Conference kaosws::canada

    These guys may be different, with a different political agenda, but
    they're not bozos. They are, for the most part, very smart, well
    educated and articulate.

    They're going to have to prove themselves as capable of providing good
    government before they can push for separation.

    Glenn

Garry,

There hasn't been a Canadian flag in the Quebec legislative assembly for 
quite a while, a few years I think.  The debate on that has already come
and gone.

/Mario

    I must admit I only caught part of the news item, but I'm fairly
    certain they said the flag was removed recently (ie. since the
    election, or most likely not displayed for the swearing-in).
    
    In any event, the Canadian flag was not in evidence when
    the representative of the Canadian government was in attendance and a
    major part of the swearing-in ceremony.  Not displaying the flag is
    simply rude!
    
    What would be the reaction in Quebec if at the next
    Federal/Provincial conference there was no Quebec flag?  Compare this
    to behaviour to that of the Canadian government, who display the Quebec
    flag whenever they can.

    Symbols are important, and the separatists are using the Canadian flag
    to their advantage.
    
    Glenn

    Parizeau has a couple of strengths:  he is committed 100% to
    separation, and he has a lot of expreience as a high-level civil
    servant. (Somebody said he can "play the buraeucracy like a violin.")
    His new cabinet includes high-level ministers responsible for
    international affairs (Bernard Landry) and post-independence
    restructuring (Richard Le Hir.)  
    
    He may not have a mandate to separate, but he's doing what he can to
    promote & prepare for it.
    
    -Stephen

    Garry,
    
    Were you complaining when the Canadian flag wasn't in prominence before
    the PQ came to power or was even elected?  It was just as rude then wasn't
    it?
    
    If the Canadian government would stop displaying the Quebec flag while
    still displaying other flags, to me that would be like admitting that
    Quebec is not part of Canada and the PQ have already won the separatist
    cause, which they haven't.  If Canada was to stop doing that then the
    PQ would simply love it and it would feed the separatist cause.
    
    /Mario

    
    .1
    Good government???
    For real, you expect that, honestly.  Is that possible anymore?
    Would we even recognized it!!    Is it free?
    
    
    The price for an acre of (rural) land in and around the Gatineau area just
    jumped from $16k to $25K.  
    So much for my plan of buyingup cheap Quebec land before separation and
    building a casino or bingo hall.
    
    

    If they can provide good government, compared to what the previous
    Liberal one did, then they will have a very convincing argument when
    it comes to referendum time.

    Glenn

Good government "these days" means reducing the deficit. Reducing the deficit
means reducing social programs. Reducing social programs means angry voters. 
Angry voters means you don't get re-elected. 

Governments that continue to spend money they don't have are not providing
good government. It's that simple. 

Ben

    I disagree, I think people realize we have to make cuts. Make rational
    cuts and people will understand. 
    
    Glenn

    
    Careful, Gland, you're sounding awfully rational. Violates conference
    policy, I believe. 

    All of a sudden, I feel a Pat on my back.
    
    Where's Stuart when you need him? A.K.A. Sam The Eagle.

So why did the Liberals in Quebec get voted out? How were they fiscally 
irresponsible? Do they expect the Parti Quebecois to be better when their 
whole platform is based on seperation? Seems highly unlikely to me.

BEn

    In response to M_MORIN:
    
    >> Were you complaining when the Canadian flag wasn't in prominence before
    >>the PQ came to power or was even elected?  It was just as rude then wasn't
    >> it?
    
    I may not have entered a note in here, but I definitely made my views
    known when Digital was coerced by the Quebec government to either
    remove the Canadian flag in front of CTH or add more flag poles...
    
    Similarly, I made my views known when the Expos caved in to separtist
    traitors with their national anthem stunt last St. Jean Baptiste Day...
    
    When I ran the 1991 World Hot Air Balloon Championship in St.
    Jean-sur-Richelieu, I had to deal with flag (and language) issues
    several times...
    
    To carry on with the "flags at federal/provincial conferences"
    question, what would the reaction in Quebec have been if the Quebec
    flag was not in evidence when the Quebec premiere was NOT at the
    conference?
    
    And finally, when are the nationalists (Canadian nationalists, that is)
    going to stop worrying about "feeding the separtist cause" and get on
    with defending Canada?  What I'm seeing now reminds me of Chamberlain's
    appeasement policy with respect to Hitler before World War II -
    appeasement didn't work then and it won't work now.  And for you
    red-neck separtists out there - I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENCE, merely a
    more direct response to the threat of separation.
    
    Garry
    Not Ashamed To Be A Proud Canadian

	HERE! HERE!

	Charlie

    So let them leave Canada, then everyone will be happy.

    Hey, at least we can do it without a civil war. Remember what the
    Americans went through, over 600,000 casualties in 4 years.

    Glenn

Garry,

No need to hide behing your shell anymore.

I now KNOW you're a dedicated Quebec lover, supporter, and fan.  Nothing to do
with Separatists or nationalists.

You just plain love us.

/Mario

    	I think Ontario should threaten the rest of Canada with separation.
    We are the richest province living in an almost communist state.
    You gotta give Quebec credit in one sense.  They are smart and savy.
    They know how to manipulate, analagous to the tail wagging the dog.
    Maybe the rest of the provinces should adopt the same attitude?
    

re -1

There was an article in the Ottawa Citizen, by Charles Gordon, which
also suggested that Ontario separate.  His biggest problem with that was
that the rest of Canada might jump for joy.  You see, everybody hates Ontario,
and they might not beg us to stay.  Whereas everybody loves Quebec (for some
reason) and are always begging them not to leave.

Mike

     Re Ontario seperation:
    
    Yeah, that would work.  The international community would just ignore
    it, not trash the Canadian dollar, keep investing.   Quebecers
    would get the message that WE don't really believe what we preach, that 
    seperation is huge economic pit that would take years to recover from.
    That they might as well get out first before the inevitable breakup.
    
    If you think a two-way divorce is bad try a 7 or 8 way version (9 if
    you include Sarnia).
    
    Since when does everybody hate Ontario?  Toronto, maybe, but that
    happens in every country.  
    
    
    Marshall

    re.-1
    I don't think Sarnia should be mentionned in the same sentence as the
    federal/provincial mess the rest of the country is in.

	true sarnia is much worse

    
    So does anyone think Quebec will receive it's first alimony
    payment of 47 million for the Charlottetown referendum cost?
    
    Pat (with empty pockets hanging out like rabbit ears)

    Seems the PQ are demanding it as rudely as they can, presumably to
    start off their relations with the Feds on a suitably hostile note.  This
    is going to be a long year (til the referendum.)
    
    -Stephen

    	They will never get the cash.  The only thing they will get
    is the royal salute.  I think the separatist element should start
    paying the rest of Canada about 100 million a month just to
    ensure that we will allow them to keep playing their silly little
    games.
    

    Wanna bet they don't have a referendum in 1995 ? 
    
    					Derek.

    US SOC already ruled Separate was not Equal.

    Quebec is getting $34M as was agreed upon between Mulroney and
    Bourassa.
    
    The BQ may have asked for it rudely but it appears that Chretien lied
    about it in the house of commons when he was first asked about the
    money.  He said he was waiting for confirmation from Mulroney that the
    promise had been made while he had already spoken to him about it.
    
    /Mario

    Re: -1
    Do we have a separatist on line here?
    

    Mario:
    
     My take on Mr. Chretien's show last week was that he is showing the
    people of Quebec what it would be like if the Federal government
    ***REALLY DID WANT TO "PUT IT TO" QUEBEC*** Make them jump a few hoops
    to get the money. I think Jean would have made a large political
    mistake in the rest of Canada if he had just given the money without
    some sort of proof.
    
    If it was so clear, why didn't the knob who promised it pay up ? Or the
    knobett who took over once the knob was drummed out of office ?
    
    I say if Quebec wants to run it's own show, let it. It had better get used
    to paying for it though. (Olympic Games come to mind)
    
    
    								Derek.

    Derek,
    
    I don't think it's in Jean Chretien's best interest to do that.  He's
    starting to be hated here more and more here in Quebec.  Doing things
    like this don't help his cause.  He screwed up plain and simple.
    
    Being a separatist:
    
    	Far from it, where would you get that idea?
    
    One question though.  Did the feds pay for the referendum for the ROC?
    
    /Mario

    The issue about the referendum for ROC and how the cost's for that
    were handled is a complete new ball game.  The only reason ROC had
    a referendum was due to the break up of accords, etc.  The point is
    that ROC would not have had a referendum if not for the ridiculous
    situation that has been existing between Quebec and ROC ( distinct
    society status ).  As for Mulroney??? What exactly did he have on
    his mind besides frosting during his tenure as PM?
    Sean

    In other words you're saying that Quebec should be the only province to
    pay for it's share of the referendum because Clyde Wells rescinded Meech
    Lake, Alyja Harper (sp?) refused to let a motion be tabled in
    Manitoba, because Trudeau/Chretien patriated the constitution without
    Quebec's agreement, etc...
    
    Don't blame Quebec for the sake of doing it.  Sometimes we do have
    legitimate concerns and requests.
    
    /Mario

    Not sure of the details, but I think the issue of who would pay for
    Quebec's referndum arose because Quebec administered its own
    referendum, under its own provincial law.  The federal government held
    a referendum in the rest of the provinces at the same time.  The feds
    were presumably under no obligation to pay for Quebec's referendum, but
    Mulroney agreed with Bourassa to do so.  There was some confusion over
    this agreement, which the separatists managed to use to theri advantage
    (to make the federl government look bad.)  Chretien doesn't seem to
    have handled this very well, but it was a minor issue.
    
    -Stephen
    
    

    Mario:
    
    >>because Trudeau/Chretien patriated the constitution without Quebec's
    >>agreement, etc...
    
     If Quebec had a real government at the time, it would have agreed.
    Don't try to turn this around. If your province votes for a seperatist
    gov, live with the consequences. 
    
    Once again Canada is going through major changes with a seperatist gov
    in power in Quebec. Are we all to sit and wait for the good people of 
    Quebec to vote a federalist gov in before we continue to improve the
    country ? I don't think so Tim.
    
     So you can expect the gov of Quebec to try to foul up the reform. You
    can expect the concerns of Quebec to be a) not voiced and b) not acted
    upon.
    
     Then I can expect you to blame the ROC because your gov is acting like
    a spoiled child. (ie. If I can't win, then everybody looses)
    
     As for Jean not telling the truth, I thought that was how you got
    elected in Quebec. 
    
    							Derek.

    So, did you hear about the coalition formed in Quebec and their
    soveirgnty (sp?) plans and for association with Canada? The BQ, the PQ
    and the other provincial separatist party (that got about 6.5% of the
    provincial election popular vote) got together and agreed on the
    conditions for assciation with Canada after separation.  After a "YES"
    vote, Quebec would declare itself independent and then Canada would
    have one year to agree to:
    
    1. A powerful group of ministers that would make binding decisions
    for both Canada & Quebec.  The ministers would be appointed by Canada
    or Quebec from elected representatives and decisions would have to be
    unnamimous, giving each country a veto.
    
    2. A less powerful Parliament with Quebec having at least 25% of the
    members.  Parliament would advise the group of ministers.
    
    3. A tribunal to decide trade issues between Canada and Quebec.  Decisions
     of the tribunal would be binding.
    
    So what do you think the chances are that we (the real Canada!) would
    agree?  Just about ZERO I think!  Heard Parizeau on the radio saying
    Canada it would be in Canada's best interest to agree - hat drugs is
    this guy on?

    But .... they make Quebecers believe this fantasy ... vote YES in the
    referendum and then when Canada of course does not agree to their
    fantasy they say "they have rejected again" and of course they go on
    with their true mission which is no sovereignty association.
    
    Very slimey .... but meets their goals while fooling the public in
    Quebec.

Remember this:

	Democracy rules!!!

If Quebeckers vote Yes, then Canada will have to yield and negociate.  Of course
the tactic for now is to say NO negociations or say NO, it's a hypothetical
question.

IMHO, it doesn't look good now that the 3 parties have come to an
understanding...

/Mario

    
    re -1
    
    > If Quebeckers vote Yes, then Canada will have to yield and negociate
    
    Them's fightin' words!
    
    
    Mike.

And the statement "What Are They Going To Do When We Say NO!!!" are not
fighting words?

Garry, do you mean ROC will say NO to the conditions or say NO to negociations?

If Pariseau's bottom line is take it or leave it then I can understand that
ROC should say NO.  But if it's a basis from which to start negociations then
why WOULDN'T Canada do so?  Remember, when negociating, eacy side takes a 
stand and both sides negociate to resolve the differences.

If Canada says we don't negociate then Quebec says "Oh Yeah?  then we don't
pay you your share of the debt" what happens then??

/Mario

    re: Quebec not paying it's share of the debt.
    
    Quebec will be the banana republic I expected it to turn out to be.
    
     Care to float some bonds on the bond market ? I doubt anyone would be
    interested.
    
    Mario, I expected better from you. (unless you *are* a seperatist, then
    this would be exactly what I would expect)
    
    
    								Derek
    
    (PS. Why does Jacques want the vote this year ? Can you say intrest
    rate on Quebec/Quebec Hydro bonds? )

    The strategy is brilliant ... they couldn't win a referendum on a clear
    we're in or we're out of Canada question, SO change the question to
    bring the soft vote onside.  Make them believe they can separate from
    Canada, yet still be part of it.
    
    Then having won the referendum with promises from Fantasyland, the
    BQ/PQthen get to portray the ROC as the evil guys .... not willing to
    negotiate fairly.  What a farce ... like Quebec should have EQUAL
    representation in a joint parliament!  The ROC will of course react
    with hysteria to this proposal.  Quebecers will again be "hurt" a la
    Meach and Brockville and the BQ/PQ will have reached their objective of
    polarizing the Quebec populace.

    Canada should say "no negotiations of any kind re: separation until the
    results of the referendum are known - not a word."  The only thing
    Canada should say is Quebec is better off in Canada than out, and show
    why, but no promises should be made and no negotiations should be
    initiated.
    
    After a declaration of separation, Canada should use every, and I repeat 
    EVERY, means available to extract from Quebec all that (Canada) is due. 
    I certainly wouldn't recognize Quebec automatically and I wouldn't rule
    out the use of force to put down a treasonous rebellion...  
                                         

    Which one of the 3 blind mice (Parizeau, Bouchard, other guy - Dumont ?) 
    is going to be the King of Quebec ?  I wish these guys would make up 
    their mind as to who the real King of Quebec is going to be. 
    
    If I were a Quebecois I'd really be interested in knowing who was going 
    to lead me into those glory days of separation, no it's soverenty, 
    no wait it's really soverenty association......
    

    I don't think many Quebecers feel comfortable about this coalition.

    The most recent farce is being played out in subways in Montreal. The
    following is the jist of an ad with the slogan "We have the right to be
    different" (and like in Canada you don't, what a joke)
    
    
    Q: Does Quebec have the right to become sovereign without giving Canada
       one last chance ?
    A: Yes. Several times, and acting in good faith, we have tried to
       arrive at an agreement with Canada. Each time the answer was no. To the
       rest of Canada, Quebec is a province like the others.
    
    Actually from what I have seen, there is no "right". The ROC will
    probably respect the wishes of Quebec, but there is no "right".
    
    Q: Will a sovereign Quebec have the right to use the Canadian Dollar ?
    A: Yes. Nothing will prevent us. All the experts agree on that. As for
       Canadian dollars we have, we've earned them, they are ours.
    
    Again the word "right". Yes they can use the dollar, but it is not a
    "right", it's just a fact of life. Canada cannot restrict the use of
    it's currency. To imply it is a "right" it to imply it is written down
    somewhere. Also, who said anything about taking away money earned from
    Quebecers ? (other than the 4B in xfer payments that is)
    
    Q: Is Quebec strong enough to be independant ?
    A: Yes. In fact, its present achievements have put it in good standing
       in the nations of the world. After becoming sovereign and recovering
       all its powers, Quebec can only rank higher.
    
     Well then why is it not strong enough to have a) its own currency,
    b) its own passports, c) single country citezenship.... And what is its
    current "good standing"? I doubt it could beat the G7 membership it
    enjoys by being part of Canada. Oh yeah, and what's this about
    "recovering all its powers". The first (of many) levers of power it has
    given up is monetary policy, not a small piece of the power pie.
    
    Q: Will a sovereign Quebec improve our lives ?
    A: Yes. We will no longer be a minority. We will no longer be forced to
       cater to nine provinces that refuse to recognise our difference. We
       will make our own decisions, amongst ourselves.
    
    As if being a mjority is going to do a single thing to improve the day
    to day life of a Quebecer. It is pretty easy to blame any and all
    problems on being part of Canada. It will not change after they
    seperate. It will allways be Canada's fault. It is called finding a
    scapegoat, and not being able to face the truth.
    
    Q: Once we are independant, will we see the end of constitutional
       squabbling ?
    A: Yes. Because we have at hand all the tools we need for our
       development. We will no longer have to explain endlessly what makes us
       distinct. We will no longer have to go cap in hand to anyone.
    
     What about the monetary policy tool ? Does not the "cap in hand" also
    imply you are getting something ? You know, ask politly, and we'll give
    you 4B a year. Also, what about this "super" parliment, the one where
    Quebec has an equal say with the ROC. Sure sounds like you are not
    getting "all the tools". But then again, the "super" parliment can be a
    ready scapegoat for the finacial problems after seperation.
    
    Q: Will a sovereign Quebec hire Quebecers who are now federal public
       servents ?
    A: Yes. Nothing will prevent us. Quebec will need them and their
       skills. They will just change emplyers. and that will probably make
       all the difference.
    
     I can't believe that anyone would swallow that. With all the talk of
    "duplication of services" I hear from Quebec, it is not very likely
    that the only difference the public servents will see is the name on
    the paycheck.
    
    Q: Will a sovereign Quebec continue to do business with Canada ?
    A: Yes. Quebec represents a quarter of the Canadain market and that is
       not going to change the day after a Yes vote in the referendum. We will
       need products from Ontario and the other regions of Canada as much as
       they will need ours.
    
     There are agreements in place (like with milk) that give Quebec an
    unequal share of certain market segments. This will not exist after
    seperation. In the case of milk, how much milk do we get from outside
    Canada ? Why would that change after seperation ? Infer from that how
    much milk we will buy from Quebec.
    
    Q: Will a sovereign Quebec be able to pay its par of the Canadian debt?
    A: Yes. And this is all the more true since the income taxes we now pay
       are being used to pay our part of the debt. We are mature enough to
       sholder our responsibilities.
    
     I hate to break it to you, but Quebec does not even cover the expense
    of the goods and services it is getting from being part of Canada (see
    4B in xfer payments) let alone paying down it's share of the debt.
    
    Q: Will a sovereign Quebec have relations with Canada ?
    A: The Quebec government will talk to Canada as an equal and a good
       neighbor. That is how we will be best able to promote our point of view
       and defend our interests
    
     Good neighbors don't break up their neighbors families. I expect
    Canada will not view Quebec as an "equal and good neighbor". All those
    trade agreements Quebec is counting on being part of allow Canada a
    veto. I will expect Canada to use that veto to show Quebec that Canada
    will not afford the same role over and take it attitude towards a
    seperate Quebec that it did to the province of Quebec.
    
     This is only part of the misinformation being distributed by the PQ.
    I can't imagine living in a country where the leaders are so fast and
    loose with the truth. Hey but, "Vive la difference"
    
    							Derek.

    you mean we can save $4 billion a year, and no more Prime Ministers
    from Quebec ???
    
    we should boot them out!

    
    No PM's from Quebec?  In my lifetime, there's never been a PM from 
    outside Quebec, that's lasted more than 3 months.
    
    
    Mike.

    Good for you...fine Go ! 
    
    Just stop holding the ROC hostage to your selfish demands.
    
    But just so that we understand eachother Quebecers should know that 
    just because they feel that they have a unique heiratige (sp?) it does not
    follow that they should get better treatment or more rights then the
    rest of Canadians.
    
    
    Brian V
    
    It would be nice to stay together but let's but it behind us once and
    for all.
    

Just checking to see if I can get Derek wound up again...

/Mario

    shouldn't that be BOO HOO HOO my seperatist blackmail isn't working
    any more ?
    
    						Derek.

    You win the cement hat!
    
    8^)

    
     Anybody want to buy a lobster pot ?

    Is 50% MINUS 1 vote significant enough to keep Quebec in Canada?

    Heard today that it's not going well for the Yes side.

    As a Canuk living in the USofA I haven't heard/seen the text of the
    referendum question ? Is it in this notesfile or would someone be very
    kind and post it or a sense of what it is asking the Quebecois folks to
    vote on.
    
    Also what date is the vote?
    
    Mike

    What is the "YES" side ?  "YES" we want to stay in Canada, or "YES" we
    want independence ?
    
    The papers here in Colorado say very little about what's going on ...
    althought they have made reference to the fact that there will be a
    vote.
    
    Stuart

    "Yes" is pro-independence.  The date of the referendum will almost
    certainly be October 30, although there was a flurry of speculation in
    the media yesterday that it might be postponed (since the "Yes" side,
    which includes the government of Quebec, controls the date, and their
    legislation apparently contains a loophole allowing this, and they
    aren't doing too well in the polls at the moment.)
    
    I don't have the text of the question here.  
    
    -Stephen

    rather interesting that the seperatists want to nail down wether
    Ottawa will honour a yes vote, but yet for themselves they say that
    if there is a no vote..it is not a dead issue and they will try again.
    
    
    Brian V
    
    PS I'm out of here 10-Oct...going to work for SACDA
    	a very successfull OEM
    
    

    
    Announced today, Molson will be introducing a new beer in the
    event the "Yes" side is successful.
    
    Brewed in Montreal, it will be available only in La Belle Province.
    
    It will be shipped in the Stubby bottle, and will be marketed under
    the name...
    
    
    
                                 "EX-Canadian"
    
    8*) /PR

    
    
    	If one wanted to start a superhuman race of white persons, which
    province should they pick?
    
    

    Newfoundland?
    
    Oh, you said superhuman. Nevermind.

    POLAR::RICHARDSON
    
     Newfoundland leaders never said that white women were not making
    enough babies. So that does make them superior to the Quebec leaders.
    Sooo if we allow the leaders of Quebec to be considered human, the
    leaders of Newfoundland (being superior to those of Quebec) are in
    some respects SUPERhuman. Since the leaders are really just regular
    people put in office, you could say the people of Newfoundland are
    superhuman (in reference to a Quebecer as defined by their leaders).
    
     							Derek.

    
    Just to interject here...
    
    It seems that Jack Parizoo came back from a schmoozing mission
    to Mexico with a bolt of fine silk as a gesture of friendship
    from the Mexicans. He then took the first opportunity to go to
    his tailor, who he then asked to make him a new 3-piece suit.
    
    After measurung the material and then comparing them to Jack's
    stats, he stated:
    
    "I'm sorry Mr Parizeau, but there is only enough material here
    for the jacket and pants, not the vest. Can you get some more?"
    
    
    Stating that no, it was a special run and a gift from a foreign
    gov't, he expressed his sputtering displeasure, spraying his
    tailor with a copious amount of saliva.
    
    "OK, Mr Parizeau...please. I will give you the name of an
    associate in Toronto. He perhaps can do something for you..."
    
    So, Jack jumps in his Cadillac, the trip from Quebec City to
    Toronto taking only 6 hours now, with photo radar gone. Arriving
    on Yonge St. he approaches the tailors shop with dreams of
    wearing his new suit as Prime Minister of Quebec.
    
    The Tailor measures Jack again, measures the material and states:
    
    "Sir, it will be close, but I believe I can make you the jacket
    pants and vest from this bolt of cloth. My price will be $500
    dollars and  your suit will be ready by October 30."
    
    Jack sputtered his appreciation, and marvelled at the tailors
    skill, asking what his secret was.
    
    "No secret, Mr Parizeau, the material is the same...
    
    Obviously you are a much bigger man in Quebec City."
    
    
    

    
    Lucien In The Sky With Diamonds
    

    Any truth to the rumour the new star of Yes rallies will be Mark Furman
    (sp?) - the area around Lac st. Jean probably looks a lot like Idaho...

    
    Chien    
    
    Translation: Dog
    
    Dog minus one leg
    
    Translation:   Lu-Chien
    
    
    8*)

    Er, Derek, you have no sense of humour. None. My statement was a joke,
    not a cheap shot. You know, it's hard not to yank your chain when you
    have one the length of football field. You must live a life of constant
    arguments.
    
    Yours truly,
    
    Glenn
    
    xoxo

    
    <---- WHADDA YA MEAN BY THAT???   JUST TYPICAL, NUTHIN' BUT CHEEP
          SHOTS!!  WHYDONTCHOO JUST SHUDDUP, EH?  HUH?
    

    POLAR::RICHARDSON
    
     Maybe you should try a self depreciating style of joke. Then I would
    laugh for sure.
    
    							Derek.
    

    Derek,
    
    I must be stupid, 'cause I don't think I would recognize a self 
    deprecating style of joke...
    
    On the other hand, I'm pretty good at making self depreciating
    investments!

    Hugs to Derek!
    
    xoxo