|
Post by christine on Nov 27, 2006 21:19:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by christine on Nov 27, 2006 21:22:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fumanshu on Nov 27, 2006 22:33:24 GMT -5
I don't mean to sound negative, but you've made a lot of posts that contain practically nothing. I've checked several of your posts, only to find that they contain nothing but a link. It is generally considered proper netiquette to provide all links in a single post if you're not providing anything other than links. It just makes it easier for people to navigate, without having to open a whole bunch of posts that contain nothing but a single link.
It's also considered proper netiquette to provide some sort of description of the link or a little bit of information about the link. Usually, people introduce a link as part of a discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 27, 2006 23:13:59 GMT -5
well I am sorry but I thought to save some space that this would be best but if you feel they are not needed delete them as alot of artilces for very long and with the court judgements it is pages and pages I will not post them anymore
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Nov 27, 2006 23:28:11 GMT -5
keep posting them they are very informative. and I think your doing a great job.
Thanks Mary
|
|
|
Post by fumanshu on Nov 28, 2006 9:08:06 GMT -5
well I am sorry but I thought to save some space that this would be best but if you feel they are not needed delete them as alot of artilces for very long and with the court judgements it is pages and pages I will not post them anymore That isn't what I said. What I said was that it's better to put all of the links in one post, instead of having a whole bunch of posts with nothing but a link in it. Let me explain this in great detail, because I'm sure you don't understand what I mean. You made two posts with links to Supreme Court decisions. One post has a link to judgements by the Supreme Court of Canada, and the other has a link to judgements by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. When I clicked on the Supreme Court of Canada post, there was nothing there but a link. When I clicked on the BC Supreme Court post, there was nothing there but a link. It would have been better form to have posted both links (Supreme Court of Canada & BC Supreme Court) in a single post titled "Supreme Court Decisions". Do you see what I mean? Doing it your way creates redundancy and confusion as the forum grows and is used by more people. By putting all of the links in one post, it is much easier for people to find the content they are looking for when conducting searches. If you were to initiate a discussion on a particular decision of a Supreme Court, then each decision would be discussed in a separate thread (post). Although, if there were enough discussion here about Supreme Court decisions, it would probably warrant a separate forum specifically for discussions on Supreme Court decisions. The idea is to keep the forum well ordered and organized. This actually helps to attract people to the forums and encourages them to retain membership and participate. Why? Because the board isn't chaotic. Information is well organised and easy to find. And that's really the key.
|
|
|
Post by christine on Nov 28, 2006 11:14:10 GMT -5
well here's my thinking. there is BC supreme court and everything I have for BC legal etc will go into that post, and everything I have on Canada Supreme Court will go into that post etc..as I fill them up you will see the method I use and then it become clearer , And I find that alot of people do not have the time go go through every single posting if they are bunched together so depending how important that link is it may stand alone or more will be added to it and also with just the single thread then they can stay on the main topic when discussing it so it doesn't get all confusing,hope that helps explains it more
|
|
|
Post by fumanshu on Nov 28, 2006 14:57:00 GMT -5
well here's my thinking. there is BC supreme court and everything I have for BC legal etc will go into that post, and everything I have on Canada Supreme Court will go into that post etc..as I fill them up you will see the method I use and then it become clearer , And I find that alot of people do not have the time go go through every single posting if they are bunched together so depending how important that link is it may stand alone or more will be added to it and also with just the single thread then they can stay on the main topic when discussing it so it doesn't get all confusing,hope that helps explains it more Ah, but it does and will get confusing. Take the BC Supreme Court Judgements thread as an example. If you open that thread to read it, you will get this: That's it! That's all that's in there. There is no prologue, no introduction, no information, nothing that would give the reader any idea as to what the link is. The reader would have to click on the link to find out what it is, or, and this is the most likely scenario, close the thread and not even bother with it. So the reader then moves on to another thread, perhaps the thread called "Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada". Again, the reader finds only this: Again, there's no introduction or description of the link. The onus is on the reader to click on the link and find out what it is. But, the reader has a little more information in this thread to work with, because the original poster has added a followup reply. The followup reply says only this: Do you see what I mean? Now let's suppose that the thread called "Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada" is used for discussions about decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. There would be no order, as one person would introduce a discussion on one decision and another person would introduce a discussion on another entirely unrelated decision. The thread would have no clear direction and would become a tangled mess of unrelated discussions with only one common theme: The subject matter somehow relates to a decision by the Supreme Court. Are you understanding my point? It would have been far better, in my opinion, to have created one thread called "Supreme Court Decisions" where you could have placed links to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Ontario Supreme Court, the Quebec Supreme Court, the BC Supreme Court, the Alberta Supreme Court, etcetera. You could have specified the purpose in the original post. Perhaps something like this, "This thread provides links to the various Supreme Courts in Canada and to various Supreme Court related issues, including hearing schedules, decision information, etcetera. Discussions about any particular decision should be addressed in a new post, to preserve congruity and readability." One other potential problem with your approach, is that it could lead to very long threads that many people tend to avoid. You should keep the reader's "attention span" in mind when deciding how you want to present your information. The biggest problem with your approach is that it creates a lot of "non-content" threads that people will grow wary of. If you open one thread that contains nothing but a link, you'll close the thread and move on to the next one. If the second thread you open contains nothing but a link, you ask yourself, "Are all of the posts in this thread just links to somewhere else?" When you open the third thread and are greeted by yet another non-descriptive link, you've reached a conclusion. You've decided that all of the threads in the legal discussions forum contain nothing but discussionless links. So you leave the forum and don't even bother looking at the other threads or coming back to the legal forum. This is the real danger of your approach.
|
|
|
Post by christine on Nov 28, 2006 16:10:07 GMT -5
no the subject title of the thread tells readers what the link is and the link opens up directly to what the subject is and once in there the person can search what court case or cases they want to find and get info on to help them and if they can't follow it or search then they can ask one of us to help in finding what they are looking for..
|
|
|
Post by fumanshu on Nov 28, 2006 20:26:29 GMT -5
no the subject title of the thread tells readers what the link is and the link opens up directly to what the subject is and once in there the person can search what court case or cases they want to find and get info on to help them and if they can't follow it or search then they can ask one of us to help in finding what they are looking for.. Never heard of spam, eh? That's what spammers do. They put something interesting in the title to get your attention, then they give you a link that leads you to a site about genital enhancement, degrees by mail, pills that increase stamina, and so on and so forth. That's why your posts are considered "bad netiquette". Regardless, you are certainly free to post what you wish as you wish. If you're content with the knowledge that your work may be in vain, then so be it. That's all I'm saying on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by td on Dec 20, 2006 18:08:47 GMT -5
i have just registered to this site so i dont know how to navigate it yet! but! I need to know what court made the rulling, that says a(dont know if i am defining this right but)that a judgement for court cost does not restrict you from filling another motion, for it is (unconstitutional to use a imposed court cost to obstruct someone from seeking legal remidies)IE; filling another motion! AND, as far as this christine, posting supreme court and court of appeal rullings, this of what she has done, is exactly what people have expressed to me that the court watch site did not provide! for when someone goes into court, they need to provide to the court.in hard copy,right there and then, not later! to back up there motion and claims to law,for if you dont have it they simply disregard your your claim of law! So i say as my opinion,to this christine,keep those rulings comming for thats is what people need to know to fight this corupt system that likes to pull the wool over ppeoples eyes and @#$%@#$%-you at the same time, or should i say your children! and in all acutaly that is the reason for the beginning of my post!
|
|
|
Post by td on Dec 20, 2006 18:15:22 GMT -5
i have just registered to this site so i dont know how to navigate it yet! but! I need to know what court made the rulling, that says a(dont know if i am defining this right but)that a judgement for court cost does not restrict you from filling another motion, for it is (unconstitutional to use a imposed court cost to obstruct someone from seeking legal remidies)IE; filling another motion! AND, as far as this christine, posting supreme court and court of appeal rullings, this of what she has done, is exactly what people have expressed to me that the court watch site did not provide! for when someone goes into court, they need to provide to the court.in hard copy,right there and then, not later! to back up there motion and claims to law,for if you dont have it they simply disregard your your claim of law! So i say as my opinion,to this christine,keep those rulings comming for thats is what people need to know to fight this corupt system that likes to pull the wool over ppeoples eyes and @#$%@#$%-you at the same time, or should i say your children! and in all acutaly that is the reason for the beginning of my post!
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 20, 2006 18:22:03 GMT -5
Welcome to the Board I agree with you thing are starting to happen and People are starting to get educated. remember knowledge is power. if you find rulings or you can help with your life experiences please post
|
|
|
Post by td on Dec 20, 2006 20:34:23 GMT -5
yes it is, but to late for me i think!scratch that,i know! BUT WHAT HAS BOTHERED ME SINCE I FOUND,REGISTERED AND POSTED, IS THAT KNOWONE FROM THE CCW BOARD THAT KNOWS HOW TO GET AHOLED OF ME VIA PHONE, E-MAIL,CONTACTS ECT. EVEN ATTEMPTED TO LET ME KNOW THAT THIS BOARD EXISTED!
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 21, 2006 20:21:03 GMT -5
B.C. First Nation can hunt at night: Supreme Court Last Updated: Thursday, December 21, 2006 | 5:09 PM ET CBC News Two aboriginal men from British Columbia have the right to hunt deer at night with lights, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday. In a 4-3 decision, the court sided with Ivan Morris and Carl Olsen, members of the Tsartlip First Nation of Vancouver Island. The men had been convicted in a provincial court of hunting at night by flashlight, a practice that is illegal under B.C.'s Wildlife Act. But the Supreme Court said the men's treaty rights, in this case, prevail over provincial law. The court overturned the convictions. The four judges who ruled in favour of the men said that the North Saanich Treaty, signed in 1852, allows modern Tsartlip people to hunt using traditional methods. And Tsartlip people traditionally hunted at night using lights, the judges said. Originally, the Tsartlip people would have used torchlight, bows and arrows, but their equipment must be allowed to evolve, the judges said. "And the use of guns, spotlights and motor vehicles reflects the current state of the evolution of the Tsartlip's historic hunting practices," the judges wrote in a summary of their decision. In the narrow decision, the three dissenting judges argued that night hunting is dangerous and the right to hunt unsafely is not protected by the treaty. Olsen and Morris were charged in 1996 after they fired five shots at a decoy deer set up by conservation officers to catch people hunting illegally. Olsen and Morris found the deer by flashlight. After the men lost their case in a provincial court and in the B.C. Court of Appeal, they took it to the Supreme Court. The high court heard their appeal last year. Decision renews night hunting debate Lawyers for the Tsartlip say Thursday's ruling by the high court means other aboriginal people should be allowed to hunt at night in B.C. as well, without fear of prosecution. Louise Mandell noted that other First Nations may not have treaty rights like the Tsartlip, but hunt at night and have the right to do so as aboriginal people. "I think that the decision definitely shines a bright light on the province to make sure that those night-hunting practices are recognized," she said. However, the B.C. Wildlife Federation's Paul Adams is critical of the decision, calling it dangerous. He told CBC News that there is a question of public safety, especially in the densely-populated Saanich Peninsula, north of Victoria, where the Tsartlip live and hunt. "The discharge of a rifle at night time when you don't know what is beyond your target is a very dangerous thing for the general public." Meanwhile, a B.C. law professor said Thursday's judgment is significant at a broader level. "It shows that treaties can be paramount to provincial law," said John Borrows of the University of Victoria. "Treaties can have overriding influence over provincial laws. We've seen that before, but we've not seen it before in British Columbia with treaties." www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/21/hunt-supremecourt.html
|
|