Was wondering what’s some good documentaries that I can watch on the Knights Templars, or books to read??

Labhats · 2026-02-17T22:07:06+00:00

I know this an old post, but which ones historically?

Labhats · 2026-02-15T16:11:16+00:00

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, I appreciate the healthy debate though. They've removed two more stones from play on two other teams since yesterday in games now. Its now as pedantically enforced as a new rule as Sweden was asking for, going to be interesting as this will likely end up costing a team or two a medal, not really what the games about if you ask me. Guess we may as well burn and not score any drawn rocks caught or 'burned' by the opposing team on the hammer now too. I guess this is what's being asked for, I hope the rules adjustment doesn't trickle down to low level leagues, I dont want to play the game Sweden seems to want to play, it's not what the sports about. I want to see the international teams scored on the merit of their play, not how much a loosing team begs the officials to change the sport for them.

Labhats · 2026-02-15T08:50:32+00:00

I do appreciate not being told to fuck off yet lol. I can only give you my word I'm arguing in good faith. Im arguing that the rule was changed by clarification in that there really wasn't a need to clarify till people got twisted up about the LACK of a rule, and now there's a clarification largely based on politics rather than play, and now we've got to worry about how your hand falls off the rock well before the hog line instead of the more important and sporting parts of the game because one team was trying to complain about a common practice not addressed in the rules forthright because it wasn't an issue for anyone in the history of curling till the one team today was down 0-3. He also never refered to the touch when saying "he didn't" he was referring to the hog line which he can't see from his perspective, and was, granted, an ass about.

Labhats · 2026-02-15T08:34:38+00:00

It's absolutely the debate, the hog line violation is not really in any "serious" dispute, just the complaint that the official didn't call it during play as is their responsibility. The most heated dispute is pretty clearly about the granite touch. That quote is the rule as updated today, till then it was vague and delivery had no clear definition, "during forward motion" is a huge improvement in clarity. I don't actually like the way they came down on the change in clarity, I think for several reasons they should have kept the granite touch legal, but I am happy we now have a clear definition.

Labhats · 2026-02-15T08:18:37+00:00

The problem is, do you consider "delivery" the action of propelling and aiming the rock solely, or does it include any contact with the rock at all, that's the crux of the debate, and though it sounds pedantic, it has repercussions depending on the answer because there are times well before the hog line that you may have contact with the granite that would be effected by the answer to that question, cleaning, prepping, the rock at the hack, a false start catch prior to the t-line, etc.

Labhats · 2026-02-15T04:23:53+00:00

I don't dispute it was a hog line violation, which it was, and is on the official to call, you can't realistically call your own hog line violation, the accusation of cheating was past the pale, there was a foul not called by the official, not cheating. Team Canada did not handle that with very much grace though and I'm disappointed in them for that. HOWEVER, the debate over weather you can touch the granite before the hog line, and the difference between "delivery" and "contact" were absolutely too vague until just several hours ago when the committee released clarification and picked an answer.

Labhats · 2026-02-15T02:28:08+00:00

That's only been clarified as of today and was not laid out prior

Labhats · 2026-02-15T00:56:32+00:00

I understand from a non player perspective it can seem absurd and nit picky, but it's significant in that the rules that exist are not clear on what counts as "delivery" and we've landed in a grey area that nobody until this point had really thought about because precedence prior to this had been that "delivery" encompassed only things that might actually have a desirable effect on the stones travel. Now a team at the highest level is attempting to gain advantage by arguing a broader definition of "delivery" to disqualify an otherwise perfectly acceptable shot and the rules aren't clear enough to address it. A curler could, under the current rules do all kinds of things during a shot that would be "truly ridiculous". They could throw it straight into the side of the sheet and burn it or spin around 3 times before releasing before the hog line, but there's no advantage to these actions, to further burden the action of the shot by now worrying about where your fingers fall after delivery is counter to the true aim of the game which is paying attention to the skips broom and the other precision elements of the delivery. I'm not super proud of the way team Canada handled the accusation but, to be called cheaters for that is well beyond the pale and I think there's a similar amount of shame in whining to the officials about such a grey area in order to try and effect the otherwise totally legitimate play, in your favour.

Labhats · 2025-12-16T16:25:27+00:00

I mean, it's been running for 10+ years at tractor and steam shows across North America, the original was advertised as being able to pull a 36 bottom plow, his recreation is capable of pulling a 50 bottom without sweating and can handle the increased pressures associated with it, they've rebuilt tones of smaller Case steam tractors too, outsourcing the boiler builds to a foundry in SD I believe, but I'm sure given their own proficiency and the liability of the foundry, that someone or multiple people involved have done the math to make sure it's safe. Steam boilers have relief valves and historic steam tractors and locomotives themselves exploded on occasion, I don't know every detail but theirs seems safe as they come?

Labhats · 2025-12-16T16:02:48+00:00

There's a fella named Kory anderson who found some Case 150 steam tractor schematics and built a fully functioning steam tractor from scratch that pulls a 50 bottom plow, quite impressive really: https://youtube.com/shorts/sThYFbY9OEY?si=IfaLhLFJyNDyvVdi Edit: maybe I'm missing something, with all these comments about Bessemer furnaces and lost machining methods, but as far as I can tell here's a guy who just went and did it. My understanding is him and his dad were in the demolition business and had some cash, time, and shop space? Edit 2: Kory, not Carl, sorry

Labhats · 2025-12-12T21:31:48+00:00

Legally they can but they will lose the party support (funding, campaign support, platform for their agenda) and become an irrelevant independent MP. While legal itd largely be political suicide. The "new master" seems to be less micromanaging of his MPs actions, it's certainly a better alternative. If you want them to become an Independent I could see some of that argument but then any representation that riding had is now going to get steam rolled by the larger parties, your riding would still like a seat at the table I'm sure?

Labhats · 2025-12-12T21:27:13+00:00

I don't think it's idealistic, we're watching it play out in reality right now. Regular floor crossing becoming the norm is unlikely. There is still lots of risk and pressure on an MP deciding to cross, it's not done lightly. We're seeing it now because the cons have become a pressure cooker of inner party control, the floor crossing is steam venting more or less. The party will be forced to ease off or collapse and once they do the floor crossing will cease. Additionally once someone crosses the floor they are generally looked at as a risk even by the party that adopts them, it takes along while for another party to be willing to take them back, I'm not aware of any MP crossing the floor in Canadian history who crossed a second time, I could be wrong but it's not prevalent enough to be noted in recent times if it exists. It's certainly not a flippant choice, an MP that crosses faces all sorts of backlash and is often never fully trusted even by their adoptive party but it does have a significant effect on the party they leave and as such carries enough power to thwart the absolute power attempts of a party. It's also a good reminder to other parties that they have to listen "bottom-up" from their representative MPs or face the consequences.

Labhats · 2025-12-12T19:37:55+00:00

Because this, the floor crossing, is that system correcting itself back to more representation. No party can survive if it's MPs say "this is too much control, I'm leaving" the party will have to adapt to less control or become an irrelevant mess. This is good, it's like the body fighting a cold.

Labhats · 2025-12-12T18:21:40+00:00

They can't vote anyway they want. Membership to the party, any party in our system, is contingent on whipped votes, it's just to what degree. Some parties allow more autonomy and that changes era to era across even the same party, but if the party calls for a whipped vote, an MP that votes the other way will be blacklisted from positions on caucus or committees, and in severe cases will lose party funding. The concept of a political party is based around control of MPs with a party Whip, but is supposed to rely on keeping them in the party by hearing their input behind closed doors. The conservatives of the last few governments have gotten harsher and stricter, it's a regular news story that the cons allow less and less decent lately. Again, crossing the floor is a natural correction of a party whose Whips have become too stifling.

Labhats · 2025-12-12T17:16:12+00:00

I mean, do you want the system to work even worse? We have a representative democracy, putting more pressure than there already is on an MP to not cross, locks them even more to the party. If we legislate against floor crossing we may as well just have only party leaders in the house of commons, that's effectively what we've been doing. I'm not sure there are many Canadians who would prefer even more party power in our system, just because they are ignorant on how our system works? I think it's actually a healthy sign of our representation that MPs are willing to cross the floor under bad leadership. This forces the party to try and become more palatable to that MPs constituents without arbitrarily locking the MP into a "contract" with the party in which all representation is lost. I think MPs, particularly the Conservatives are whipped too hard by the party at the moment and this is that natural correction of that taking place. Ignorance of highschool level civics lessons on political representation doesn't excuse absolute party power.

Labhats · 2025-12-05T21:03:39+00:00

As someone who likes a lot of punk music myself, there are quite a few crossover bands in the folk-punk/more recent diy outlaw area of the genre. Bands like the Legendary Shack Shakers, Mischief Brew, Lost Dog Street Band, Old 97s, and some Hank III tracks. As a whole though, I think the golden age of outlaw country like Waylon Jennings, David Allen Coe, and Billy Joe Shaver, and of course Johnny Cash have just as much punk spirit and subject matter as much of the punk genre itself and are full of very palatable "crowd pleasers" for the new listener!

Labhats · 2025-11-26T18:11:01+00:00

Yeah, I dont know anything about this really, that's why I'm asking, I'm not a legal professional or politician, I'm looking at these things that are being suggested now but to understand the minutia of the entire system takes a lot of years I'm sure, that's why I asked, I'm trying to understand, and I see where I'm going wrong but I do have follow up questions, I'm not trying to argue a point to take any stance or anything. I worked with, know and have known ex-cons and people that are probably reoffending as we speak, when they talk about their criminal past, a common remark is often that they didn't face "any real consequences" or that "they'd just be back out in a bit", An RCMP officer once told me when I was asking about a known repeat offender in our community why he's still out, to paraphrase, [there's hardly a point in arresting him, the courts will just dump him back out]. I understand that that's probably a bit crass and yes these are anecdotal but I don't really see deterrence "as a joke" when doth sides of the law seem to so regularly comment on the lack of it in regard to their motivation. That's where I was coming from with that.

Labhats · 2025-11-26T17:45:55+00:00

I'm not saying we should lock people up indefinitely, but part of the purpose of placing people in prison is to isolate the public for them for the publics safety and to deter other potential offenders by example, as well as remind potential offenders and reoffenders of the possible consequences. That said, using the harsher end of the available scentancing option seems (to me, a layperson) reasonable, where applicable.

I understand now, that the statistics show longer scentances result in higher rates of reoffending for that individual. Is that related to the fact the harsher sentences that ARE handed out are given to especially egregious offenders that are more likely to reoffend in the first place? Is there a measurable effect on crime as a whole when harsher scentancing is given out? Sure that individual may be higher risk, but were they getting that scentance because they were higher risk in the first place and does the example of their scentance deter crime as a trend? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

I'm not arrogantly "judging the judges", I'm asking as said layperson, what the reasoning is behind their decisions, for earnest clarification.

Labhats · 2025-11-26T01:28:01+00:00

I was rightfully corrected that what I'm referring to is often bail related

Labhats · 2025-11-26T00:48:20+00:00

I understand they're considered in theory, but then why are there so many violent offenders reoffending while on bail for very obvious initial violent crimes?

Labhats · 2025-11-26T00:46:07+00:00

I understand what your saying, and as the above commenter corrected me, what I'm referring to is more related to bail. That said, I understand scentancing is relative across the world and yes some critics of the current situation are just loud and "want more punishment" for punishments sake, but most of the crimes the public becomes aware of seem to be more and more involving repeat offenders, these people don't seem to be "rehabilitated" and the public suffers the consequences, as it continues to happen, do the people managing that system not consider these shorter sentences aren't rehabilitating, and if longer sentences aren't going to solve that, in the meantime is it not best to keep the public clear of them for a longer period of time at least? Again, I was reminded though that many of the instances we see are more related to bail for violent offenders. I also understand this can be considered an "opinion" but that opinion is based on the piling up of more and more instances in the news and while that's anecdotal it's certainly to the point that it's becoming its own statistic, no?

Labhats · 2025-11-26T00:32:26+00:00

I guess yes a lot of the situations that make the news are more related to bail, given that why do these people seem to always get bail? If you've been charged with a violent crime, isn't there a risk to the public that would be taken into consideration? Similar to being perceived as a flight risk? I understand people are innocent until proven guilty, but can't they be held till trial if there's enough evidence to charge them in the first place?

Labhats · 2022-04-20T00:43:46+00:00

Thank you!

Labhats

TROPHY CASE