shoop

Where did you pull that figure out of?

Argus, I've told Greg I will deal with him on PMs if he wants. So to your points... Short answer, I had issues with timing and the behaviour of other posts on some threads that lead to the warnings. I never got a response to most of my questions. Perhaps you shouldn't judge me. Interesting how on this thread Greg has done nothing but defend that email and the way in which he moderates the board. Which should we take at face value the apology? Or the defence? There wasn't anything in particular that *set me off* in the first place. On post #6 I dared to ask a question about the lockdown. Greg asked a rude question and belittled my use of the term lockdown. As I have said repeatedly, Greg should be treating posters with the respect he demands they use on the board. There seems like a lot of distraction from my main point. Respect. Greg should give it if he demands it from others. A point you are conveniently ignoring time after time. I have tried to ask questions quietly and politely only to find them to be ignored or belittled. Look at post #6 again and Greg's response. Seems like his response was more "getting in my face" than my question. Quid pro quo? I realize that it is easiest for Greg is I simply go away, but it is best for the board if I don't.

Here it is. http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics...7_125314_125314 Here is one of the highlights. Hmmm, the Conservatives are governing in a manner that shows how sad the Liberals *scary, scary, scary* really was *and* they have become the choice of Federalists in Quebec. The NDs are looking more professional in their dealings in Parliament. The Bloc is holding their vote. Is this the creation of a set of events that could lead to a major change in the politics of the country that could relegate the term *Natural Governing Party* to the dustbin of history?

I wouldn't be surprised to see Harper "pull a Chretien" and call an election relatively quickly after the new Liberal leader is elected and before he has a chance to establish himself and a campaign organization.

In many, many respects Bob Rae could be the ideal candidate for the CPC. If *somehow* he could shakeoff the baggage to win the leadership it would be much tougher to do so in a general election. His leadership would stunt any possibility for growth in Ontario. Can't see him gaining anywhere else. Quebec? Maritimes? West? Rae Days would be the perfect ammunition for the CPC to win a majority of Ontario seats. Harper just needs to stay the course in Quebec for bigger numbers there. The Maritimes would see the trends in the rest of the country and jump on the bandwagon. Please win Bob Rae!!!

The NDP can dream about success in Quebec. Obstinance on their part is better for the Conservatives.

Isn't it the role of the Government to make defence policy? What is wrong with making sure that the DND stays on message? Better to be clearly focused than to send mixed messages. Or do people really long for the undisciplined days of the Martin governmen?

The *success* of Paul Martin's Hail Mary with the notwithstanding clause shows what the Canadian public thinks of the Supreme Court. Canadians like having that safety net in place. It keeps the Supreme Court from going too far.

Argus, Yes I have received warnings for posts that could easily be considered less offensive than yours. But I haven't sychophantically been defending Greg so I got a warning. Yes that 'warning' blast email was offensive. I think I outlined my case pretty well earlier in this thread. Specifically post #40 of this thread is the key of what I want to say. I know I am probably not going to change his mind, but maybe he might approach things with a bit more of an open mind if I try. I really don't see what I am doing that is so bad here. I am asking legitimate questions. I am playing within the rules but not kissing arse in doing so. This is a message board on politics, I think having posters here who are willing to work to make the community better for everybody should be welcomed ... not encouraged to leave because the moderator and a few sychophants deem it to be in their best interest. Why is it so bad to ask questions? Am I really interrupting the board that much? Riverwind, August, Argus. I am not trying to get banned. I am trying to make a point. Do you really think the board is better off with the current mix of people? I am not sure, but I am willing to try and make it better. A big part of the reason I am doing so is because I do a free and open board for discussing Canadian politics. The people I know who left are good posters who don't want to be treated like children. I would like to create an environment in which they would feel happy to come back to MLW. Why will none of you deal with the question about the people who left after that email? Have any of you taken offense to any of my other posts here (other than this thread)? Greg, how am I trying to get banned? You have told me *enough is enough* to *move on* and that I have been *wasting everyone's time*. If you really do issue your warnings as gentle reminders, than I haven't done anything outside this thread that would be considered offensive to anyone. I have asked you to treat me with the same respect you demand from others, yet you won't do it. I don't know when to drop it? What exactly does that mean? I don't know when to respect your dictatorial rule? Sorry, can't call you during business hours. (Check my post history, vast majority of posts are outside work hours.) However, if you do want to take this discussion off the board sending me a PM and actually responding when I have read what you sent me and have replied is probably a good step.

It is kinda sad that certified Harper-haters like Nocrap have to post three week old stories in an effort to keep alive this dead issue. Harper is running a tighter ship. That means the media will have to learn to function differently. He is getting the word out, but the National Press Gallery is upset with the way he is going about doing it. Won't make any difference to the electorate. The only people that would be upset about the issue would never ever vote Conservative anyways.

Argus thank you for, unwittingly, highlighting my point with your post. See, the insults about me wearing panties and 'taking it like a man' would get some posters a warning from Greg. They clearly break the rules about personal attacks and lowering the level of debate. However, as your attacks on me are written in defence of Greg my guess is they won't get you a chastising PM. Quite interesting that Greg selectively enforces the rules. Want more examples than just his treatment of you? Scroll through this thread. I personally have no problems with most of the posters here. Argus, you seem like a pretty good dude and that stuff you posted is pretty minor and I don't really take offence. It is a great example of the arbitrary way in which Greg moderates this board. On this thread you can see examples of Greg being petty, rude, patronizing and arrogant. No, I won't simply go away. If Greg throws a fit and bans me then so be it. However, I contribute to a lot of the discussion on this board and feel my presence here is a positive thing. If daring to question his authority is too much then so be it. (The clarification bit was simply taken from one of his replies to my questions about his rudeness - i.e. hypocrisy.) The rude email Greg sent is one of the things that I think is very inappropriate here. Not the only thing though. I could have simply left when I read it. However, we have lost a number of our regulars since that email went out. I think I am doing more of a service to those of us who enjoy being here on MLW by calling his heavy-handedness into question than giving in to Greg's tyrannical rule and simply going away. Speaking about clarification, after reading through this thread I still have very little idea just what's got your panties in a twist. Are you, by any chance, referring to the email which went out to everyone warning them not to use insults, followed by an apology pointing out that it was a general email and wasn't criticising anyone specifically? If Greg told you to stop using insults the only possible answer from you should be "I wasn't using insults". Otherwise, like he said, move on. It's not a defence when you get pulled over for speeding to point to another car speeding. You were still speeding, so take it like a man. As far as dictatorial goes, if he was as bad as you imply you would no longer be here.

Why is the press protecting Julie Van Dusen? If any member of the public, another political or a civil servant started into it with the PM you can be that they would have been named. Ibbitson referred to here as a "CBC reporter", but that's as close as anybody came to actually naming here. Why does the press deserve protection they don't believe politicians deserve?

Who among the electorate really cares about Harper's relations with the press gallery? Those of us on the board (and boards like this) surely do, but we alll appear to be among the very small minority of Canadians who follow politics very closely. Media people do. Does anybody else? Will Harper's testy relations with the media have a major influence on the way people vote? I don't think so. If Harper deals with this the way he has dealt with everything else since the election he will stay the course. He realized that in spite of tremendous personal appeal people did not like Paul Martin's dithering. He has gone out of his way to avoid any appearnces of lack of confidence in his opinions and I am sure that he will continue to do so. It appears to be the surest way to win the ultimate prize ... a majority government.

Sorry Greg, but you're inablity to explain your position means I have the right to ask for clarification. I'll stick around unless you are going to take your ball and go home - i.e. ban me for daring to question your dictatorial and hypocritcal moderation style.

Hmmm, why not? Exactly what test do posters have to pass to receive a response? What's with the dictatorial tone? Telling me to move on is rude and arrogant. How about answering the question? Could you plese start treating me in the professional manner you expect from me? Again rude and dictatorial. Please treat me with the respect you expect me to treat you with. You really don't see why somebody would see that post as offensive? Let's call the hypocrisy offensive. You asked me a question in a very rude and condescending manner. Yet you expect me to behave in a professional manner. Just exactly why do you expect more from me than you expect from yourself? Ahhh, OK? I made this clear the heavy-handedness of your PMs was an issue before my last post. No, I am not reaching. Yes, that is another example of your arrogance. Take a look at my posts in this thread. I have: admitted when I made a mistake, used the level of professionalism you 'demand' of your posters and dealt with all issues you have asked me about. Take a look at your posts in this thread. You have: used language that doesn't match the level of professionalism you 'demand of your posters, refused to admit you have made a mistake, and told me to 'move on' when you didn't want to deal with my concerns. I think I have some legitimate concerns here. You have trivialized them and belittled me throughouth the thread. I have dealt with you much more professionally than you have dealt with me. I don't understand how you think that is an appropriate way for a moderator to behave.

I was more than willing to "give Greag a break" for quite a while. Look at my post history if you want. However, the 'lockdown' email was pretty offensive. I didn't appreciate the PM I received at about the same time. The fact that Greg chose to ignore my responding PM was another example of his heavy-handedness in running the board. The fact that he chose to accuse me of lacking the ability to express myself earlier in this thread was really arrogant. As have been a couple of other things he has posted on this thread. I appreciate your suggestion, but am responding on this thread for a reason. The Federal Politics category receives far more hits than any other part of this board. I feel that this is a discussion that should be presented to as many posters as possible. Nothing on this thread has really been about Federal Politics anyways.

How about responding to posters when they have questions about your "friendly reminders"? How are posters supposed to know you have taken the time to listen to their concerns or how you feel about them if you don't respond? I find it interesting you resonded right away when I posted my legitimate concerns. Yet PMs are ignored. Hmmm, four people plus you posted on the thread after you banned the offending poster. Are you really calling that a significant number? btw, I am referring to the Marijuana decriminalization. Chicken Little Stephen Harper thread. Yes, you have the right to question. As a moderator is it too much for you to ask your questions in a professional manner? Shouldn't you actually be setting an example in using a positive tone on the board? Is there a reason why you ignored my questions about italicizing lockdown? Appears to me that was an attempt at your belittling my use of the term. A term which you used on that mass email.

My bad, but my questions on Greg's self-congratulation, ignoring legitmate concerns and italicizing the lockdown are still valid. Or is that "spew" as well? btw Why hasn't that Chicken little thread been locked? Isn't "Ya, what's your point?" a little confrontational for a moderator?

Conveniently the Red Star did not print the full quote from the Minister's representative. Maybe the publisher can relaunch the event. This guy shouldn't be making money off his credentials as an Environment Canada scientist if he isn't willing to follow proper protocol in getting events approved.

That your lockdown was overly heavy-handed. Evidence of which was your follow-up post/email to all members. Why are you italicizing the word? Weren't you the one who used it in the first place? Do feel free to pat yourself on the back while ignoring legitimate criticism of your heavy-handedness, not replying to emails and selectively enforcing your rules. Or is it ok now for 'the Liberal' to be referring to our PM as "chicken litle Stephen Harper"?

Ahhh, there is the rub. He is using the press. The National Press Gallery is just upset that he is choosing to use local media instead of them. Why exactly would that create a backlash?

Yet another insightful post that merely goes to prove your hatred for Harper without adding anything to the conversation. I salute you for your diligence good sire.

Nocrap, there's a good 40% of the public that would never vote conservative. You are one of them, we get it. But seeing editorials crying out that Harper is going too far tells me that this is a good bill that will appeal to the 60% of Canadians who would consider voting for Harper. No reason to appeal to the likes of you. You hate him, would never support him or give him credit for being successful in doing something.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Harper won't back down outta principle. There will be some accommodation but you won't see any Martinesque dithering backdown. This is really only a story to the National Press Gallery and political junkies. If we see mass protests in the streets on the issue maybe the PMO will change direction.

I heard the story about the press conference Harper walked out of. Julie Van Dusen stood at the front of the line and was attacking Harper. There is a fine line between tough-nosed journalism and attacks. Van Dusen is notorious for having no idea where the line is. Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada. He deserves to be treated with respect. If Van Dusen can't deal with that ... then I guess it is going to be war. How long will the Press Gallery rally around Van Dusen?