attendants weren’t trained. I said taxi drivers weren’t trained to provide medical care. That private ambulance attendants are trained has absolutely no relevance to our discussion about public ambulances serving a government function. So I have no idea why you even bring it up. But now that you do, you’re still not making sense, even on that level. How do you manage to stand up in court, anyhow?”

    Who says “no relevance” on Private ambulance attendants?! You are running away again!
    I said all along, 1 factor was “availability of private alternatives”.

    “—it’s not the concept of the multi-factor test that’s the problem; it’s your specific idiotic iteration of such a test that’s the problem. Again, how many times does a guy have to say that before it sinks in?”

    How many times do you have to embarrass yourself in this forum, before you actually own up, AGAIN! Really, how many times before, did you have to go back and forward on your ridiculous assumptions, and only to be cornered? It’s obviously you are just doing it again!

    “—I’m guessing this is all you’re capable of. Not your fault, really. Must be the fault of somebody in “the West”. And still unable to return to TAM and PLA, when given way more than ample opportunity. Like I said, it speaks volumes.”

    I guess you still are only capable of 1 liners. It is your own fault. That is what you deserve.

    “As for #192, as I’ve said before, imitation is the best form of flattery, but rest assured that I desire no such flattery from you, for large part since it isn’t worth much. Furthermore, one-liners are best employed in a proper context; their random use renders you no better than the guy muttering to himself on a street corner. Yet again, here endeth the lesson.”

    I’m you would think that’s flattery. “Proper context”? look in the mirror, SKC, you are that guy on the street corner.

    Learn some boolean functions and civics lessons.

  41. S.K. Cheung
    June 28th, 2009 at 21:18 | #41

    To R4000:
    hey, congratulations on #192 again. Looks like 6 readers (or 1 admin) found it super useful to the discussion.
    “I’m you would think that’s flattery.”
    —your words exactly. And no idea what that means.

    “Who says ambulances (private or public) perform a “government function”??!”
    —I’ve been trying to say that private ambulances don’t perform a government function for 1 or 2 days at least; and I’ve been saying that public ambulances do perform a government function for seemingly weeks. I hope that answers your “who” query.

    “1 factor was “availability of private alternatives”.”
    —the private ambulances are “available” to be used for their stated purpose: to transport patients. The private ambulances are not there to respond to public emergencies; that’s the job of the public ambulances, who are there to exercise their government function. That private ambulance attendants are suitably trained for their private duties has no relevance when it comes to a discussion of public ambulances in the exercise of government functions.

    “I guess you still are only capable of 1 liners.”
    —another non sequitur. I’ve lost count of how many you’ve uttered. And again, this is the pathetic response to another of my attempts to bring the discussion back to the TAM and PLA. Well, if at first you don’t succeed…

    “How many times do you have to embarrass yourself in this forum…”
    —you mean like you in #192? Go on, you should vote for yourself just to re-expand your (ahem) fabulous random collection of mutterings and utterances.

  42. raventhorn4000
    June 28th, 2009 at 21:32 | #42

    SKC,

    I’m sure you did find it “flattering”. Which makes the comments yours, not mine.

    “—I’ve been trying to say that private ambulances don’t perform a government function for 1 or 2 days at least; and I’ve been saying that public ambulances do perform a government function for seemingly weeks. I hope that answers your “who” query.”

    You have been repeating your assumption for 2 days now. Doesn’t make it correct.

    “—the private ambulances are “available” to be used for their stated purpose: to transport patients. The private ambulances are not there to respond to public emergencies; that’s the job of the public ambulances, who are there to exercise their government function. That private ambulance attendants are suitably trained for their private duties has no relevance when it comes to a discussion of public ambulances in the exercise of government functions.”

    What did you think “Advance Life Support Service” means? Just “transport”???!! Look it up, your assumptions are ridiculous!!

    “—another non sequitur. I’ve lost count of how many you’ve uttered. And again, this is the pathetic response to another of my attempts to bring the discussion back to the TAM and PLA. Well, if at first you don’t succeed…”

    Speak for your own 1 liners and repetitions of ridiculous assumptions. You are pathetic.

    “—you mean like you in #192? Go on, you should vote for yourself just to re-expand your (ahem) fabulous random collection of mutterings and utterances.”

    You mean you are making another assumption? What a shock. and with a 1 liner too!

    Uh, they were a collection of YOUR 1 liners!!

    Obviously, you missed your own comedic value. Hmm, 6 people voted down that post. Gee, whose words were those that I was “imitating”???!!

  43. raventhorn4000
    June 28th, 2009 at 21:39 | #43

    For SKC,

    Advanced life support (ALS) implies that an emergency medical technician (EMT) is capable of performing advanced life support skills as either an EMT-I (Intermediate) or an EMT-P (Paramedic), commonly referred to simply as a paramedic or medic.

    Canadian paramedics may be certified in either ALS or in only basic life support (see paramedics in canada).

    http://www.parkviewems.com/event/event_services.html

    Parkview owns and operates fully equipped B.L.S. Ambulance vehicles. The vehicles are equipped to B.L.S. standards as set out by the Ontario Ministry of Health. Ambulance Dispatch Centers.

    GROUND MEDICAL SUPPORT

    Basic and Advanced Life Support Service available

    *
    *
    Oh yes, the private Canadian ambulance drivers trained themselves to ALS service, just to “transport patients”! NOT!!

    Notch it down for another SKC assumption/delusion.

  44. S.K. Cheung
    June 29th, 2009 at 01:16 | #44

    To R4000:
    “What did you think “Advance Life Support Service” means? Just “transport”?”
    —it means they are capable of advanced resuscitation. Like I said, I never questioned the training of private ambulance attendants. As I said in #191, if you are transporting patients, there’s always the possibility that their heart might stop. And if the job of the private ambulance is to safely transport a patient from A to B, then being able to respond to a life-threatening emergency should one occur en route seems like a pretty reasonable expectation from those who are paying for such a service. Otherwise they could have simply hailed a cab. But their training does not change why a private ambulance was summoned in the first place: to transport a patient. Not the same as a public ambulance responding to an emergency as an exercise of government function.

    “I’m sure you did find it “flattering””
    —from you, nope. Wrong again.

    “Speak for your own 1 liners and repetitions of ridiculous assumptions. You are pathetic.”
    —still can’t talk about TAM and PLA. I wonder what the aversion is?

    “You mean you are making another assumption?”
    —nope, just a suggestion. I see you took it too, and maybe even “phoned a friend”.

    “6 people voted down that post”
    —you lack self-awareness, among other things. People didn’t vote them down because they were one-liners; they voted them down because you just randomly threw a bunch together, with no context and no relevance. BTW, is every sentence a one-liner now too?

    “Oh yes, the private Canadian ambulance drivers trained themselves to ALS service, just to “transport patients””
    —said it several times before, but still not getting through, so worth repeating. Their level of training equips them to perform all foreseeable duties that might arise in the performance of their job, but it doesn’t change the nature of their job on a day to day basis. If their job is to transport patients, which is what private ambulances do, then that’s their job. But they have advanced training in case they need it. However, just because the crew of a private ambulance has advanced training does not suddenly make them a public ambulance. It seems you are making bizarre and unfounded assumptions. Not the first time; unlikely to be the last.

  45. raventhorn4000
    June 29th, 2009 at 01:45 | #45

    SKC,

    “—it means they are capable of advanced resuscitation. Like I said, I never questioned the training of private ambulance attendants. As I said in #191, if you are transporting patients, there’s always the possibility that their heart might stop. And if the job of the private ambulance is to safely transport a patient from A to B, then being able to respond to a life-threatening emergency should one occur en route seems like a pretty reasonable expectation from those who are paying for such a service. Otherwise they could have simply hailed a cab. But their training does not change why a private ambulance was summoned in the first place: to transport a patient. Not the same as a public ambulance responding to an emergency as an exercise of government function.”

    You are assuming people don’t have a choice, but you are wrong. And you are still making a conclusion of “government function” before you even bothered to make any proof of that.

    “—from you, nope. Wrong again.”

    Nope, you admitted it.

    “—still can’t talk about TAM and PLA. I wonder what the aversion is?”

    Still responding to your 1 liners. Keep wondering.

    “—nope, just a suggestion. I see you took it too, and maybe even “phoned a friend”.”

    Nope, just another one of your assumptions. It’s obviously pathetic.

    “—you lack self-awareness, among other things. People didn’t vote them down because they were one-liners; they voted them down because you just randomly threw a bunch together, with no context and no relevance. BTW, is every sentence a one-liner now too?”

    Context? You are the context for your 1 liners. You need to be “speechless” again. It suits you better.

    “—said it several times before, but still not getting through, so worth repeating. Their level of training equips them to perform all foreseeable duties that might arise in the performance of their job, but it doesn’t change the nature of their job on a day to day basis. If their job is to transport patients, which is what private ambulances do, then that’s their job. But they have advanced training in case they need it. However, just because the crew of a private ambulance has advanced training does not suddenly make them a public ambulance. It seems you are making bizarre and unfounded assumptions. Not the first time; unlikely to be the last.”

    Who says it’s their “job to transport patients”?? Who says they can’t get calls to respond to medical emergencies?? Who are you to make up their “job description”??

    I can easily say the same “job description” applies to Public ambulance drivers too. They are just there to “transport patient”, and their trainings are only there “if needed”.

    Keep digging your hole, It’s obvious you are just making up more ridiculous explanations to cover you ignorance.

    Having a government paycheck doesn’t make someone performing government functions. Repeating “government function” doesn’t explain your argument at all!

    Is this what you do? Just keep repeating your 1 assumption over and over again??

    No wonder you can’t understand boolean functions.

    Maybe in your delusional world, someone performs “government function” just because they were a public uniform. (or because you make up some ridiculous different “job description”.)

    But that’s NOT the law.

    Once again, your repetition of your assumptions of law and what “government function” is, ARE WRONG!!

    That should be repeated. And I will repeat it for you again, because you will need it:

    You don’t know the Law. Quit your ridiculous assumptions. Go dig your holes, that’s obviously the only thing you really know.

  46. S.K. Cheung
    June 29th, 2009 at 05:34 | #46

    To R4000:
    “You are assuming people don’t have a choice, but you are wrong.”
    —I’m not sure what choice you are referring to. But when someone calls 911, they get a public ambulance, not a private transport one.

    “Still responding to your 1 liners. Keep wondering.”
    —yes, I do still wonder what the CCP was thinking sending in the armed PLA. Did they simply not foresee the potential of violence? Did they foresee it, and not care? Did they just tell the PLA to move in and mow people down? Lots to wonder about, since the principals aren’t talking even 20 years later.

    “Nope, just another one of your assumptions.”
    —for someone who has lived in the US for 30 years, and is a lawyer to boot, you exhibit a fascinating inability to distinguish between a suggestion and an assumption. I guess there really are endless wonders in the world.

    “Context? You are the context for your 1 liners.”
    —and now you can’t comprehend the concept of context. You really are evolving…though quite possibly in reverse.

    “Who says it’s their “job to transport patients”??”
    —their employer. What job do you think a transport ambulance would perform?
    “Who says they can’t get calls to respond to medical emergencies??”
    —well, if they have a phone that works, then of course they “can”; but do they? Don’t think so.

    “They are just there to “transport patient”, and their trainings are only there “if needed”.”
    —true. But they do so on the government’s behalf.

    “Having a government paycheck doesn’t make someone performing government functions.”
    —if the government is paying you, but not as remuneration for executing a government function, then what are they paying you for? And I’m talking paycheque, not welfare cheque or some other form of government assistance.

    “Repeating “government function” doesn’t explain your argument at all!”
    —neither does repeating your baseless assertions. But that doesn’t seem to faze you.

    “Once again, your repetition of your assumptions of law and what “government function” is, ARE WRONG!!”
    —because you say so? Based on much of the stuff you’ve said, I think I’ll take a pass on your opinion. But thanks though.

    “You don’t know the Law.”
    —never said I did. And when it comes to Canada, you might try making a similar acknowledgment.

  47. raventhorn4000
    June 29th, 2009 at 11:19 | #47

    SKC,

    “—I’m not sure what choice you are referring to. But when someone calls 911, they get a public ambulance, not a private transport one.”

    DUH! What if someone calls the Private ambulance already?!

    *
    “Still responding to your 1 liners. Keep wondering.”
    —yes, I do still wonder what the CCP was thinking sending in the armed PLA. Did they simply not foresee the potential of violence? Did they foresee it, and not care? Did they just tell the PLA to move in and mow people down? Lots to wonder about, since the principals aren’t talking even 20 years later.”

    Just take your own questions as “apples and oranges”, that should cover you for another 20 years.

    *
    “Nope, just another one of your assumptions.”
    —for someone who has lived in the US for 30 years, and is a lawyer to boot, you exhibit a fascinating inability to distinguish between a suggestion and an assumption. I guess there really are endless wonders in the world.

    Obviously, you failed to realize the assumptions you used for your “suggestion”. Next time, try make a list of your assumptions 1st, before you open up any “suggestions”, “criticisms”, statements. You have a lot of ridiculous assumptions.

    *

    “Context? You are the context for your 1 liners.”
    —and now you can’t comprehend the concept of context. You really are evolving…though quite possibly in reverse.”

    DUH! you can’t even see yourself as your own context, you are the pathetic one who need to see your “context” for what it is, pathetic!

    *
    “Who says it’s their “job to transport patients”??”
    —their employer. What job do you think a transport ambulance would perform?

    You are not their employer. They are hired to respond to medical emergencies!!!

    *
    “Who says they can’t get calls to respond to medical emergencies??”
    —well, if they have a phone that works, then of course they “can”; but do they? Don’t think so.

    Duh, their phone #’s are on their website. Who says they can’t be called? You are a clown!

    *
    “They are just there to “transport patient”, and their trainings are only there “if needed”.”
    —true. But they do so on the government’s behalf.

    So, there is no difference in job description now. It’s just they do it on “government’s behalf”??? That’s your definition of “government function”??? YOU are SO WRONG!!!

    *

    “Having a government paycheck doesn’t make someone performing government functions.”
    —if the government is paying you, but not as remuneration for executing a government function, then what are they paying you for? And I’m talking paycheque, not welfare cheque or some other form of government assistance.

    Well, government own stores, operate businesses, they do all kinds of functions that are called “proprietary functions”, not covered by immunity.

    GET a clue! You are IGNORANT about law!!!

    *
    “Repeating “government function” doesn’t explain your argument at all!”
    —neither does repeating your baseless assertions. But that doesn’t seem to faze you.

    I at least try to explain a valid legal definition. If you want to challenge that legal definition, go ahead with some REAL knowledge of law, instead of your repetition of your own RIDICULOUS assumptions.

    *
    “Once again, your repetition of your assumptions of law and what “government function” is, ARE WRONG!!”
    —because you say so? Based on much of the stuff you’ve said, I think I’ll take a pass on your opinion. But thanks though.

    Because the LAW says so!

    *
    “You don’t know the Law.”
    —never said I did. And when it comes to Canada, you might try making a similar acknowledgment.”

    Then you admit to your ignorance. I’m done. Your assumptions are ridiculous. You accept your ignorance. Further debate with you on your assumptions are irrelevant to the ACTUAL law.

  48. S.K. Cheung
    June 30th, 2009 at 05:19 | #48

    To R4000:
    “What if someone calls the Private ambulance already?! ”
    —then that’s great. Doesn’t make that private ambulance suddenly turn into a public one; doesn’t make that private ambulance one that is now performing a government function; and doesn’t change the fact that a public ambulance is performing a government function.

    “ust take your own questions as “apples and oranges””
    —how incredibly useful and responsive. Now, as you were spouting off on the other thread, it would’ve been difficult to “arrest” those protesters. So maybe the CCP never intended to arrest anybody. So maybe foreseeability had nothing to do with it. And as you say, their orders were protected by sovereign immunity, so no legal case there. But it would sure explain why the CCP has been none too keen to talk about it for 20 years. Thanks for clearing that up.

    “you failed to realize the assumptions you used for your “suggestion”.
    —dude, how do you stand up in court? The following was my “suggestion” in #195:
    ““—you mean like you in #192? Go on, you should vote for yourself just to re-expand your (ahem) fabulous random collection of mutterings and utterances.”
    —what assumptions? That you were simply muttering on a street corner? With you, that’s no assumption, pal.

    “You are not their employer. They are hired to respond to medical emergencies!!!”
    -OMG you are clearly beyond hope. I said “their employer” defines their duties. When did I suggest that I was their employer? And their employer runs a “transport ambulance” business, so that’s what they do. I used to think lawyers, if nothing else, were logical. After a healthy dose of you, I see that there are exceptions.

    “Who says they can’t be called?”
    —what is your problem with comprehension. I said “if they have a phone that works, then of course they “can”; but do they? Don’t think so.” There is a difference between “they can” and “they do”. If you have a medical emergency, do you call 911, or do you google a private transport ambulance on your iPhone? I presume the latter…natural selection is a powerful thing.

    “It’s just they do it on “government’s behalf”?”
    —yep. Oh, and the fact that they respond to medical emergencies, which private transport ambulances don’t do.

    “they do all kinds of functions that are called “proprietary functions” …of government. Everyone who draws a paycheque from government is performing a government function. But not all of them are covered by immunity. The clerk at city hall who issues permits is earning a government paycheque, and performing a government function. Doesn’t mean he/she is entitled to immunity. But it still disproves your statement that ““Having a government paycheck doesn’t make someone performing government functions.””

    “I at least try to explain a valid legal definition.”
    —are you referring to your goofy test again? I thought we debunked that already.

    “Then you admit to your ignorance.”
    —still waiting for your admission as well, insofar as Canadian law is concerned. But from a bloke with a dearth of character like you, I’m not holding my breath.

  49. raventhorn4000
    June 30th, 2009 at 11:26 | #49

    SKC,

    You have already admitted your ignorance on the subject matter of law. Thus, all of your questions are ridiculous.

    My legal definitions don’t make sense to your ignorance? What a shock!

    Don’t hold your breath. You have no valid relevant questions of law! Get used to that.
    :)

  50. raventhorn4000
    June 30th, 2009 at 11:43 | #50

    “they do all kinds of functions that are called “proprietary functions” …of government. Everyone who draws a paycheque from government is performing a government function. But not all of them are covered by immunity.”

    Clerk at a government store or a government operated hospital do not perform government function, he performs a proprietary function.

    You clearly have no clue what “proprietary function” is. It’s NOT sub-set of “government function”. It’s the opposite of “government function”

    *Again, you are ignorant on laws. It’s obvious.

  51. S.K. Cheung
    July 1st, 2009 at 09:17 | #51

    “Clerk at a government store…”
    — my example was a clerk at city hall issuing permits. I mean, is it too much to ask for you to respond to my point, and not one of your creation?

    I’d be happy to learn some legal definitions. But most definitely not from you. I’d prefer to learn from someone who knew of what they spoke.

    And besides, as far as ambulances go, private transport ambulances are owned and operated by private proprietors, and has nothing to do with government. Public ambulances that respond to medical emergencies are operated by government, as a function of government.

  52. raventhorn4000
    July 1st, 2009 at 11:12 | #52

    my example is clerk at a government store! he’s getting a government paycheck. Nothing wrong with my example.

    “I’d be happy to learn some legal definitions. But most definitely not from you. I’d prefer to learn from someone who knew of what they spoke.”

    Well, you are happy to be ignorant then. It’s obvious. Your personal preference is irrelevant to this topic.

    *
    “And besides, as far as ambulances go, private transport ambulances are owned and operated by private proprietors, and has nothing to do with government. Public ambulances that respond to medical emergencies are operated by government, as a function of government.”

    Yet another repetition of your ignorant assumption! GET over yourself. You don’t know what “government function” or “proprietary function” are!! You made up ridiculous personal definitions for LEGAL terms, based upon your ignorance of law!!

    Why do you bother to pretend that your definition of “government function” even has any validity, when you admitted that you are ignorant of law??!!

    Pathetic!!

  53. S.K. Cheung
    July 3rd, 2009 at 06:15 | #53

    “Your personal preference is irrelevant to this topic.”
    —so is much of what you’ve said. Besides, i’m going to share it with you anyway. Best to get used to the concept of worrying about what you can control.

    Like I said, if Allen told me about those concepts, that’s one thing. You, on the other hand, quite another. I’m a discerning consumer of opinions…and your’s, I think i’ll pass on.

    Besides, you don’t seem to be able the grasp the diffence between a public government ambulance and a private transport ambulance. Like I said, natural selection is an amazing thing.

  54. raventhorn4000
    July 4th, 2009 at 02:26 | #54

    “—so is much of what you’ve said. Besides, i’m going to share it with you anyway. Best to get used to the concept of worrying about what you can control.”

    Don’t care about your irrelevant personal preference for learning. Why whine to me that you can’t learn?

    “Like I said, if Allen told me about those concepts, that’s one thing. You, on the other hand, quite another. I’m a discerning consumer of opinions…and your’s, I think i’ll pass on.”

    Still don’t care. If you want to learn from Allen, go right ahead. Come back when you finished your learning.

    “Besides, you don’t seem to be able the grasp the diffence between a public government ambulance and a private transport ambulance. Like I said, natural selection is an amazing thing.”

    Your ignorance can’t grasp a basic legal definition. Your assumptions are WRONG!!

  55. S.K. Cheung
    July 4th, 2009 at 05:41 | #55

    While #208 was “informative” as always, there’s really not much there, and even less that’s worth responding to. So I think I’ll pass.

  56. raventhorn4000
    July 4th, 2009 at 13:44 | #56

    Just factual information on your ignorance, as you have already admitted.

    I don’t think you can “pass” on your ignorance.

  57. S.K. Cheung
    July 5th, 2009 at 18:37 | #57

    Mind showing me one “fact” from #208…and I don’t mean “facts according to R4000″, since, as you’ve figured, those don’t mean much to me.

  58. raventhorn4000
    July 5th, 2009 at 18:42 | #58

    FACT: you are ignorant on law. you have already admitted it.

    The fact that you keep forgetting that point, says much about you.
    :)

  59. S.K. Cheung
    July 5th, 2009 at 19:51 | #59

    I’ve never claimed to know the law. And most of the time, neither do you, it seems, despite loud claims to the contrary. THis is especially true when it comes to Canadian law…and you’ve yet to acknowledge that fact, even once.

  60. raventhorn4000
    July 5th, 2009 at 20:01 | #60

    SKC,

    lesson 1 on proof: Your admission of your ignorance is not evidence of my ignorance.

    Get it straight, you are the ignorant one on law. That’s the only FACT here.

    Whether you consider me “ignorant” is your personal (and ignorant) opinion. And like your ignorant opinions/assumptions of law, your personal opinions are NOT FACTS.
    :)

  61. S.K. Cheung
    July 6th, 2009 at 03:43 | #61

    “Your admission of your ignorance is not evidence of my ignorance.”
    —how on earth do you make cogent arguments in court? I’m not saying that my not knowing the law is evidence of you not knowing the law. Evidence of the latter, particularly with respect to Canada, has been amply displayed all on your own accord.

  62. raventhorn4000
    July 7th, 2009 at 00:29 | #62

    “—how on earth do you make cogent arguments in court? I’m not saying that my not knowing the law is evidence of you not knowing the law. Evidence of the latter, particularly with respect to Canada, has been amply displayed all on your own accord.”

    Amply displayed are only your ignorant assumptions/speculations. You don’t know the meaning of FACTS or Evidence.

    Try learning some Boolean functions and grammar while you are at it.
    :)

  63. S.K. Cheung
    July 7th, 2009 at 00:44 | #63

    “Amply displayed are only your ignorant assumptions/speculations.”
    —are you a parrot? Seems like everything I say, you turn around and say right back. As I said, you’re one amusing guy. You’re also a lawyer who seems to have difficulty making logical arguments. Never thought that to be possible, yet here you are.

  64. raventhorn4000
    July 7th, 2009 at 01:29 | #64

    “—are you a parrot? Seems like everything I say, you turn around and say right back. As I said, you’re one amusing guy. You’re also a lawyer who seems to have difficulty making logical arguments. Never thought that to be possible, yet here you are.”

    Enjoy the “parrot-dy”. By the way, since you are missing the obvious, parody here is mocking you using your own words here.

    DUH!!!

  65. S.K. Cheung
    July 7th, 2009 at 02:42 | #65

    “parody here is mocking you using your own words here.”
    —are you from the Department of Redundancy Department? How many times do you need the word “here” in a sentence? If your form of “mocking” is to parrot, that’s not very sophisticated. As I’ve said, however, not expecting much from you.

  66. raventhorn4000
    July 7th, 2009 at 02:44 | #66

    For enough times until you actually get the point.

    Obviously, if you are missing the Parody, more sophistication won’t help you.

  67. S.K. Cheung
    July 7th, 2009 at 03:56 | #67

    LOL. “For enough times until you actually get the point.” — the word “here” is crucial to your point? Go figure.

  68. raventhorn4000
    July 7th, 2009 at 03:58 | #68

    “LOL. “For enough times until you actually get the point.” — the word “here” is crucial to your point? Go figure.”

    You know you are often “Perplexed”, I thought I put a few more arrows on the map for you. Obviously, not enough, you still missed the point. :)

Comment pages
1 2 4221
  1. June 8th, 2009 at 18:35 | #1
You must be logged in to post a comment.