mont royal

Could be. I’ve noticed a popular twin-like contributeur ‘ rocking’ the boat from time to time

And when we see them, you will complain about something else.

Yes, but promoters are not the voters. My guess is that the 3x20 will be dumped and replaced by something workable. The demand for affordable housing is going to skyrocket and the traditional promoters are not equipped to fill that need.

The Toronto distillery dates back to 1832. TheMontreal Molsons plant was built in 1786.

Exactly what I was thinking.

You wish!

Quite a parade just to celebrate a crane goin up!

I never would have guessed that you two were sceptical. Amazing how you always seem to find the bright side of things,

So..is your point that you are much more eco aware than they are...and that unlike you, they are actually hypocrites, because you would never, out of conviction, buy a SUV or a single unit dwelling? If so, congratulations. Or, do you actually believe that eco concern is a waste of time and not an issue worth discussing. If so, it would be interesting to hear how you know better than 97% of scientists who study this issue.

Thanks Rocco, if you didn’t remind us of this every two days, it just might slip our minds.

Right on!!! The mayor and the councilors should be putting up the scaffolding as we speak.

I opened this thread to get an update on Livmore. Stupid me.

Some of the beautiful exterior sculpturing is still in storage. It was agreed publicly at the time that it would be applied on any building replacing the hotel. A sad joke actually; it was a simple lie designed to sooth those who were, very understandably, upset at the arbitrary demolition.

This should provide some much-needed stability for the Als. Our sports teams here have suffered too much from outside carpetbaggers who have had no real interest in the relationships between our teams and the local community...nor any capacity to make a long-term commitment.

You don’t have to agree with me that your question was loaded, insidious, and fundamentally dishonest...which I guess is why you won’t deal with the actual subject matter. You throw out the term ‘discriminatory’ with no effort to explain why; you talk about ‘modern’ society, whatever that means...and your underlying message is very clear..but you don’t have the courage to specifically identify your real opinion, which is pretty obvious to any reader. Then you try to shut off any honest discussion with..’ Next’. Where we agree is that your supposedly innocent question actually leads to the obvious answer..comparing Quebec’s rather unique situation with most other nations receiving immigrants is indeed comparing apples with oranges. so, if there is something that bothers you about Quebec’s language /immigration policy, just say so and why it bothers you, and we can all have a good discussion.

With respect I think that I did answer your question..which, let’s agree, was loaded with unsubstantiated assumptions. Next...your turn, and a more thoughtful response and explanation would be much appreciated.

Most societies don’t need official policies. If you want to live and work in Ontario or BC, it is a given that you will need English to get ahead. Also it is a given that their children will grow up speaking English...in many cases unilingually. It could be labelled as discriminatory, but it is simply regarded as the norm...no governmental intervention needed. Try having a life-long career in Buenos Aires without learning to speak Spanish. Or Russian in Moscow etc. Quebec has to fight for its linguistic and cultural survival. So it is not too much to ask that newcomers do as they would elsewhere...Learn our language. In fact, we will help you as best we can. m O

Such a brilliant and articulant insight into obesity.

Since you clearly don’t understand ´wokism’, let me assure you that the progressives in our society do not believe that ´fat is beautiful’ nor that obesity has any social value. It is definitely the conservative thinkers who stand aside and defend anybody’s right to overeat themselves to an early grave.

This issue goes beyond 2 personalities. Many people read this thread; many of them, like myself, want to understand the different points of view and come to their own conclusions. You say that you have the ‘same’ opinion as before. Fine; you have re-presented your opinion, but have not explained how you have come to this opinion. I, for one, would very much appreciate your explanation.

if you are not in agreement, it would be helpful to know why. Obviously, there is a direct link between revenue earned and the local Cost of living. If I earn $100,000 annually in a very poor country, it will obviously go further than in Manhattan...just to take an exaggerated example.

Cynicism is simply intellectual laziness. It is a form of disengagement from any real thought. It may give an impression of worldliness, but it is an absolute cop out. There may be occasions where, after reflection, one concludes that they are not in a personal position to effect change...but cynicism avoids even trying to reach that level of honest appraisal.

If you actually have some ideas on this issue, it would be interesting to see them and to have an honest discussion.

Not here. Completely ridiculous in fact. We don't live our daily Montreal lives on the south shore marveling at the symmetry of the skyline. Does it somehow enhance our masculinity to have towers stretching upwards? Do we seriously think that tourists will be drawn to Montreal instead of New York or Hong Kong or Dubai because we have one or two or even a few high buildings? I just don't get it. Yes there is a strong argument for greater density, but that can be done, as it should be, by ensuring first and foremost that it improves the quality of our lives where it really counts...at the street level. We see on another thread that Montreal is ranked at ninth position in the world...and that one of its strong drawing points is the quality of our architecture. Toronto, with all of its towers, in ranked in the high 20's...in part probably because most of those towers loom over deserted streets after 5PM. That being said, my concern is that our most attractive architecture was built decades, if not centuries ago. I cannot imagine tourists flocking to Griffentown 100 years from now to marvel at at its unique architecture. Perhaps we should start a thread monitoring the aesthetic progression, or lack thereof, in our city, instead of obsessing on height.

Thanks. I do agree with you that `literally` has an informal usage as you describe it. In recent years the informal usage seems to be has displacing the original intent and that drives me up the wall. But, that is my problem.