Logan007

I agree. It's your money, if you want to pay all that money to get the false feeling of better health, go for it. Just leave me alone and don't make me listen to your babbling about it. I was paired up last summer while golfing with some teacher who wanted to tell me how she was a vegetarian and how wrong I was to eat meat, I just wanted to golf and not listen to this crap. At the fifteenth hole the golf course had beer babes grilling and selling hot dogs, so I made a point of buying two and eating them right in front of her, while she complained the whole time and told me all I was eating were "chemicals". "You mean chemicalicious" I responded. Those were probably the best hot dogs I've ever eaten, because I knew it bothered this sanctimonious prude so much. As long as I have to listen to your babble, you'll have to listen to mine.

This is a good example of the preaching we get from them now... And this is the kind of attitude I get to listen to from anyone who complains to me that it's stupid to eat organic. ****** attitudes come from both sides: That's basically how I feel about it. I have two neighbours who have gone organic and the only thing it's done is turned them into douches. Sorry if I don't feel like ingesting poisons. I really don't care if you do or not, just don't tell me that it's stupid, or that I'm stupid for doing so, or I'll rant about it. Anyway, sorry for derailing the thread.

LOL - my cousin has an organic orchard here in Kelowna. He says that the mantra of the organic grower here is "we spray at night". The whole organic thing is sooo stupid, but a clever way to get people to pay three times as much for the same food. And I say this having grown up on a farm. If you don't spray, you don't have a crop. And that's just how it is. We've grown food on this planet for thousands of years without having to spray it. I'm not saying some organic growers don't spray their crops, but they're supposed to use organic pesticides that don't contain synthetic compounds.

Is it? What changes have you noticed in your health since changing? Well...for one, I don't see a need to eat food that's been sprayed with pesticides, fertilizer, sewage sludge, or have been radiated. But that's just me.

wordiness Use Wordiness in a sentence word·y [wur-dee] Show IPA adjective, word·i·er, word·i·est. 1. characterized by or given to the use of many, or too many, words; verbose: She grew impatient at hiswordy reply. 2.pertaining to or consisting of words; verbal. Origin: before 1100; Middle English; Old English wordig. See word, -y1 Related forms word·i·ly, adverb word·i·ness, noun Synonyms 1. diffuse, talkative, loquacious, voluble. Wordy, prolix, redundant, pleonastic all mean using more wordsthan necessary to convey a desired meaning. Wordy the broadest and least specific of these terms, may,in addition to indicating an excess of words, suggest a garrulousness or loquaciousness: a wordy, gossipyaccount of a simple incident. Prolix refers to speech or writing extended to great and tedious length withinconsequential details: a prolix style that tells you more than you need or want to know. Redundant andpleonastic both refer to unnecessary repetition of language. Redundant has also a generalized sense of“excessive” or “no longer needed”: the dismissal of redundant employees. In describing language, it mostoften refers to overelaboration through the use of expressions that repeat the sense of other expressionsin a passage: a redundant text crammed with amplifications of the obvious. Pleonastic usually a technicalterm, refers most often to expressions that repeat something that has been said before: “A true fact” and “afree gift” are pleonastic expressions.

I hate superstore for this exact reason. It's like herding cattle in that store.

I'd rather pay more for better quality, then pay less and go to some crap hole like Walmart or Target. When I'm ingesting food, I want to have quality not low prices. Unless they want to give me both. I wish they'd bring in a Whole Foods here like they have in other cities. Stupid cheap Winnipeg.

That's what I'm using too.You mean it works using Safari. IOS 7 is just an operating system for the iPhone, not a web browser.n00bs TSN GO is the name of the app and before they did an update to it the videos wouldn't play on it. If I had meant the website, I would have said Chrome because that is the browser app I use. You do know about apps, don't you. Listen here lady...don't go using your logic and techno mumbo jumbo on me. Now good day to you... ...I SAID GOOD DAY!

Kelly and Bellefeuille are dating. That's why Kelly is still here. Bellefeuille needed someone to fill the gap when Boltus was pried away from his loving embrace.

Having a contract ready for him and his accepting it are two different things. After all, he hadn't signed anything to that point. He was going to be a FA, that looked pretty evident. And you would laugh at the fact that Sask. would have been his 1st choice? Seems a fit for the expression…"would make sense." As to Collaros, he was released and the way that whole scenario played out, he had no interest in coming to Winnipeg….and Willy did. That answer makes about zero sense. I followed pretty easily... And it made sense to me.. That's what I was thinking. Makes sense to me. Collaros didn't want to come here, that was quite evident.

That's what I'm using too. You mean it works using Safari. IOS 7 is just an operating system for the iPhone, not a web browser. n00bs

Yes you can. It's in the Video section - highlights and features are there. Under the home section - Scoreboard - Headlines - Videos - Blogs - etc. I just went to Video->CFL and I couldn't play any of the videos. I can't play the latest Videos either. (I'm on Telus) Make sure you're not using Chrome or Firefox. I tried on Chrome and it wouldn't play, but on IE it works fine.

Yes you can. It's in the Video section - highlights and features are there. Under the home section - Scoreboard - Headlines - Videos - Blogs - etc. I just went to Video->CFL and I couldn't play any of the videos. I can't play the latest Videos either. (I'm on Telus)I'm on MTS and the CFL videos played with no problems. From the description it sounds like everyone should be seeing the same thing. The exception being that Rogers and Bell users are provided some kind of login so that they can get to the locked video's.

Or if they're going to be serving nacho's. I'm not going all the way to training camp if they're not serving nacho's.

Why, are you afraid our QBs can't hit the broadside of only one Barnes? You're just on a roll today aren't you you big crazy nut you.

This was in response to Nate not Mike btw... I'm not saying you're wrong, but most of what you say, in comparison to the article, sounds like you're just making stuff up and trying to stir the pot. I'm all for going after Lawless and Asper, but after reading the article it doesn't sound like anything underhanded is going on. I mean, Katz isn't exactly an up and up kind of guy either so who says Rabb is the right guy for the job? Not to mention Adler just likes to stir the pot for the sake of stirring it, even if it isn't the truth, so I wouldn't put much faith in what he says either.

If you're talking about January, then he's from Houston. I know this because I just read up on him since I made a fool of myself.

January is an import OL. I never suggested trading any of our NI's. Oh hell. I always thought he was a NI for some reason. My bad.

We barely have enough NI Olinemen, why are you talking about trading our current ones?

Thanks for posting that Jacquie. I had wanted to watch it because I heard it on the radio that this guy had performed and I had forgotten all about it. That was pretty awesome.

Except that it's Walters choice, not O'Shea's, on who they pick.

This isn't 100% accurate. It is true if the ball hits the uprights in the air. If it bounces first, then hits the goal post, it is a live ball. I was sitting with a bunch of senior rules officials in the stands at the Canada Cup in Saskatoon in 2009 when this happened. There was quite a discussion between the coaches and the game officials, as the coach was arguing that the ball was dead, but the game officials ruled it live and awarded a rouge when it was downed in the endzone. The senior rules officials that I was with verified that the game officials got it right. It's from wikipedia so take it for what it is.

LOL exactly this.

Not true completely. The ball has to be touched. Actually, that's only during a kickoff that it needs to be touched. Any other time it just needs to be kicked through the end zone. "In Canadian football, a single (single point, or rouge), scoring one point, is awarded when the ball is kicked into the end zone by any legal means, other than a successful field goal, and the receiving team does not return, or kick, the ball out of its end zone. It is also a single if the kick travels through the end zone or goes out of bounds in the end zone without being touched, except on a kickoff. After conceding a single, the receiving team is awarded possession of the ball at the 35-yard line of its own end of the field. Singles are not awarded in the following situations: if a ball is downed in the end zone after being intercepted in the end zone if a ball is fumbled outside the end zone if the kicked ball hits the goalposts (since the 1970s; before then it was a live ball) when a kickoff goes into the end zone and then out of bounds without being touched In all these cases the defending team is awarded possession of the ball at the 25-yard line."

It's in Jaxon's first line. The CFL balls got smaller.