26 Sep 2006 14:39:15
Douglas W. Popeye Frederick
Dear John:

RCMP 'not required' during border walkout

Last Updated: Monday, September 25, 2006 | 2:29 PM PT

CBC News

RCMP officers were called to the Canada-U.S. border crossing south of
Vancouver Sunday after a walkout by border guards - but were told they
weren't needed.

About 60 guards left their posts at the Pacific Highway, Douglas, Aldergrove
and Huntington crossings at about 2 p.m. Sunday after an alert was issued
that an armed and dangerous man from California was planning to cross the
border into Canada.

The RCMP officers were called to investigate the threat level at the Pacific
Highway crossing, but Faith St. John, spokesperson for the Canada Border
Services Agency, said a risk assessment determined "that an armed presence
wasn't required there."

The Mounties were also sent away after a short visit to the Huntington
crossing, St. John said.

Supervisors took over most posts, but motorists had to line up for more than
three hours to get into Canada at some crossings.

George Scott, vice-president of the Customs Excise Union, said if police had
stayed, his members might have felt safe enough to stay on the job. However,
he said, that would have depended on where the police officers were
stationed.

Ordered back to work

Guards at the four border crossings were ordered to return to their posts
after Human Resources and Social Development, the federal department that
handles labour, ruled early Monday morning that it was safe for them to
return to work.

Workers are required to follow orders from HRSD, even if they think the
conditions are not safe, Dan Leibel, president of the B.C. southern branch
of the Customs Excise Union, told CBC News from Roosville, B.C.

But Leibel said the guards would prefer to be armed so that they could deal
with any potentially dangerous situations that come their way. The walkout
by B.C. border guards is the third in the past year.

"We are willing to stay at work if we are issued sidearms," Leibel said.

Arming border guards could take years

The federal government has promised to begin putting guns in border guards'
hands by September 2007, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper said last month
it could be 10 years before all of the guards are armed.

Scott said he would also like to see a dedicated, armed border patrol
similar to the American model, with trained tactical officers ready to
support customs officers whenever someone armed and dangerous is headed for
Canada.

The Canada Border Services Agency plans to review the incident.

"After any kind of event there is always an analysis of what went well and
what didn't go well and what can be improved upon," St. John said. "I'm sure
this is going to be a topic of discussion and we'll be looking at our
procedures and trying to find a way to improve our performance if there is
another incident."

The union is also calling for a backup plan to prevent delays the next time
a dangerous situation happens.




26 Sep 2006 14:47:23
HotRod
Re: Dear John:

I guess I missed the scuba content?




26 Sep 2006 14:50:20
Douglas W. Popeye Frederick
Re: Dear John:


"HotRod" <NoSpam@YourEmail.com > wrote in message
news:12hitdtcsvjoo4b@corp.supernews.com...

>I guess I missed the scuba content?

Was there supposed to be any?




26 Sep 2006 20:17:18
Dennis (Icarus)
Re: Dear John:


"HotRod" <NoSpam@YourEmail.com > wrote in message
news:12hitdtcsvjoo4b@corp.supernews.com...
> I guess I missed the scuba content?
>
>

People go from the US to Canada to dive.
Some of them may've been delayed by the border checkpoint.

It's a good think to be aware of, should your dive travel plans include
driving across the border, tha tthe Canadian border guards will walk off the
job.

Surely you see the need to inform folks about this?

Dennis




27 Sep 2006 19:02:56
chilly
Re: Dear John:


"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com > wrote in
message news:12hitjhd90j9p02@news.supernews.com...
>
> "HotRod" <NoSpam@YourEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:12hitdtcsvjoo4b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >I guess I missed the scuba content?
>
> Was there supposed to be any?

Oh, gosh. Look at the time. 12:43 am. Thought I'd let you know.





27 Sep 2006 16:13:26
Douglas W. Popeye Frederick
Re: Dear John:


"chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada > wrote in message
news:AVzSg.60588$1T2.52852@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
> message news:12hitjhd90j9p02@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "HotRod" <NoSpam@YourEmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:12hitdtcsvjoo4b@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> >I guess I missed the scuba content?
>>
>> Was there supposed to be any?
>
> Oh, gosh. Look at the time. 12:43 am. Thought I'd let you know.


Thanks, just about everyone outside Edmonton can read a clock.

Was this yet another instance of Sheryl's Slimy Innuendo, or did you have
a point?

--
Popeye
People with courage and character
always seem sinister to the rest. -Hesse
www.finalprotectivefire.com






28 Sep 2006 00:40:19
chilly
Re: Dear John:


"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com > wrote in
message news:12hlmraq93b9d64@news.supernews.com...
>
> "chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message
> news:AVzSg.60588$1T2.52852@pd7urf2no...
> >
> > "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote
in
> > message news:12hitjhd90j9p02@news.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> "HotRod" <NoSpam@YourEmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:12hitdtcsvjoo4b@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> >I guess I missed the scuba content?
> >>
> >> Was there supposed to be any?
> >
> > Oh, gosh. Look at the time. 12:43 am. Thought I'd let you know.
>
>
> Thanks, just about everyone outside Edmonton can read a clock.
>
> Was this yet another instance of Sheryl's Slimy Innuendo, or did you
have
> a point?

It was a rebuttal to your slimy innuendo.





27 Sep 2006 20:50:27
Douglas W. Popeye Frederick
Re: Dear John:

"chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada > wrote in message
news:TRESg.61766$1T2.59742@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
> message news:12hlmraq93b9d64@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message
>> news:AVzSg.60588$1T2.52852@pd7urf2no...
>> >
>> > "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote
> in
>> > message news:12hitjhd90j9p02@news.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> >> "HotRod" <NoSpam@YourEmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:12hitdtcsvjoo4b@corp.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> >> >I guess I missed the scuba content?
>> >>
>> >> Was there supposed to be any?
>> >
>> > Oh, gosh. Look at the time. 12:43 am. Thought I'd let you know.
>>
>>
>> Thanks, just about everyone outside Edmonton can read a clock.
>>
>> Was this yet another instance of Sheryl's Slimy Innuendo, or did you
> have
>> a point?
>
> It was a rebuttal to your slimy innuendo.

Which was?

When -I- have an accusation, I gleefully level it.

You, however, are a moral and intellectual coward.

Neither do I need to knock back a few to be "brave" enough to "beak off".

State your point, you drunken hag.



--
Popeye
People with courage and character
always seem sinister to the rest. -Hesse
www.finalprotectivefire.com




28 Sep 2006 06:01:59
chilly
Re: Dear John:


"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com > wrote in
message news:12hm72opo33vl2d@news.supernews.com...
> "chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message
> news:TRESg.61766$1T2.59742@pd7urf2no...
> > It was a rebuttal to your slimy innuendo.
>
> Which was?
>
> When -I- have an accusation, I gleefully level it.

Even when you are dead wrong/lying and then you repeat it and repeat it.
For some reason you seem to think repeating something often enough makes it
come true.

> You, however, are a moral and intellectual coward.
>
> Neither do I need to knock back a few to be "brave" enough to "beak
off".

Nor do I and you well know it.

> State your point, you drunken hag.

Projection, you suffer from projection. Oh yeah and paranoia and delusions
of grandeur.





28 Sep 2006 13:18:12
Douglas W. Popeye Frederick
Re: Dear John:


"chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada > wrote in message
news:rzJSg.62103$5R2.21357@pd7urf3no...
>
> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in

>> > It was a rebuttal to your slimy innuendo.
>>
>> Which was?
>>
>> When -I- have an accusation, I gleefully level it.
>
> Even when you are dead wrong/lying and then you repeat it and repeat it.
> For some reason you seem to think repeating something often enough makes
> it
> come true.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z2EF15CDD

http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2F362DDD-354 to 360

The second one is especially disgusting, where you drunkenly whore
yourself out to a stranger for a ride home, and then try and tell us you
turned the guy down.

Then you ignorantly state how it wasn't a problem at all, as if thousands
of women don't get raped and killed the same way.

-- chhhheckkk --

While at the same time being absolutely pathetic, it's an -excellent-
example of your thought and logic process.

And profound ignorance.

Besides, it's not repeating things over and over when you provide, and I
highlight, a new example so frequently.

And of course, I provide the cite and context, and I don't cherry pick
phrases to intentionally deceive people, like I recently, clearly,
documented you doing.

Of course you scurried from that, to try and hump my leg elsewhere.

You're even still in mid-documented-innuendo here, not having clearly
stated what you're attempting to insinuate.

>> You, however, are a moral and intellectual coward.
>>
>> Neither do I need to knock back a few to be "brave" enough to "beak
> off".
>
> Nor do I and you well know it.

Sure you are,you rarely show up except to leap on someone else's back.

I've documented your slimy innuendos, like insinuating I advocate
genocide, enough times that the -blind- can see a

pattern.

Just like your buddy Francis, your act is just stale.


>> State your point, you drunken hag.
>
> Projection, you suffer from projection. Oh yeah and paranoia and
> delusions
> of grandeur.

Your record of cowardly, drunken attacks is a matter of record.


--
Popeye
People with courage and character
always seem sinister to the rest. -Hesse
www.finalprotectivefire.com

>




28 Sep 2006 19:50:25
Lee Bell
Re: Dear John:

Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote

> The second one is especially disgusting, where you drunkenly whore
> yourself out to a stranger for a ride home, and then try and tell us you
> turned the guy down.

I don't know about you (acutally I do), but, for all of my single life, I'd
take any opportunity to get laid, drunk or sober, long time friend or
someone I just met, pretty or ugly, skinny or, well, pleasingly plump.
There were a few whose name I never knew. I don't think I have much to say
about someone else, man or woman, who does the same except "hope you enjoyed
it."

Lee




28 Sep 2006 20:42:50
Douglas W. Popeye Frederick
Re: Dear John:


"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:Y8ZSg.23068$8s6.22183@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote
>
>> The second one is especially disgusting, where you drunkenly whore
>> yourself out to a stranger for a ride home, and then try and tell us you
>> turned the guy down.
>
> I don't know about you (acutally I do), but, for all of my single life,
> I'd take any opportunity to get laid, drunk or sober, long time friend or
> someone I just met, pretty or ugly, skinny or, well, pleasingly plump.
> There were a few whose name I never knew. I don't think I have much to
> say about someone else, man or woman, who does the same except "hope you
> enjoyed it."


I agree with you completely, except:

A) I have no idea what that has to do with the paragraph I wrote, except,

B) At least I tell the truth about it when I do it, and don't turn the PC
version into an anti-gun rant.

--
Popeye
People with courage and character
always seem sinister to the rest. -Hesse
www.finalprotectivefire.com






28 Sep 2006 21:14:15
Lee Bell
Re: Dear John:

Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote

> I agree with you completely, except:

> A) I have no idea what that has to do with the paragraph I wrote, except,

It was the part about drunkenly whoring out for a ride home.

> B) At least I tell the truth about it when I do it, and don't turn the PC
> version into an anti-gun rant.

I don't recall suggesting otherwise.

Lee




28 Sep 2006 21:54:39
Douglas W. Popeye Frederick
Re: Dear John:


"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:kr_Sg.25839$eW5.18763@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote
>
>> I agree with you completely, except:
>
>> A) I have no idea what that has to do with the paragraph I wrote,
>> except,
>
> It was the part about drunkenly whoring out for a ride home.

Still not much of a parallel.

>> B) At least I tell the truth about it when I do it, and don't turn the
>> PC version into an anti-gun rant.
>
> I don't recall suggesting otherwise.

Oh, no.

-I- suggested it.



--
Popeye
People with courage and character
always seem sinister to the rest. -Hesse
www.finalprotectivefire.com




28 Sep 2006 22:50:10
Lee Bell
Re: Dear John:

Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote

>> It was the part about drunkenly whoring out for a ride home.
>
> Still not much of a parallel.

Oh well. Not every post can be masterpiece.




29 Sep 2006 05:59:43
chilly
Re: Dear John:


"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com > wrote in
message news:12ho0upejpcoa56@news.supernews.com...
>
> "chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message
> news:rzJSg.62103$5R2.21357@pd7urf3no...
> >
> > "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote
in
>
> >> > It was a rebuttal to your slimy innuendo.
> >>
> >> Which was?
> >>
> >> When -I- have an accusation, I gleefully level it.
> >
> > Even when you are dead wrong/lying and then you repeat it and repeat it.
> > For some reason you seem to think repeating something often enough makes
> > it
> > come true.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z2EF15CDD
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2F362DDD-354 to 360

Have you got those saved in your Favorites, little man?

> The second one is especially disgusting, where you drunkenly whore
> yourself out to a stranger for a ride home, and then try and tell us you
> turned the guy down.

There's more of your famous and well-documented projection. Just because
you are a whoremonger, doesn't make everyone else a whore.

In any event, your interpretation of events doesn't come anywhere near the
reality . . nor even my original telling.

George was a nice guy who lives in my neighborhood. I was walking home in
the cold because there were no taxis available. He offered me a ride. I
took the chance that it was going to be a safe move and I was right. We
made pleasant, almost formal conversation on the ride and in the process
discovered that we knew people in common. That he turned out to be a
red-blooded male shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

> Then you ignorantly state how it wasn't a problem at all, as if
thousands
> of women don't get raped and killed the same way.

What I said was "Suffice to say, he didn't get to see it and I'm here now,
all in one piece
and all that without a gun."

It was a calculated *risk* and as you say, turned out not to be a problem at
all.

> -- chhhheckkk --
>
> While at the same time being absolutely pathetic, it's an -excellent-
> example of your thought and logic process.
>
> And profound ignorance.

Or an example of my ability to accurately calculate risk. (wg)

> Besides, it's not repeating things over and over when you provide, and I
> highlight, a new example so frequently.

Unh hunh.

> And of course, I provide the cite and context, and I don't cherry pick
> phrases to intentionally deceive people, like I recently, clearly,
> documented you doing.

Right, one post that isn't even all that exceptional until you apply your
projection and prejudice to it.

> Of course you scurried from that, to try and hump my leg elsewhere.

If you say it's so, it must be so. snort.

> You're even still in mid-documented-innuendo here, not having clearly
> stated what you're attempting to insinuate.

Sorry, not going to play your game. I'm not in the middle of any innuendo.
You are the one that has been making the innuendo and/or blatant lies. I've
merely refuted them. Oh, gosh, look at the time . . 12:06 am.

> >> You, however, are a moral and intellectual coward.
> >>
> >> Neither do I need to knock back a few to be "brave" enough to "beak
> > off".
> >
> > Nor do I and you well know it.
>
> Sure you are,you rarely show up except to leap on someone else's back.

I suspect that you are just more sensitive to posts that irritate you than
you are to those that don't particularly.

> I've documented your slimy innuendos, like insinuating I advocate
> genocide, enough times that the -blind- can see a
>
> pattern.

You've twisted and projected, slanted and slid.

> Just like your buddy Francis, your act is just stale.

So is yours.

> >> State your point, you drunken hag.
> >
> > Projection, you suffer from projection. Oh yeah and paranoia and
> > delusions
> > of grandeur.
>
> Your record of cowardly, drunken attacks is a matter of record.

My record, lol. :^) Considering how you suffer from projection and all .
. .






29 Sep 2006 19:59:47
Chris Guynn
Re: Dear John:


"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:Y8ZSg.23068$8s6.22183@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote
>
> > The second one is especially disgusting, where you drunkenly whore
> > yourself out to a stranger for a ride home, and then try and tell us you
> > turned the guy down.
>
> I don't know about you (acutally I do), but, for all of my single life, I'd
> take any opportunity to get laid, drunk or sober, long time friend or
> someone I just met, pretty or ugly, skinny or, well, pleasingly plump.
> There were a few whose name I never knew. I don't think I have much to say
> about someone else, man or woman, who does the same except "hope you enjoyed
> it."
>
> Lee

I associate with a bunch of sex maniacs.




30 Sep 2006 02:06:03
Magilla
Re: Dear John:


"chilly" wrote

> That he turned out to be a
> red-blooded male shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Not all of us are lacking self control, some even have good, old
fashioned morals.

Chilly, you're still okay by me.

Y'all have a nice weekend, I'm packed and ready to go dive.

Curtis