The "Joanne" he ridicules in his post was not me. I did not make those comments at SDA.
For a person who prides himself on being so meticulously correct in every little detail, he sure got sloppy this time.
* * * *
Saturday Update: I'm done with Red Tory and his band of slimy miscreants.
Forever.
It's just not worth it.
88 comments:
It's been a long time since I visited RT's blog, and looking at those comments I remember why. Ti-Guy, Wayward, LS, and the other blowhards who think Conservatives are racist and narrow-minded, and then go on to criticise them for their beliefs.
Don't sweat it Joanne, they are just a little bitter that the Liberal's picked a leader who appears to be "Stuck On Stupid".
paulsstuff
Yeah, thanks Paul.
I really don't mind when he takes me to task for something I've actually written. I'm always open to constructive criticism.
But this is crap. He's trashing my name around the 'sphere over something I didn't even write.
Joanne, just ignore RT. He is not worth it.
Some people you can reason and argue till you're blue in the face and you just won't convince them. They come away feeling self-righteous, you come away frustrated. Hence the refrain "don't feed the trolls".
Its a waste of your time, and you just come away angrier and it spoils your day.
But its not just Liberals that do this. I avoid all but a select few blogs in general (yours being one) because I can't stand most of the bloggers.
I can't believe that you gave him any credibility at all.
Red and his posse of malcontents thrive on name calling and personal attacks.
They have no interest in honest debate or policy {much like the party they support} and only live to snicker and taunt at any thing they don't like or understand.
Red with his child like world view quite regularly sinks to the level of morons and jerks, but mostly jerks as some morons have social skills, although he does pander to the regular moronic liberal visitors who squat on his site.
He did make some compelling posts at one time but since hitching his political aspirations to the lost leader of the liberals his taunting has become quite severe and childish.
Take solace from the fact that the only ones that frequent his site and take his witty words seriously are the ones who regularly press their lips to his political pontifications. And they are as immature as he.
Don't worry about it, he's not a red tory, he's a Liberal disguising himself as a semi-conservative, he needs to change his name to Red Liberal.
I'm surprised he made such a glaring error as well. You do sign your name distinctively and I should have noticed. It was wrong to assume RT was correct without checking his source [I usually don't visit SDA because of sifting through dozens of comments is so difficult].
Anyway there's a reason you're listed in my conservative short list [aside from the BT aggregate]. Your blog is among the best in the Canadian conservative blogosphere, so don't fret anything Joanne.
Look at it this way. He has exposed himself as nothing more than a childish, impulsive, temperamental little simp who could not be bothered to verify the accuracy of his irrational statements before launching a shitball of histrionic accusations.... at the WRONG PERSON.
We seldom have the pleasure of watching a more deserving party make a total ass of himself. The unfortunate thing is he's likely too arrogant and narcissistic to even realize his mistake. Or, if he does realize it, he probably still feels he was justified on some level.
The fact that RT has found common ground with a degenerate little pustule like Ti-Guy says all I need to know about him. Let him sit at his keyboard and pound out his verbal excrement to his heart's content.
Joanne — Well, I’m not going to make any excuses other than to say that the comment was brought to my attention by someone else who assumed it was you and I worked on the same false premise. I did apologize as soon as I saw your comment and made a correction to the posting. I would have done so sooner than late this evening, but was away from the computer.
Look on the bright side. It gives you yet another opportunity to be righteously indignant and your fellow travellers to ventilate their utter contempt and loathing for yours truly. So, there’s always a silver lining to these things.
By the way, your indignation might have had even more bite if you’d actually weighed in on the comment in question. I’d invite you to do so either here or there.
A dishonourable apology by a dishonourable man. A conditional apology, great marketing move Martin.
If I were you Joanne, I would no longer visit RT. Let him and his viscious brood of vipers wallow in their own hatred.
By the way, your indignation might have had even more bite if you'd actually weighed in on the comment in question. I'd invite you to do so either here or there.
Hear that Joanne? Red is giving you permission by way of his "invitation" to weigh in on a comment that he never rightly attributed to you in the first place. Your indignation is worth more if you would merely say something (most likely damning) about the substance of what was said by your namesake. How arrogantly grand of him, eh?
I've stoppped visiting RT's little troll-fest; its a complete waste of time. Even when you present reasonable arguments in a reasonable thread over there as I did very recently regarding tasers, you still end getting subjected to the trollish behaviour of his various drooling syphocants; Ti-Guy in particular. Red's tacit approval of that sort of childish behaviour speaks for itself.
Roy is right, Joanne - just ignore him. I, for one, refuse to continue feeding his merry little band of trolls and their handler.
Thanks for the support, guys. (Excluding Red's 'non-apology').
I would have ignored it, but Raphael was taken in as well, and while I don't care much at all what Red thinks, it bothered me that Raphael thought I would say such a thing. Yet, he tried to defend me, by saying that we all make mistakes.
Your blog is among the best in the Canadian conservative blogosphere, so don't fret anything Joanne.
Thanks, Raph. ;)
All a blogger really has is their reputation and good name. Hence the need to hold Red to account on this one.
And unlike the House of Commons, there is no 'Parliamentary privilege' here.
Good grief, Kevron! What hole in the ground do you crawl out of at night?
Hunter, your comment at Red's is much appreciated. Thanks.
I determined quite awhile ago to not visit RT's site. I'm curious but not curious enough to be counted on his site meter.
Don't sweat the small stuff Joanne. You have a great blog here. His angry pettiness just went back at him.He should wallow in it for awhile.
bluetech
You have a great blog here. His angry pettiness just went back at him.He should wallow in it for awhile.
Thanks, Bluetech. Now his attack-dogs want me to apologize for calling him a 'liar'. I hardly think so. I've been called much worse by RT and those bottom-feeders over there.
Joanne — As I recall you deserved that epithet for the post it was made in reference to and the reprehensible way in which you dealt with the situation.
Speaking of which, perhaps rather than apologizing (three times) and correcting what was clearly an inadvertent mistake, I should have taken a leaf from your book on handling such matters.
I love how according to Dr. Roy my apology was “conditional” and you called it a “non-apology” over at your site. I also love how the same people claiming we’re “malcontents [that] thrive on name calling and personal attacks” have no qualms about calling everyone here, “drooling syphocants” (yes, it was spelled that way) and “vipers” who “wallow in their own hate,” not to mention being “trollish” and “dishonourable.” Yep, no name-calling or personal attacks there!
You guys really crack me up.
And don't visit my site. I could care less whether you and all your little buddies never darken my door again. It's not like I loose ad revenue or anything.
Please spare us the whining, Red. I was engaged in good faith non-partisan discussion at your site with the others until your little chihuahua-troll started spewing his hate filled rants. That is not a "claim", that was a fact.
"Drooling syphocant" is an apt term as any and that troll's behaviour was nothing but exactly that - "trollish". If you view pointing out the obvious for what you tacitly allow there as a personal attack, well too goddamned bad; its what you deserve.
And I couldn't care less if you don't want me there. I wouldn't waste even a second worth of further bandwidth on your troll den.
Maybe you and your band of trolls can stop visiting our blogs. Oh wait, then you would have nothing to write about. You and your band of trolls ravenously read everything we write. Indeed to the point that you check every few minutes so as to see if we have written what you want on time.
You are no different than CC. Your apology was conditional and dishonourable.
Do you really think swearing every thirty seconds makes you cool. You sound like a 13 year old. So rather than debate points , you approach this from some leftist olympian mountain, where only you and your trolls have the truth.
Joanne was willing to try and debate with you and see what she gets for her efforts.
I'm tempted to delete Red's last comment, only because it links to CC's which is a worse pit of slime than Red's if that's possible.
However, I want people to see him for what he is, so I'll allow it to stand.
Kevron is forever banned from this blog.
Well, Joanne is a pretty unusual name... :>)
Caveat - Thanks for the laugh.
That reminds me why I had added the "True Blue" to my handle.
I was a frequent visitor to ChuckerCanuk's (the good 'CC'), but it was confusing for everyone because there was another Joanne there as well, and she was as Liberal as I am Conservative. So people thought 'Joanne' had a split personality!
So I added the TB, which solved the problem. Of course they could have just checked our respective blogs to get the same information, but this seemed to be an easy way to differentiate between us.
Haven't seen her around for a while...
I used to frequent RT's blog to try to present my opinions on his posts.
When the likes of Ti-Guy and others started to call me C*** etc. and then had the audacity to post pornographic messages using my name, I realized that they really have no interest in debating, no interest in actually hearing and understanding the other side of an issue, they just want to have a love/hate fest.
I realized they are all just a sorry bunch of hypocritical hate mongers and so do not waste my time with them. Let them wallow in the hate-filled cesspool of RT's blog.
HI Joanne, I'm glad it wasn't you. I was thinking those comments were a little out of character-and was really disappointed. Alas my confidence that there are some decent folk on the other side of the spectrum is restored. ;)
Hi Rosie! Thanks.
I've enjoyed our little debates. You've always been respectful.
I guess that's what hurt the most - people I cared about being led to believe I said that.
Alberta Girl - Thanks for the support. Sorry about all the hoops you have to jump to leave a comment here, but I need away to keep that 'cesspool' from sullying my blog.
Well Joanne, full credit should be given to Wayward Son, who actually had the balls to apologize, even though it was RT who posted the misinformation.
Perhaps Rt should take notes. All he had to say was me bad, I confused you with someone else, and end it there.
As for KEvron and his comments, what goes around comes around, and I trust you and your mouth are not as big as your fingers typing on that keyboard. I thought Liberal's were the ones who show mass indignation when a women is given names such as dog or whore.
So RT, you asked Joanne to comment on the quote you wrongfully attributed to her, comment on the post by this piece of work who regularly posts on your blog.
paulsstuff
Neither side in this sad little episode has really edified themselves by their boorish behaviour.
At least Red acknowledged his error and issued a mea culpa.
I find the partisanship and blind slavishness to the party leaders (on the part of both CPC'ers and LPC'ers) not only fundamentally naive, but morally appalling as well.
It is time for everyone here to grow-up.
Ti-Guy is a boor.
Dr. Roy is a partisan hack. (I admire your loyalism, but the Americans are antithetical to those sentiments - get a grip.)
KEVron is vulgar. (but knows it)
HOVA (Biff) is stupid beyond belief.
The point is this: Both Sides are becoming tiresome in their partisan hackery and intellectual shortcomings.
I like the RT blog because, at least most of the time, he does not buy into the ideological claptrap that you all appear to accept so unreservedly.
All you BT's would do well to at least examine and come to understand the traditions of Canadian Conservatism before you make the claim that you are all exemplars of that tradition.
You are not.
You have bought into the American version of conservatism (classical liberalism) that Macdonald, Borden, and Diefenbaker stood foursquare against.
It is time you all headed to the Library at your local University.
Conservatism is NOT an ideology. It IS a philosophy. Do you even understand the distinction?
The best way to treat the red menace? Ignore it! As has already been suggested on this thread, there are only a handfull of regular posters at rt's place.
All of them waiting, drooling in front of the computer screen, to pounce on the next comment that does not pass the he man Tory haters club decoder test.
It really is that simple, leave them to their own devices and they will soon turn on their master, when there's nothing (but) left in the cupboard.
And Jo, you know that your blog will continue to flourish, not because of the support for the Conservative party that is shown here, but because of the content
and the class.
===
==
Good to hear. His comments here are clearly just meant to get under your skin, not to incourage alternate opinion, debate or discussion. IMO, he brings no vaule to your blog, he just tries to stir it up. Other liberals who post here are non-antoginistic and thoughtful... and I like reading what they have to say even if I don't agree.
No more Red Tory will make Joanne's place a nice place to visit : )
Tam
No more Red Tory will make Joanne's place a nice place to visit : )
That's true. I may have to leave CM on indefinitely, but it will be worth it.
That comment by Red at 8:37 am is the last one you'll see here. I promise you that.
My only regret is that I let myself sink to his level on some occasions.
And for that, I apologize to my readers; not to Red Tory.
In fairness, Red Tory is an intelligent man with a fairly nuanced understanding of politics. It can be enjoyable, and thought-provoking, to debate with him when his snark level is low.
However, sadly, it rarely is low, in my limited experience, particularly on his own blog. He's too eager to attack, and not eager enough to try to understand where the other side is coming from (this latter characteristic is essential to good debate).
So, I doubt I'll be going to his blog much in the future.
That being said, I would encourage you to accept his apology, Joanne, simply since it is the Christian thing to do. Accepting his apology doesn't mean you have to keep posting on his blog, of course.
Hey, Platty. Thanks.
Ryan, I left a post at his blog forgiving him as much as I could.
He was guilty of gleefully posting something to attack me without doing any research to see if what he was posting was true. He has belittled other bloggers for much less.
Anyway, I'm done with him. We had a huge falling-out a while ago.
Should have left it there.
Ryan, I agree. I was first interested in RT because of several historical and intellectual discussions he had. But then he began outnumbering his thought-provoking articles with partisan outrage and Canadian-Cynic style toilet humour and sex jokes. I won't lie, I do visit his site qute often. But it's almost more for comic relief now, as his entourage of loyal commenters are so utterly merciless on anyone who dares ascribe to a different belief that they attack them like pack dogs on a rabbit.
I ventured there early in my blogging days and after some initial hostility, I managed to bring most people into a level of respect by refraining from slinging any mud back at them. Now I think they mostly just ignore my opinions since it's not fun to argue with someone who isn't calling you a moonbat.
But, as many have said here, the quality of political discourse is rather low. But it is good for a laugh at times, given their attacks on some rather pathetic conservative trolls who continually seem to enjoy being a brick wall for their heads [or vice versa].
aeneas, You are welcome to your opinions. At least you are polite and don't swear every second word. Believe it or not we are also free to think as we like.
But it is good for a laugh at times, given their attacks on some rather pathetic conservative trolls who continually seem to enjoy being a brick wall for their heads [or vice versa].
I certainly have provided them plenty of fodder for their feeding frenzy.
But after several clunks on the head, I have finally smartened up.
Working on a new post. Should be ready soon.
Jo,
wow...I step away from the 'puter for an evening and all heck breaks loose!!!
I'm not about to go over to RT's blog and read what he wrote, but I got the general gist of what happened. It must comfort you to know that many here support and stand by you.
As for RT and his posts on this topic, it just comes across as poor excuses and justifications all to make him feel better about the mistake he made. I think someone said here that it would come across much better if he had said "sorry" and left it at that.
Anyway, chin up! Lots of people support you and stand by you.
tori
Joanne -- URGENT
A recent reader to COTM suggested that if we agree with what L. Ian Macdonald has written on the Mulroney-Schreiber matter, we should write the Gazette and tell them. Rumour has it that there are some who want silence his voice. I have already sent a thank you message.
Here is Macdonald's e-mail address: imacdonald@irpp.org
I think someone said here that it would come across much better if he had said "sorry" and left it at that.
Thanks, Tori. To be fair to Red (even though I really don't feel the need to), he says he was away from the computer last night, so couldn't do much about it til he logged on again.
Maybe I over-reacted. It seems less important this morning.
However, this was the last straw.
We are dead to each other forever now.
Dr Roy:
I believe my Degrees in PPE and Political Economy trump your Medical Degree when it comes to the subject matter.
I don't tell you how to interpret an x-ray. Don't relegate my expertise to the level of "mere" opinion.
Thank-You.
Joanne - Thanks for the info. At this point, I think that you're handling things pretty well, and you have my support. :)
And that's with out me knowing just how vicious the attacks on Red Tory's site were (I can scarcely imagine).
I believe my Degrees in PPE and Political Economy trump your Medical Degree when it comes to the subject matter. .
PPE? My, oh my! That does sound impressive!
Whatever could it stand for?
Oh dear Joanne - I feel sorry for you. Look at who's supporting you - this will really ruin your reputation.
Fact is Red Tory is one of the most talented and informative writers in the blogosphere - you can't blame him for the trolls.
(I bet I get deleted)
look it up.
Self-education can be a good thing.
look it up.
How does a degree in 'Personal Protection Equipment' make you an authority?
Or is it 'Pompous Progressive Engineering"?
hi Joanne TB
glad you are done with RED (LIBERAL he attended Liberal convention I don't believe his first choice was Dion) TORY
I was fooled by some of his early posts
He has not contributed in a positive way to your blog
and by positive i don't mean agreeing with your views
i mean offering the well thought out argument to refute your point of view
good riddance to bad rubbish
RT takes everyone to task over spelling ect.
us older folks hit the wrong key then don't catch the error
not as monumental as printing lies
then making excuses he did not apologize but blamed someone else typical LIE-BERAL
have a nice day Joanne TB
Florence
PPE can stand for:
Personal protective equipment, esp. in First Aid etc.
Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, one of Oxford's most famous degree courses, also offered in various other British, American and Canadian universities.
Property, plant, and equipment in accounting.
Power Plant Engineering
Pinnacle Percussion Ensemble
Power Processor Element in the Sony-IBM-Toshiba Cell (microprocessor)
PCBoard Programming Executable, a "door" specification for the PCBoard BBS software.
formerly, Park Place Entertainment, Inc., a gaming corporation that, effective in 2004, changed its name to Caesars Entertainment, Inc..
Polyphenyl Ether
Polypropylene
Potential Psionic Energy in Palladium Books' "Palladium Megaverse" (including Rifts, Heroes Unlimited Second Edition, Beyond the Supernatural and Nightbane). P.P.E. is similar in all respects to other games' magic points and is not to be confused with Palladium's Internal Strength Point (ISP), which is used by psionics.
Precision Parts Engineering
Precision Polymer Engineering
Pretty Poly Editor
Professional Practice Exam
Pricing & Product Eligibility in Mortgage Technology. Its offering as a managed online service was pioneered by Sollen Technologies, LLC
Maybe I over-reacted. It seems less important this morning.
Yes, you did. And it is of less importance.
I was surprised to see these comments attributed to you, though they were not totally outside the range of possibility for you. On the edge, but not totally outside. They are, by the way, very much in the range for some of your other commenters, and par for the course for some of the extremists (like biff) who show up at RT's.
Since I will not go to trackable non-blogger sites, I could not read said comment in context. I know everyone acts differently at different sites (I never swear here, do I?) so I could not see if other comments by you are of the same "caliber" there.
Too bad, because you know I would have seen that "(true blue)" was missing, if it usually appears with your comments there.
Consider this though. Is there someplace in the post that claims this is you? No link to here was given. No citation of your complete name "joanne (true blue)" was given. No snark about it being part of your "journey" was given.
Like you, I assumed it would be you due to the fact that you are often held up to ridicule there. But usually there is a link to here given.
I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate an intent by RT to deceive anyone.
As for your other commenters here, the ones who have been to RTs will know there has been a persistent and concerted attack on RT for at least a year. You know that. Some of them do things such as alberta girl is complaining about (impersonating her). It is part of an ongoing discrediting campaign against RT. I doubt it was tiguy, kevron, or any of the usual suspects there. Certainly was not me.
It is my view that RT is one of the most talented writers in this area, and the constant trollery is a testament to that. They really want to silence this particular voice. Which person or persons is behind this, I don't know. I regularly call them paid operatives of the CPC, and they rarely deny it. But realistically, I think it would not be the CPC itself, since proving such dirty tricks would make them look bad. It is likely just some nutty people who thinking they are somehow "helping" the cause.
They are becoming desperate. They do not want someone like RT calling out the various things that go on, interfering with the narrative that they want to dominate the blogscape. We have had people wishing him dead. We have had people threatening violence. Do you have to deal with that? Nobody should have to. But RT is being forced to. Simply because of his political views. Are you being persecuted for your political views?
I find it astounding that Liberals are now trying to tell me under what circumstances I am allowed to feel indignant.
The culture of the Nanny-State!
I find it astounding that Liberals are now trying to tell me under what circumstances I am allowed to feel indignant.
The culture of the Nanny-State!
What is astounding is that you are indignant about such a triviality.
RT apologized for a mistake. It's not good enough according to some here though.
It is certainly better than the other "joanne"'s comments sliding by with nary a rebuke. Which is why you were asked what you think of those statements. And you have not responded, except to claim the apology for a trivial error is "insufficient".
LS. - I'm sure that RT is grateful for your lapdog loyalty and devotion.
LS. - I'm sure that RT is grateful for your lapdog loyalty and devotion.
I'm sure he is. Hopefully you are also grateful when I tell people to give you a break. But all that is unimportant.
Why do you continue to sidestep a very simple question?
What do you think of the other "joanne"'s comments?
Anyone who hangs out at the odious canadiancyntie craphouse has all the credibility of Taliban Jack's latest outrage...forget this knucklehead existed and move on.
forget this knucklehead existed and move on.
Good advice. I'll take it. Thanks.
"Some of them do things such as alberta girl is complaining about (impersonating her)."
Um LS - I have absolutely no doubt that the person "impersonating" me was not someone wishing to discredit RT but rather one of his "flock" - most likely the likes of Ti-Guy -as he has been wont to use all manner of degrading adjectives to call out anyone who does not fall at the feet of RT.
I really question your conspiracy theory that there are those in high places that are out to "silence" RT - really, you give him way too much credit.
hi Joanne TB
can't let this one slide
this is a response to
Liberal Suporter said...Nov 24 01:45
" Is there someplace in the post that claims this is you?"
I would ask is there someplace in the post that claims this is not Joanne TB?
read the Clarification:
Red Tory "My apologigies for assuming otherwise."
Florence
*
joanne... anybody like blue liberal who willingly laps up the vomit spewed by canadian cynic and uber-troll ti-guy is beneath consideration.
shine it on.
*
RT - "Look on the brightside. It give s you yet another opportunity to be righteously indignant and your fellow travellers to ventilate their utter contempt and loathing for yours truly."
actually no so "Red" - I feel the same way about you as I would any blogger who posted something unchecked and attributed it to another blogger. If Joanne were Warren Kinsella you and I both know what would be happening today...don't we?
Your entitlement to make such errors simply makes you closer to the party entitled to their entitlements that you'd care to admit.
However I'm inclined, as someone has already mentioned that you're a Liberal in Red Tory clothing.
"utter contempt and loathing"
don't flatter yourself.
Joanne has let you off easier than Kinsella would. Is he your hero too?
*
you can judge a man by the company he keeps...
"The fact that most of you don’t have a fraction of the wit, acumen and political savvy that CC has, explains volumes about the tiresome moping of this dreary circle jerk."
Posted by Red Tory to halls of macadamia at 7:54 AM, September 06, 2007
That's Red Tory's true colours.
*
Why do you continue to sidestep a very simple question?
Because I'm not going to let myself get suckered in again.
I've been to hell and back. I'll stay here, thanks.
Um LS - I have absolutely no doubt that the person "impersonating" me was not someone wishing to discredit RT but rather one of his "flock" - most likely the likes of Ti-Guy -as he has been wont to use all manner of degrading adjectives to call out anyone who does not fall at the feet of RT
That's part of the real problem. You have "absolutely no doubt". Based on what? Absolutely nothing but your own biases. I recall that incident. "biff" was around at the time, too. Why is he not in the list of suspects?
You can sneer at my "conspriacy theories", but of course I clearly pointed out that it is unlikely as well. I don't claim these as "absolutely no doubt". I just see a pattern of repeated abuse, sock puppeting, and claims that "this time, RT is thoroughly discredited".
What would be your theory on this? Or do you think the trolls there are no big deal?
I would ask is there someplace in the post that claims this is not Joanne TB?
He was mistaken, obviously. And he retracted and apologized as soon as he was aware of it.
But you could only infer it is joanne (true blue) if you knew their history. Reading just that post you would not know, and there was no link that would take you here.
Florence said: glad you are done with RED (LIBERAL he attended Liberal convention I don't believe his first choice was Dion) TORY
Why do you claim that Red Tory attended the Liberal convention? Why do you claim his first choice was not Dion?
Please retract and apologize, or cite evidence. I don't believe that to be true. Your second statement could be construed as opinion. I believe your first one is simply wrong.
You aren't talking about some other blogger called Red Tory, are you? You aren't referring to some other Liberal convention besides the leadership convention last December, are you?
Retract and apologize. RT did when called on a misidentification. Will you now do the same for these incorrect statements?
If Joanne were Warren Kinsella you and I both know what would be happening today...don't we?
What would be happening anon? Especially if the post mentioned simply a first name?
I'll tell you what. Warren would be laughing and making fun of whoever insulted him. He's an adult.
I've been to hell and back. I'll stay here, thanks
Sorry to hear you had a bad time.
Have a nice day.
Mmmm.... Liberal Supporter has left a few more comments. Shall I let them through, gang?
Or shall I deep-six them?
Well, I'd like to read them. As you've pointed out before, LS has never been a very deep thorn in your side.
LS has never been a very deep thorn in your side.
That's true. More like a little pin prick. ;)
O.K. I'll let them through but the date stamp will make them show up earlier than this of course.
what a bunch of bs.
you know, if someone calls a female a name (such as belinda = dog), you are all up in arms over such a slight.
However, if the female happens to be right leaning, such as Deb Gray, Joanne, or Kate, it's perfectly justified to call them a slab of bacon, a *unt, or attribute slurs to us that were not ours. And then you have the audacity to tell us we are over-reacting? This from the same group of people who applauded the 2 week investigation and coverage of belinda's dog-gate.....
LS, again, all i'm hearing is blah, blah, blah....justification, excuses, technicalities, blah blah blah...
So, who made you judge and jury to say that what joanne said was not outside the realm of possibility for this joanne? And even if it was (which I think it was not), how does that make it any more acceptable that RT attributed those words to someone without even checking? And how does it make it any more acceptable to do so, just because you think the comment was "very much in the range for some of your other commenters"?
I think the fact that RT has apologized (in his unique way) tells you that he did in fact attribute those words to *this* joanne. Again, your technicality (no links, etc) does not make it any more acceptable.
And why should Joanne get into this discussion? Obviously she was not a part of it at SDA. All you and RT want to do is have her say something, anything that you can use to justify the wrongful attribution and say "See? I was right after all!" It has nothing to do with a sane discussion of a topic.
As for your view that we all want to silence RT, speaking for myself, I have no such interest in doing that. He has a right to say what he wants. He is very good with the written word, and although I hardly ever agree with his views, he does have a right to them. As for death threats, I'm sure this happens on both sides of the political fence- and it is appaling in any instance.
We have had people wishing him dead. We have had people threatening violence. Do you have to deal with that? Nobody should have to. But RT is being forced to. Simply because of his political views. Are you being persecuted for your political views?
Actually, yes. I have indeed received some death threats. Not many, mind you, but it is unnerving just the same.
Actually, yes. I have indeed received some death threats. Not many, mind you, but it is unnerving just the same.
I don't understand that mentality. it's only blogging for Pete's sake, something we don't even make money on, and all we really get is human interaction and feedback on issues and politics of interest to us.
We make zero difference on policy and politics in the real world, so why should we take ourselves so seriously?
Good choice, Joanne.
While RT is a very good writer, there was always a snigling Beavus-and-Buthead-itude from him and his buds when confronted by a contrary opinion.
Liberal Supporter - That's the biggest problem with a lot of you folks on Red Tory's site.
Unbelievable degrees of arrogance, and delusions of grandieur, reflected in bizarre conspiracy theories. Why would CPC be worried about Red Tory's site?
Red Tory, to the best on my knowledge, has never been mentioned on the actual mainstream media in Canada. Jason Cherniak and Stephen Taylor have. If the CPC wanted to hurt any Liberal blogger who's not an actual politician, it would hence be Cherniak... not Red Tory.
You folks really do live in a dreamworld.
Do you think that you're average, everyday voting Canadian is influenced by the harshest, most vicious diatribes and insult-fests you can find on the internet?
The rhetoric on Red Tory's blog is typically so over the top that only the most diehard of Liberals/haters of the Conservatives, would be interested in it at all. Those folks already have decided not to vote Conservative, obviously
No moderate - no swing voter - is going to be swayed by such rabid dog viciousness, and lack of civility.
I will say this - if Red Tory was more civil, if he was less abrasive, if his commenters were predominantly as such as well - perhaps he could be the influential blogger you believe him to be.
Your average Canadian voter doesn't want to read one-sided bile and wrath. Red Tory, if anything, is like the infamous "guns in our cities" ad ran in the last federal election. IOW, so over-the-top that nobody will be swayed by it... except, perhaps, against the originators of the bile and wrath.
Start acting like decent human beings who have at least a modicum of respect for others, and with egos that are sensibly sized, or the politically valid points you have to make will frequently fall on deaf ears... deaf from the excruciating decibel level of your ad hominem attacks, and partisanship.
I did apologize as soon as I saw your comment and made a correction to the posting. I would have done so sooner than late this evening, but was away from the computer.
Look on the bright side. It gives you yet another opportunity to be righteously indignant and your
Nice half-apology, RT. It's all your fault, Joanne, for hosting those miscreant Cons........
Why is it so hard to just say "I screwed up, and I'm sorry for it"?
But its not just Liberals that do this. I avoid all but a select few blogs in general (yours being one) because I can't stand most of the bloggers.
RT's blog has some good discussions occasionally. Best to ignore the a-holes, though.
I will say this - if Red Tory was more civil, if he was less abrasive, if his commenters were predominantly as such as well - perhaps he could be the influential blogger you believe him to be.
He is actually pretty civil, for the most part. He doesn't have a lot of control of the maroons that comment on his site.k
I'm a bit surprised to see the "if anyone were offended, I apologize" type of apology from him.
It is certainly better than the other "joanne"'s comments sliding by with nary a rebuke. Which is why you were asked what you think of those statements. And you have not responded, except to claim the apology for a trivial error is "insufficient".
LS, Joanne is not a spokesman for anyone with an extreme opinion that happens to be named (at the very least with an online moniker) "Joanne". Its like asking you to comment on any extreme statement attributed to someone with "Liberal" or "Supporter" in their name.
It is Joanne's choice whether she feels like commenting or not. It is not required that she respond to anything someone else said. Her not doing so is hardly indicative of anything.
You may say its "trivial", however, it is obviously not when you guys panned such statements for being so extreme and attributing them to Joanne. Next time RT better make certain of what he is saying and who he is saying it about before he opens his yap. The next time he may find that he might have to say more than a simple "sorry".
his band of slimy miscreants.
-------------
So much for dialogue, right JJ?
I'm amazed to see criticism coming from the man-boy Dr. Roy.... and quite the ego there.
For your information, Dr Roy, I've been able to debate JJ on her blog. The ground rules are pretty simple - no swearing.
As for Red Tory's more colourful language, that's his prerogative, no?
L. Ian Macdonald - Urgent - even some of the Connie media is saying he's going too far and making it personal. Macdonald is a Mulroney apologist of the highest order. His soapbox in the Gazette is a reason I no longer subscribe to it.
It is Joanne's choice whether she feels like commenting or not. It is not required that she respond to anything someone else said. Her not doing so is hardly indicative of anything.
Exactly. It's still a free country last time I checked.
L. Ian Macdonald - Urgent - even some of the Connie media is saying he's going too far and making it personal. Macdonald is a Mulroney apologist of the highest order.
What exactly is going on there? I've been hearing all sorts of rumours today from all sides.
What exactly is going on there? I've been hearing all sorts of rumours today from all sides.
------------
Depends what/who you will want to believe.
L. IAN MACDONALD a Conservative supporter and in particular a Mulroney fan is also a columnist and frequent commentator.
Since the Mulroney-Schreiber affair he's been rather active defending his old pal. Some in the Montreal media (Dennis Trudeau, and other more right-wing) have let it known that it seems that Mr. MacDonald seems to be taking it rather personally.
-----
I understand that he's a columnist, so it does not have to be fair. As a "columnist" he's always been pro-conservative. I find his latest assaults to be completely misleading to the point of libel.
He's a disgusting apologist who is elevating Mulroney while insulting all other parties.
He's making some fright-wing moonbats sound perfectly sane.
I find his latest assaults to be completely misleading to the point of libel.
Which ones? I know he has a Conservative bias, but I haven't read anything worse than what you see in the Star from the other side.
I've apparently now been banned by Cherniak, for rebutting his silly blaming of PC's and separatists for the Sponsorship scandal (Chretien said so!). Apparently, folks, the Libs had nothing to do with it. I even used clean language in my 2 deleted posts.
I love Liberals like him. Always worth an extra few votes. Dion deserves better.
RT, I know how you feel.
Which ones? I know he has a Conservative bias, but I haven't read anything worse than what you see in the Star from the other side.
Chantal Hebert is the only good reason to read the Star. Luckily, most of her columns are available on-line.
Post a Comment