Toronto cannot take any more asylum seekers

[Boiler 46,012]

Toronto is currently housing more than 3,000 refugees and asylum seekers in city hotels and college dormitories, Tory said.

Asylum seekers and refugee claimants will have to vacate the dormitories by 9 August, when college students resume their studies. The dormitories are currently housing more than 600 individuals – over 200 are children.

After that date, “we will not have the facilities, resources or personnel to accommodate those 800 people,” Tory added.

Tory stated he was informed about opportunities and housing outside Toronto and urged the Canadian government to help.

“Unless this immediate relief is offered by federal and provincial governments, Toronto will not have the ability to accommodate new arrivals to our city,” said Tory.

The mayor stressed Toronto’s long history of welcoming newcomers and the city’s support of the Canadian government’s policies regarding refugees and asylum seekers.

 

Isn't that like saying you can have too much ice cream?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

  Do you have a link for this, or did you write it yourself?

[Boiler 46,012]

Graun

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/26/toronto-cannot-take-any-more-asylum-seekers-mayor-warns

https://thenewsheadline.com/toronto-cannot-take-any-more-asylum-seekers-mayor-warns/

http://www.newsweek.com/toronto-mayor-warns-city-cannot-handle-any-more-asylum-seekers-claims-rise-997194

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-immigration-toronto/canadas-biggest-city-toronto-unable-to-take-more-refugees-mayor-idUSKBN1JM2N5

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-06-26/canadas-biggest-city-toronto-unable-to-take-more-refugees-mayor

 

just a few from a simple google search if you are actually interested

Edited June 27, 2018 by Randyandyuni

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Randyandyuni said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/26/toronto-cannot-take-any-more-asylum-seekers-mayor-warns

https://thenewsheadline.com/toronto-cannot-take-any-more-asylum-seekers-mayor-warns/

http://www.newsweek.com/toronto-mayor-warns-city-cannot-handle-any-more-asylum-seekers-claims-rise-997194

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-immigration-toronto/canadas-biggest-city-toronto-unable-to-take-more-refugees-mayor-idUSKBN1JM2N5

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-06-26/canadas-biggest-city-toronto-unable-to-take-more-refugees-mayor

 

just a few from a simple google search if you are actually interested

 

  The subject is pinned at the top of the CEHST forum for a reason.

 

  Posting news articles and TOS enforcement

 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

Mea culpa

 

but it says don’t copy but to link, which i did, I honestly thought you were looking for, he also complied by copying only the first few paragraphs

Edited June 27, 2018 by Randyandyuni

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

Mea culpa

 

but it says don’t copy but to link, which i did, I honestly thought you were looking for, he also complied by copying only the first few paragraphs

 

  Reposting just a few paragraphs and including the link are necessary to comply with the fair use act. Doing that makes it so that no one can assume we are trying to plagiarize someone else's work, and that we are only copying a part of it for critique or to comment on or discuss. Basically it's a defense against a claim of copyright infringement.

 

  In the past we would have times where people copied entire articles as a rebuttal to an argument without listing the source or linking. While it seems innocuous, it can lead to legal repercussions.

 

  Anyway I was just reminding Boiler.

[Ban Hammer 13,508]

41 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

Mea culpa

 

but it says don’t copy but to link, which i did, I honestly thought you were looking for, he also complied by copying only the first few paragraphs

members are required to post the source link in the original post when starting a thread in this forum.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Ban Hammer

[Umka36 781]

LOL Boiler, what happened to the TOS is my bible? I'm guessing you just forgot to attach the link, but I had to rub it in.

[Dashinka 24,764]

16 hours ago, Umka36 said:

LOL Boiler, what happened to the TOS is my bible? I'm guessing you just forgot to attach the link, but I had to rub it in.

Point of contention, this is not codified in the TOS, just in a pinned thread.  I keep hearing that all the time, and it makes me wonder if anyone has actually read the TOS.  Also, no where, even in the pinned thread, does it say the title has to match the headline of the article posted, but that is another phantom TOS item.  I will follow the basic convention, but if it should be in the TOS, someone should put it there.

[Boiler 46,012]

The ToS is a wonderful thing, its interpretation is however beyond mere mortals.

 

We have Mods to guides us in its ways.

 

I would anticipate changing the ToS would be more challenging that enacting a Constitutional amendment.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

19 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Point of contention, this is not codified in the TOS, just in a pinned thread.  I keep hearing that all the time, and it makes me wonder if anyone has actually read the TOS.  Also, no where, even in the pinned thread, does it say the title has to match the headline of the article posted, but that is another phantom TOS item.  I will follow the basic convention, but if it should be in the TOS, someone should put it there.

 

  It's covered in the "permitted uses" section. You will not:  Post any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret or other proprietary right of any party (the "Rights"), unless you are the owner of the Rights or have the permission of the owner to Post or transmit Content.

 

  The pinned thread is telling you how to reference an article in compliance with the TOS.

[Dashinka 24,764]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  It's covered in the "permitted uses" section. You will not:  Post any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret or other proprietary right of any party (the "Rights"), unless you are the owner of the Rights or have the permission of the owner to Post or transmit Content.

 

  The pinned thread is telling you how to reference an article in compliance with the TOS.

OK, I can buy that interpretation.  What about the thread title matching the headline myth?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

OK, I can buy that interpretation.  What about the thread title matching the headline myth?

 

  Not sure where it's addressed, although I do understand why. Perhaps it would be considered an alteration or misrepresentation of the original work?

[Dashinka 24,764]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Not sure where it's addressed, although I do understand why. Perhaps it would be considered an alteration or misrepresentation of the original work?

I am not saying we shouldn't do it, and I for one do follow that convention.  I am just questioning when it is attributed to the TOS even by some of the moderators unless they are using an even broader interpretation of the item you referenced.