IMO, if people like to wear fur for fashions sake, why wear real fur when there are fake furs that look & feel very much like the real thing.

I would imagine that some people like to show off that they can 'afford' the real thing - bully for them

It was an adventure. In a convertible full of beans, pulses and oranges, we drove like the wind.

What was interesting though was the amount of common cause she, a tree hugger, found with the hunters in the western states. Hunters need a healthy environment for wildlife even if they do intend to blast bambi.

Wind being the operative word, eh!

Because they're not the real thing. Fake fur is like an automatic car or sex with a condom; better than nothing but a poor substitute.

Not a "poor substitute" these days - many of them are hard to distinguish from the real thing....and you don't need to store them in special conditions.

As for sex with a condom.....ah, happy days?

You have obviously never driven a quality automatic car then

Is there such a thing???

I'll take it you havn't driven one either

I don't even understand the appeal in terms of fashion. It always just looks so pimp-like but then I'm Canadian and have (proudly) no sense of fashion.

No. I've tried Jaguars and Porsches, the latter with the knob activator thing, without feeling old enough for them. I haven't tried a Ferrari with a paddle shift but I suspect even that would feel like something for a person with arthritis of the elbows. What's your choice of geriatric transport?

Oh really? Let's retrace.

Post #1

Posts #2 through #25 answer Ddave123's questions about accommodation and then veer off into discussions of alpacas, baked beans and who knows what else.

Then comes Post #26:

In Post #32, Dave responds to snowgoose:

In Post #33, dbd33 responds to dave123:

In Post #34, hot wasabi peas responds to dbd33:

In Post #40, snowgoose responds to hot wasabi peas:

Hot wasabi peas had responded to dbd33's comment, "It's a brave move to take a vegetarian to Calgary but to take one to a rodeo is madness." Hot wasabi peas had not been responding to snowgoose.

The way I read it, snowgoose did scold hot wasabi peas for ignoring her point about the cruelty of rodeos. Re-read what snowgoose said to hot wasabi peas, "I was making the point about the cruelty of this activity, not the availability of vegetarian food....but I'm sure you knew that."

There is no rule that I am aware of that obliges one poster to respond to another poster or to acknowledge a point that another poster has made. The way I see it, hot wasabi peas was perfectly within her rights to reply to dbd33 and to respond to one specific aspect of his post.

I think so. I was surprised by what she wrote but stand corrected. (In regards to Calgary in general, I still think veggie and Stampede a dangerous combination; he could end up needing an automatic car.)

I would like to Nominate Judy as a Mod.

She spanks hard than Biiiink and tells you off better than Ray.

Oh sure - there may be 'quality automatic cars', but they're still not REAL cars are they?

("Flappy paddle" gear boxes - pah! Nothing will ever match driving a real manual for me )

I think Judy and I may be at cross purposes - I think you had said that
" the availability of vegetarian food in Calgary is not as irrelevant as you may have thought it was." and you addressed this to Snowgoose. I was simply pointing out that neither Snowgoose nor I had suggested it was irrelevant.....her point was the cruelty of the stampede.....and I don't think she was scolding anyone. I actually thought she was being careful not to, by the way she said "but then you knew that"....perhaps you have misread it? And, to repeat, neither one of us said anything about the avalability of veggie food being irrelevant.

Gosh, it just shows how the written word is open to misinterpretation.......shall we draw a line under this now?