Stephen Beecroft wrote:

> -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.
>

"Glee"?  Where on earth do you see that? I am appalled, not gleeful. And the news
made CNN, several large US dailies, and was on the network news of one of the Big
3 we get from Spokane (ABC, I think).

>
> 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.
>

Jim was the one who was incensed. I told him sarcastically to let us do the
thin-skinned act as we do it better.

>
> > 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.
>

He changed the term to "public official".

> > 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.
>

He misunderstood it, assuming that her position was the equivalent of Ari
Fleischer's. When I pointed out that this wasn't so, he responded with
heavy-handed sarcasm.

>
> > 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.
>

He was not even correct in spirit. A customer is not in any way responsible for
what one of its subcontractors say unless it is in the context of both of them
acting together. The government even hires Mark's company. Does that mean anything
Mark says is a statement of the Alberta government? This is idiocy.  And please
read properly: it was the *Alberta* government in the MediaWorks situation, not
the *Canadian* government. If you can't even get that right, it's no surprise that
you get everything else wrong, too.

>
> > 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?
>

Jim was wrong, as I've demonstrated on several ocasions. I don't care about his
dictionary definition. Ducros is no Ari Fleischer. If you insist she is, you are
telling me rather than asking me. If you have a question about how the Canadian
government works, ask, don't tell. Your ignorance just makes you look silly.

--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

“Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick
himself up and continue on” – Winston Churchill

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  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