-Marc-
> Odd that we get critized for merely reacting to the U.S. but now
> a truly insignificant molehill is over-shadowed by a mountain,
> and all the

Marc, I'm baffled at your insistent glee on this topic. I have seen no 
"mountain" regarding this. I would have missed the initial report 
altogether if not for Jim's pointing it out, and would probably have 
thought nothing of it afterward had you not gone ballistic. The first 
newspaper report I've noticed of it was in Tuesday's, I think, Seattle 
Times, on page A10. About three column-inches (47.6 
Canuck-Celsius-column-centimeters). It may have been bigger news in DC, 
giving many there a laugh, but I really don't think many Americans paid 
much attention to it.

But I suppose that's bad, too. Either we don't pay enough attention to 
Canada and Canadians, or we pay too much attention. As I mentioned 
before, I suspect you're merely demonstrating that famous Canadian 
thin-skinnedness.

> IMore tommmorow, but I'm glad to see you've dropped your claim
> that she was a politician.

Jim did not drop that claim, as far as I can tell. At least, I hope he 
didn't. He was right.

> Why don't officials have the right to free speech?

Who says they don't? Publishing "private" conversations overheard in a 
public setting is hardly comparable to, say, bugging someone's 
telephone.

> Secondly, Jim, you don't seem to have read the article you
> posted, just as you misremembered what the nature of the
> position.

But he did not misremember the nature of the position.

> The article does *not* say that any public officials or
> politicians said anything. It was a private company,
> MediaWorks, who made the comment

True, so you are technically correct about Jim being in error. But he is 
correct in spirit. MediaWorks was acting in its capacity as a contract 
media advisor to government. So while the Canadian government did not 
make the comment, their hired help did. In either case, it reflects on 
the Canadian government.

> Are you going to admit you were wrong in both instances, truly
> hoist by your own petard regarding the nature of both incidents.

I really don't understand your bloodlust here. Jim was right, not wrong, 
in his assessment of Ducros as a politician, as he clearly demonstrated 
by appeal to a dictionary definition. Why are you so insistent that Jim 
admit his supposed error?

Stephen

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================

Reply via email to