Figleaf

In fact, in this case I didn't report the post, I merely cited a rule you had seemingly overlooked. Anyway, No, I will not accede to your request. You might as well stop disrupting threads with your groundless objections. Please read the portion I have put in boldface above. Reported. With an explaination to Greg that you have been repeatedly asked by several people not to disrupt threads with this useless announcement of your reportage. Just please do it quietly. If you must alert people to their doom, please do it in pms. What's so hard about that? Okay, I'm going to briefly rescind my dictum of not responding to you on matter since you have done what I suggested. I'm glad you've taken this issue to Greg. Maybe he will have some success in telling you about how the forum works where I have clearly not. Just to be clear, unless advised otherwise by Greg, I will NOT go along with your personal rule changes. I WILL continue to advise posters if I report their posts. And YOU have no basis for complaining about that. If you don't want to be reported, FOLLOW THE RULES.

My "footprint" score in this nonsense is 5.0. It says if everyone lived like me, we would need 2.8 planets. Then it says: "Take Action" It's funny because I already do take action. I'm a strong and committed proponent of space colonization.

In fact, in this case I didn't report the post, I merely cited a rule you had seemingly overlooked. Anyway, No, I will not accede to your request. You might as well stop disrupting threads with your groundless objections. Please read the portion I have put in boldface above.

You just disrupted this one with this comment. Really, your peurile objections to the concept of forum rules is out of place here. If you don't like a forum with rules, you are free to leave, I'm sure. Or you could take it up with Greg and get him to change the rules to suit you idiosyncratic preferences. Do let us all know how that effort pans out. Anyway, this is the last time I intend to discuss this matter with you, so spare me the whinging.

Did JBG make that clear?

So? You may not want it. But I disagree with you about you needing it. I've told you numerous times already, the remedy is to learn and follow the rules. You may as well drop these pointless objections. This forum operates a certain way, and I am simply acting within it. Whetehr you like that or not makes no bones whatsoever. In fact, in this case I didn't report the post, I merely cited a rule you had seemingly overlooked. Anyway, No, I will not accede to your request. You might as well stop disrupting threads with your groundless objections. It is the initial rule breach that disrupts the thread.

I never liked him, but Mulroney was no dope.

Have you ever been shafted by someone in an unregulated occupation? Who could you complain to then?

Scott, FYI the Forum Rules and Guidelines state: Stop disrupting threads. I'm helping you fit in and comply with the rules, especially since you seem to have such ongoing difficulty in this regard. P.S. Your bizarrely offended responses to my assistance are at least as disruptive as my pointers. Not to mention the obvious disruptive quality of the posts that prompt the pointers! Like, for example, posting the no-value comment that started this exchange.

This is the second time you've raised this point. The first time you didn't acknowledge the information I supplied in response, and now you're merely repeating your faulty interpretation. Please be advised: First, some of the sections specifically name resignations within them. Did you notice that? If not how could you have failed to see that? Second, it is a very dubious assertion to suggest that a resignation is not something performing or refraining to perform something. What authority do you rely on for that? Third, being paid your salary for work you are no longer doing certainly seems like a money benefit. There is no apparent carve-out in the law that says salaries are not benefits. I must say, it's surprising how much at sea you seem to be in the area of legal interpretation.

No, I understand the nature and content of professionalism, whilst you apparently do not. Crapola. Professional bodies in Canada almost universally include lay-people on their governing councils. Compared to or unlike who? In fact, professions hold their members to higher standards of conduct than you would typically find in unregulated occupations.

So your Post #4, was not a comment on Post #3? Okay, w/e.

"most"

I know you want to make some fictitious distinction between being "Formally Investigated" and simply investigated, but the conflict of interest is the same in either way. I'm going to accuse you of doing harm to the MLF by preventing debating on relevant topics, so until Greg decides to investigate those accusation,it's in your best interest that you stop posting here until there is or is not an investigation. Whether there is or is not an investigation on your harming the MLF, your returning will be based on Greg. Do you really not get this?? I'm not Greg's boss. Stockwell IS the boss of the RCMP.

I don't care in the least what you 'resent'. I've never claimed to be the judge. I'm calling for an INVESTIGATION. And it's not me, it's the principles of parliament and the nature of conflicts of interest that say Day should step aside. Cripes, what is so hard for you to get about this? DAY can't lead a credible investigation into HIMSELF. Pure blathershite.

I know you want to make some fictitious distinction between being "Formally Investigated" and simply investigated, but the conflict of interest is the same in either way.

Maybe you're right. Still, I find it hard to believe that this was not mere ceremony and that he was seriously accepted among racist Nazis as a figure who they took seriously in overall Nazi planning. There was Shukri al-Quwatli in Syria and as-Sayyid Abdullah in Jordan. That's utter shit and you know it. In the absence of hindsight, why should he?

If you agree to the idea of an investigation, I can't see how you would think one of the Investigees can be in charge of the force carrying out the investigation. What would you think of having Mark Holland in charge of investigating Mark Holland?Honestly, it's kind of troubling that Conservatives seem to see this as 'just politics'. It's much more than that. It's an important point of transparency and good government. And it's a time-honoured principle of parliament ... when a minister has a potential conflict of interest with his or her portfolio, they step aside. Examples old and new, which were much less clear-cut than this one, have all done the same thing. The most recent is from Ontario where Minister Sorbara left his portfolio until cleared in a securities investigation. Sorbara never admited wrongdoing and he was eventually vindicated, but he understood that parliamentary tradition had to be respected in the mean time.

Ah, come on. You know what the fax says ... you can't seriously pretend it's not an issue. Again -- Ah, come on. You know as well as I do that I simply meant that I have no specific objection to Stockwell as a minister apart from this particular challenge. There was never a doubt.

I think this is the trouble though. Has this payment not already been investigated... in fact, has the settlement not already occured (I think it has)? New proof of an action that has openly taken place and was found to be legit is hardly reasonable grounds to turf a minister. My understanding of the situation is that the initial RCMP investigation did not reflect the contents of the fax. The info in the fax constitutes new information which sheds a new an troubling light on the situation. I think he's been a 'suprising' bright spot out of the cabinet. I was no fan of Stock for PM, but I agree, his administration of portfolios has been quite professional and clearly conscientious. All the more reason I hope he handles this challenge honourably.

Good on you for having the capability to change your mind when you see fit. (No sarcasm here -- it's something not everyone can do.)But look, the fax said quite clearly that Hart got a benefit and in his view it was a quid pro quo. And Hart himself hasn't denied the contents of the fax. I really can't see how it is possible to not have an investigation. And for the record, I don't think Stock has done a bad job as minister, or that if he's innocent he should have to stay out of cabinet afterward.

That's a ridiculous position. While they DECIDE about a formal investigation, Day could be influencing that decision. He must step aside IMMEDIATELY to avoid the implication of interference.

Such crapola. Why don't you ask Figleaf? I bet he'll tell you that NO, he'd be more interested in the apparent likelyhood of a criminal code breach by those who secured a safe seat for the leader (Day) to run in.

reported Are you going to continue to go around typing 'reported' all over the place for no good reason? And lest you attempt to compare your practices to mine, I'll point out that my reports are based on the forum rules, whereas some of yours have seemed to be based on nothing at all.