It has come to my attention you are not used to militant pedestrians; to replicate said militant pedestrianism on your own time please follow the following steps.

1. Notice the pedestrian at a pedestrian crosswalk demarcated by signs, the hatched crosswalk, and its presence at an obvious intersection.
2. Have said pedestrian possess ghetto pizza, and of the kind that is not of their typical choice.
3. Continue at full speed, notably above the posted speed limit, and cut the pedestrian off, knowing full well said pedestrian has the right of way at any such crosswalk.
4. Have the pedestrian throw their pizza onto the taxi’s windshield as the taxi speeds by.

It is understandable that vigilantism within certain circumstances is frowned upon, yet in this particular instance there was no other method of expressing displeasure at, or noting the infraction in any meaningful way, the taxi driver’s inability to heed to pedestrian right of way.  The taxi’s number or company could not be descerned at 70 kilometres per hour; the police, if called, would place any such report on their nuisance call list; and regardless of the outcome of any complaint to be made, the taxi driver would miss the immediate consequence to their inability to heed traffic law.

Thus: pizza on windshield of taxi.

I would like to illuminate you to my first teacher at Sir Freddie B’s method of dealing with offensive language.  Instead of making the vulgar anathema, the source and history of the statement is explained.  Sometimes when people understand the reasons why the word is truly offensive, maybe they would remove the pejorative term from their vocabulary.

A man from British Columbia ingested a bottle of Setlla Artois with a higher concentration of ethanol, and is now seeing compensation with an apology from Lebatt Brewing for the hardship of throwing up and “gasping for air.”

It’s called doing a shot of alcohol, dimwit. Let me get this straight, you got a highly concentrated bottle of liquor and you’re complaining? Also, please tell me you’ve never thrown up because of drinking booze — with a straight face — because, otherwise, you have no sympathy from me.

Compensation? If it was methyl alcohol, you’d get compensation, but we’re talking ingestable, yet still poisonous, ethyl alcohol. Also, you’d have to prove in court you wouldn’t have thrown up anyways. Lebatt should just ignore this special litigant because quite frankly no self-respecting Canadian court would ever award damages. “I’m hurt because I drank more alcohol than I planned (at one time)” really doesn’t ring to the tune of compensation.