Does John Baird have an education?

[Michael Bluth]

Do you know what a crosspost is? It means you must be posting these interesting threads more than once. That's against the forum rules for a very good reason (see Socred's complete works for an example why).

There can be a few different types of crossposts. Socred's starting the same thread verbatim on different sites is one of them.

However, a certain poster who complained of these specific type of offences of this nature is repeatedly guilty of a different type of cross-posting. Posting the same information on a variety of threads. Usually a misrepresentation of polls of some kind. Very interesting how someone can be so officious about one rule yet blatantly break a nearly identical rule without conscience.

[jbg]

"a mind like yours"

Please explain what you mean by this. 'Cause right now it looks like what M. Bluth would refer to as a "personal attack".

Nothing to do with you.

[jbg]

However, a certain poster who complained of these specific type of offences of this nature is repeatedly guilty of a different type of cross-posting. Posting the same information on a variety of threads. Usually a misrepresentation of polls of some kind. Very interesting how someone can be so officious about one rule yet blatantly break a nearly identical rule without conscience.

That's called "spamming" or "personal attack".

[BubberMiley]

Nothing to do with you.

Then why is it on a public forum and not a PM?

[jbg]

Then why is it on a public forum and not a PM?

Because I felt like it.

[Michael Bluth]

Then why is it on a public forum and not a PM?

Certain posters have blocked the PM function and 'pretend' to not read posts of others on the forums.

If someone acts in such a passive-aggressive manner there isn't really much else you can do.

[BubberMiley]

Because I felt like it.

Then it's something that anyone can feel free to comment on. You "felt like" including WDW in the conversation, so WDW is free to comment on it.

[jdobbin]

"a mind like yours"

Please explain what you mean by this. 'Cause right now it looks like what M. Bluth would refer to as a "personal attack".

I think he's just unhappy with being told that cross posting is against the rules. He's lashing out it seems.

It certainly doesn't have anything to do with you and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject of Baird.

I don't have problems with Baird's education as being a prerequisite to taking certain jobs in cabinet. I do question whether someone is willing to educate themselves on the subject or is committed to the subject that they are supposed to be in charge of. I don't think Baird is. He was placed in Environment to stick to the script that the PMO has written on the subject.

Baird's main job has been obstructing any movement on the issue of emissions while at the same time aiming partisan attacks at the Opposition.

He certainly has scored on the partisan attacks but according to Ipsos and Decima, the actions of the Baird in Bali were not regarded very well by the public. Those links are in the political polls thread if anyone cares to look at them.

[jdobbin]

Do you know what a crosspost is? It means you must be posting these interesting threads more than once. That's against the forum rules for a very good reason (see Socred's complete works for an example why).

It was one of the original rules that the Board owner put in place and in the past, cross posts have been removed. Many other forums have the same rule in place and I have seen the same removal of posts when they were identified.

If someone is angry about the issue, they should take it up with the Board owner. Long term members of the board should be well aware of the rules.

I noticed Socred's work was cross posted and let him know about the rules and informed him politely. His participation in these forums shouldn't be a problem if he posts his original thoughts and doesn't cross post them elsewhere.

As far as the digression away from the original Baird topic goes, it is obvious to the casual reader to this particular thread that it has broken down into personal attacks.

As a federal politician Baird seems to be brought into certain positions to carry out specific PMO instructions. Unlike the Jim Prentices, he doesn't seem to be either allowed or interested in doing the meat and potatoes work of getting work done in his portfolio. If he wants legislation on water and air pollution, he should stop linking it to weak emissions policies and saying take it or leave it. It is obstructionist, especially when he could get support on many other aspects of his bill.

Edited December 30, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

It was one of the original rules that the Board owner put in place and in the past, cross posts have been removed. Many other forums have the same rule in place and I have seen the same removal of posts when they were identified.

If someone is angry about the issue, they should take it up with the Board owner. Long term members of the board should be well aware of the rules.

I noticed Socred's work was cross posted and let him know about the rules and informed him politely. His participation in these forums shouldn't be a problem if he posts his original thoughts and doesn't cross post them elsewhere.

As far as the digression away from the original Baird topic goes, it is obvious to the casual reader to this particular thread that it has broken down into personal attacks.

Why the reason for the digression?

The behaviour is inappropriate. Only Greg and CharlesA are moderators.

Continued offensive behaviour with a reply of 'report it to the mods' is what is killing these boards. Certain posters can get another last word in with another misrepresentation. Then there will be a period of civility until a certain poster feels the need to try and stir things up.

Please be respectful. If your only defence for behaving in a certain manner is 'report it to the mods' show a little respect and change your behaviour.

[Who's Doing What?]

Certain posters have blocked the PM function and 'pretend' to not read posts of others on the forums.

Maybe that is because they were receiving dozens of harassing pm's from certain posters.

[Michael Bluth]

Maybe that is because they were receiving dozens of harassing pm's from certain posters.

Maybe because they are insecure and such passive aggressive behaviour is a means of striking out against the cruelty of the world.

So you argue to take it to PMs, but when certain posters won't allow that you offer no suggestion.

Good work. Three whole posts for your true feelings to come out.

[Who's Doing What?]

Maybe because they are insecure and such passive aggressive behaviour is a means of striking out against the cruelty of the world.

So you argue to take it to PMs, but when certain posters won't allow that you offer no suggestion.

Good work. Three whole posts for your true feelings to come out.

Gee Ricki, I wonder who it was that was sending harassing pm's to other posters?

[Michael Bluth]

I wonder who it was that was sending harassing pm's to other posters?

Given your harrassing posts apropos of nothing on the board a good guess would be ... you?

[noahbody]

I thought Harper was against carbon credits trading though. If the U.S. comes aboard on that in the new year, he will change that policy?

So far Harper has saved $10 - 20 billion that would have been given away on an hair-brained carbon trading scheme that does nothing for the environment. Give him credit for this.

If Harper signs onto something, it will be based on targets that are reasonable and achievable.

[jdobbin]

So far Harper has saved $10 - 20 billion that would have been given away on an hair-brained carbon trading scheme that does nothing for the environment. Give him credit for this.

If Harper signs onto something, it will be based on targets that are reasonable and achievable.

And as I said, it looks like Bush is leaning towards signing the Lieberman-Warner bill which will include carbon trading credits. You consider it hare-brained but here it is: a possible U.S. response to the issue.

It seems Harper's response has been not to commit to any targets and avoid doing anything on the subject.

[Michael Bluth]

So far Harper has saved $10 - 20 billion that would have been given away on an hair-brained carbon trading scheme that does nothing for the environment. Give him credit for this.

If Harper signs onto something, it will be based on targets that are reasonable and achievable.

There is a big difference between Leiberman-Warner and Kyoto.

The trading of credits called for in Kyoto crosses borders and provides no ability to monitor emissions levels of foreign countries.

Lieberman-Warner sets overall emission levels for the US and provides manufacturers 'right-to-emit' credits and slowly ratchets them down.

Companies would have to buy, or sell, these credits on the open market.

No shipping money offshores to feel good about 'taking action on climate change' while doing nothing.

[jdobbin]

Gee Ricki, I wonder who it was that was sending harassing pm's to other posters?

This is one of the reasons I blocked PMs from him. They were coming at the rate of a few an hour and were threatening or just annoying. As soon as I recognized the same pattern of PMs, I blocked the poster again. Life's too sort to put up with threats or harassment.

As far as your observation on the thread, it is too bad it has diverted from whether Baird has done a good job or not. I put it to you that he has not. It would appear that on orders from the PMO, he was put in the position to stall any progress on emissions and to try and throw partisan jabs at the Opposition. Unfortunately for Baird in Bali, criticism came from several countries and it looked like Canada was isolated and attempting to block an agreement.

Edited December 31, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

Life's too sort to put up with threats or harassment.

Your repeated 'stalker boy' claims were libelous and went past the point of decency. Thankfully the mods stepped in before further action was necessary.

False claims of 'threats and harrassment' are equally as libelous and again fair past any point of deceny. My hope is that the mods will again step in before further action is necessary.

Lets behave with a reasonable level of respect on this board.

[Keepitsimple]

All this talk of Canada being an embarrassment on the environmental world stage is sheer nonsense. Since 2000, virtually all European countries have at best been treading water on their emissions output - while many have seen them go up. As I have stated in a separate topic, the self-serving use of the 1990 Base Year is well past its "best before" date. What matters most is what everyone will do from this point forward - and using that criteria Canada's goals of 20% reductions by 2020 and 50-65% by 2050 are the most agressive committments of any country that I am aware of.

Edited December 31, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

All this talk of Canada being an embarrassment on the environmental world stage is sheer nonsense. Since 2000, virtually all European countries have at best been treading water on their emissions output - while many have seen them go up. As I have stated in a separate topic, the self-serving use of the 1990 Base Year is well past its "best before" date. What matters most is what everyone will do from this point forward - and using that criteria Canada's goals of 20% reductions by 2020 and 50-65% by 2050 are the most agressive committments of any country that I am aware of.

I don't what you mean by aggressive. According to the figures that Europeans have released, they will reach their stated Kyoto goals by 2012. They could very well be under that goal according to the last report I saw in November.

Canada's response in Bali was an embarrassment.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't what you mean by aggressive. According to the figures that Europeans have released, they will reach their stated Kyoto goals by 2012. They could very well be under that goal according to the last report I saw in November.

Canada's response in Bali was an embarrassment.

Whether they reach their 2012 goals is irrelevant - it's what they do from now onwards. No country that I am aware of has made any committments that are greater than Canada's. Take a look at the indivual European countries - one by one - and you'll readily see what a sham the whole 1990 Base Year has been - in essence, they gave themselves a free ride and now they are lecturing the West. If you read the supporting comments - many countries are planning to try to meet their targets through other Kyoto measures that do not involve absolute reductions in emissions. Here's the link again. When you click on each country - skip to page 3 of each PDF document to see the overall emission trends and supporting comments but pay particular attention to how the trend line for most countries goes down quickly from 1990 and then rises right back up. The Europeans are not the saints of the environment - and Kyoto I was certainly not the saviour.

European Environment Agency: http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2007_5/en

[jdobbin]

Whether they reach their 2012 goals is irrelevant - it's what they do from now onwards. No country that I am aware of has made any committments that are greater than Canada's. Take a look at the indivual European countries - one by one - and you'll readily see what a sham the whole 1990 Base Year has been - in essence, they gave themselves a free ride and now they are lecturing the West. If you read the supporting comments - many countries are planning to try to meet their targets through other Kyoto measures that do not involve absolute reductions in emissions. Here's the link again. When you click on each country - skip to page 3 of each PDF document to see the overall emission trends and supporting comments but pay particular attention to how the trend line for most countries goes down quickly from 1990 and then rises right back up. The Europeans are not the saints of the environment - and Kyoto I was certainly not the saviour.

European Environment Agency: http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2007_5/en

I have read all that and the 2012 goals are not irrelevant. They are what was promised in the first global warming conferences and those goals will be met and exceeded. I don't think anyone said the Europeans are saints but they will meet the 2012 goals.

What legislation are you referring to in Canada in terms of commitments?

[Higgly]

He probably does. I usually think Mercer picks his comedic fruit from the low hanging branches.

When he can't find enough laying on the ground.

[Higgly]

I think Higgly just wants to make sure he is getting his $10 worth out of his annual Liberal membership.

And with that kind of "total dedication" he is qualified to be Minister of Finance.

Good heavens. I am wounded mortally. Kyoto was not about global co-operation to solve a global problem. No, indeedy. It was about Liberalism. O wait it was about punishing the rich. O wait. Who produces most of the pollution? O my. O my indeed.

What is really sad about this is that the wealthy nations are best positioned to lead the way out of this mess and profit from it. Instead we have a a guy who invaded another country telling us the oil revenues would cover the costs (yeah right). The further you dig, the worse it smells. Finally you hit the main artery and a bullshit gusher darkens the sky. Dinosaurs start to die. Just don't be standing beside one when it happens. Nothing worse than being killed by a flop.

Oh Steve can you lead? Apparently not.

Edited January 1, 2008 by Higgly