Received this from my representative trade office yesterday regarding the elections on the weekend. Glad to see the tax dollars I’m not paying back home are hard at work:
Taiwan will hold the legislative elections (Yuan) on December 11, 2004.
Demonstrations may occur in the days before and after the elections.
Canadians are advised to maintain a high level of personal security
awareness, monitor local news reports, and avoid demonstrations and
other large gatherings.
[quote=“citizen k”]Received this from my representative trade office yesterday regarding the elections on the weekend. Glad to see the tax dollars I’m not paying back home are hard at work:
Taiwan will hold the legislative elections (Yuan) on December 11, 2004.
Demonstrations may occur in the days before and after the elections.
Canadians are advised to maintain a high level of personal security
awareness, monitor local news reports, and avoid demonstrations and
other large gatherings.[/quote]
OK, I’m slightly confused.
Is there some special reason that Canadians need to maintain a high level of personal security? There have been elections in taiwan previously… were Canadians specifically targeted by excited crowds of unruly Taiwanese voters?
[quote=“Rascal”]
Obviously the Canadian represantative office addressed this to Canadians and thus refers to them as, who would have guessed, Canadians. [/quote]
The price of rice is in decline because of the importation of Japanese and American product. (SoI was told)
It’s hurts the local growers here in Yunlin County, so through the streets of Huwei we will march in hopes bringing the plight of the peasant into the public consciousness.
WTF are you talking about?
Your reply is unresponsive to my question.[/quote]
I think Tigerman was trying to understand not (a) why the Canadian representative office addressed its warning to Canadians (which as Rascal points out, is quite normal), but rather (b) why --if posterior protection is such a priority this weekend – was the Canadian rep office the only foreign office who is alert to this danger?
Are Danish or German or Brazilian butts also in need of watching? If so, then why haven’t their governments been more alert? Perhaps the explanation is that the Canadian intelligence services are more sophisticated in their butt-danger-detection protocols than are those of other nations. Perhaps ALL of the foreign offices issued warnings, but only the Canadians have read them. Another possibility is that this election, for some reason, poses a threat that is specific to Canadian butts.
Toe Save has provided cogent analysis discrediting the notion that non-litigious Canadians would have been urged to butt-watch out of a fear of lawsuits – so we can pretty much dispense with that explanation. But even with one explanation ruled out – we are still some way from solving the mystery of the Recent Rule Requiring Raised-levels of Rear-end Reconnaissance.
Is that, essentially, what you were asking Tigerman?
WTF are you talking about?
Your reply is unresponsive to my question.[/quote]
I think Tigerman was trying to understand not (a) why the Canadian representative office addressed its warning to Canadians (which as Rascal points out, is quite normal), but rather (b) why --if posterior protection is such a priority this weekend – was the Canadian rep office the only foreign office who is alert to this danger?
Are Danish or German or Brazilian butts also in need of watching? If so, then why haven’t their governments been more alert? Perhaps the explanation is that the Canadian intelligence services are more sophisticated in their butt-danger-detection protocols than are those of other nations. Perhaps ALL of the foreign offices issued warnings, but only the Canadians have read them. Another possibility is that this election, for some reason, poses a threat that is specific to Canadian butts.
Toe Save has provided cogent analysis discrediting the notion that non-litigious Canadians would have been urged to butt-watch out of a fear of lawsuits – so we can pretty much dispense with that explanation. But even with one explanation ruled out – we are still some way from solving the mystery of the Recent Rule Requiring Raised-levels of Rear-end Reconnaissance.
Is that, essentially, what you were asking Tigerman?[/quote]