scribblet Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) Poor poor waldo...so completely pantsed... Indeed .... of course we know that the real hate monger and opponent of free speech in all of this was Avaaz who seem to think that only liberal opinions should be allowed, so failing in their attempt to muzzle conservative opinions, they attempt to enlist the help of the RCMP, but fortunately failed. Never mind that this is an American outfit attempting to whip up opposition to SunTV, with over the top rhetoric and misinformation, talk of 'hate speech' based on newspaper speculation - have to wonder why - then on failing they have a major hissy fit :lol: ETA: Just thought I'd remind people here that Avaaz said in it's petition, they opposed Sun TV News application because it 'would be "poisonous" to democracy in Canada.' Really, what could be more poisonous to democracy than attempting to stifle free speecha nd opposing views - Avaaz is the organization to be afraid of. Edited January 7, 2011 by scribblet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Dancer, if you need help with the googly thing... just ask yer lil' buddy, scribbler. To clear up your misconceptions fabrications, I've quoted what I actually did state. Here's just one example of how you use the googly thing - hey, Dancer! poor waldo...you go to suck lengths to make yourself look idiotic...is it a fetish or just clumsiness? Yes I used google and saw something like that...but I ignored it because I wasn't looking for a PR statement about what they might do, I was looking for something that would back up your claim of what they have done, namely, pursue a civil suit. Alas, that claim is apparently just a fabvrication on your part, perhaps understandibly as an effort to save face over your other fabrications. Tell you what sport, come back when you have something truthful to put forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 of course we know that the real hate monger and opponent of free speech in all of this was Avaaz who seem to think that only liberal opinions should be allowed, so failing in their attempt to muzzle conservative opinions, they attempt to enlist the help of the RCMP, but fortunately failed. wow! Now the second time you've directly made the hate mongering charge... as I said, perhaps Ezra can take up your charge... presuming he has any time given his rabid schedule of rehearsing as an upcoming FoxNewsNorth talking head. By the way, care to detail the basis for your typical over-the-top hate mongering charge - sure you can... Never mind that this is an American outfit attempting to whip up opposition to SunTV, with over the top rhetoric and misinformation, talk of 'hate speech' based on newspaper speculation - have to wonder why - then on failing they have a major hissy fit :lol: now extended to include hate speech charges! Just wow! As you detail the basis for your hate mongering charge, make sure to include the foundations of your hate speech premise - hey? And here I understood avaaz to be a 'global online community'... that just happens to have it's brick and mortar HQ presence located in the U.S. - go figure! ETA:Just thought I'd remind people here that Avaaz said in it's petition, they opposed Sun TV News application because it 'would be "poisonous" to democracy in Canada.' Really, what could be more poisonous to democracy than attempting to stifle free speecha nd opposing views - Avaaz is the organization to be afraid of. whaaa! Scribbler, settle down... I expect the actual related avaaz petition statement would be in relation to the reference that FoxNewsNorth would, "mimic the kind of hate-filled propaganda with which Fox News has poisoned U.S. politics". Clearly you won't be bold enough to challenge that statement... the cottage industry working to document the failings of Fox News awaits your challenge. scribbler, don't get your panties too tight as I've personally advocated for the presence of FoxNewsNorth - it'll be comedy gold, real gold! My only objection was to it's attempt to gain associated per subscriber fee/tax funded status. After all... doesn't Quebecor have the deep pockets - hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Yes I used google and saw something like that...but I ignored it because I wasn't looking for a PR statement about what they might do, I was looking for something that would back up your claim of what they have done, namely, pursue a civil suit.Alas, that claim is apparently just a fabvrication on your part, perhaps understandibly as an effort to save face over your other fabrications. Tell you what sport, come back when you have something truthful to put forward. ya Dancer, obviously the googly thing has you challenged... be careful... you won't always have scribbler to carry your googly water! The fabrication you speak of is clearly yours - I re-quoted my statement, coupled with the formal avaaz release statement - perhaps you could indicate how they are exactly out of sync... if not criminal, with option available, what then, hey Dancer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 poor waldo...you go to suck lengths to make yourself look idiotic...is it a fetish or just clumsiness? ---- :lol: Those who condone the hate mongering Avaaz are having hissy fits over their failure to silence views they don't like, so really, who is really poisoning the debate. At least this outed Avaaz for what they are, as we know that they also interfered in our elections. I'm never anti American, but in this case - Yankee go home. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/20/kevin-libin-the-third-party-no-one-talks-about But during the last federal election, Avaaz, an internationally based liberal activist group, registered for the first time as a third party in Canada — meaning it raised and spent money on campaigning, but wasn’t an official party or candidate.It spent tens of thousands of dollars aimed at defeating three Conservative candidates in three federal ridings, even though the Elections Act puts a tight limit on that kind of targeted spending to just a few thousand dollars. It has lately been lobbying the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s chairman to influence his decisions. It has lobbied the Conservative government on climate policy (it is behind those “fossil of the day” awards regularly handed out to Canada at climate summits) and organized rallies and petitions to convince the Governor General to bless the coalition of opposition forces attempting to unseat the Tories in 2008. All this even though Avaaz is not listed in Canada’s lobbyist registry. Third-party organizations are not legally allowed to buy interference in Canadian elections, using ads or similar communication tactics, with even a dollar of foreign funds. But whether Avaaz itself — the name means “voice” in a number of languages — is Canadian or a foreign influence remains a matter of some ambiguity. The group is based in New York; archived copies of Avaaz’s website from as recently as last year read “we currently have staff based in Rio de Janeiro, Geneva, New York, London, and Washington DC,” without mentioning any Canadian presence. The group has no specific Canadian website. The Ottawa phone number listed on Avaaz’s third party election advertising report no longer works; it currently belongs to a federal civil servant who says that he was only recently assigned the number by his wireless provider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 ya Dancer, obviously the googly thing has you challenged... be careful... you won't always have scribbler to carry your googly water! The fabrication you speak of is clearly yours - I re-quoted my statement, coupled with the formal avaaz release statement - perhaps you could indicate how they are exactly out of sync... if not criminal, with option available, what then, hey Dancer? Is it masochism or a belief that if you post enough words no one will notice your pants around your ankles? If not criminal. what other option...the most used legal option of all...nothing. Just like when Mulroney's lawyers threatened lawsuits to any new outlet that published excerpts of the biography by Michel Gratton...the excerts were published and the lawsuits never came..Mulruney exercised other legal options, the option of doing nothing. No the onus is on you to back up you silly claim they are doing something...but pull your pants up first will ya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 It's fairly obvious that they aren't doing anything, but - if they really are secretly following through with their attempts to silence free speech with alleged threats of law suits, it should also open the door to an enquiry about their alleged interference and manipulation of our election laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Walso's contributions to this discussion are, shall we say, smears and inuendo.. Consider... then why did Teneycke kill the free publicity gravy-train... why did he resign? Certainly all that speculation about his 'petition fraudster' source residing within the PMO... the sought after criminal investigation... that has nothing to do with it - sure! Repeating speculation...? Whose speculation? Waldo's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) Walso's contributions to this discussion are, shall we say, smears and inuendo.. Consider... Repeating speculation...? Whose speculation? Waldo's? I don't read him anymore so no need for me to consider the source. However, if the source of the IP came from the PMO then Tory K. had allready left by then. He obviously resigned for the good of the company, but I'm sure they wouldn't take him back if there was a lawsuit over his head. Edited January 7, 2011 by scribblet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Those who condone the hate mongering Avaaz are having hissy fits over their failure to silence views they don't like, so really, who is really poisoning the debate. hate mongering and hate speech are serious charges you've assigned to avaaz... I trust you won't keep us waiting too long for the basis of your charges - have you consulted with Ezra yet? As you detail the basis for your hate mongering charge, make sure to include the foundations of your hate speech premise - hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 At least this outed Avaaz for what they are, as we know that they also interfered in our elections. I'm never anti American, but in this case - Yankee go home.http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/20/kevin-libin-the-third-party-no-one-talks-about hey scribbler... I recall reading that NP/Libin article when it first came out... something about Conservatives/Rusty Baird complaining to Elections Canada, and Elections Canada advising there was no substance/basis/merit behind the Conservatives/Rusty Baird complaint. Have you new or updated information/detail to supply to Elections Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 If not criminal. what other option...the most used legal option of all...nothing. Just like when Mulroney's lawyers threatened lawsuits to any new outlet that published excerpts of the biography by Michel Gratton...the excerts were published and the lawsuits never came..Mulruney exercised other legal options, the option of doing nothing. whaaa! You're a peach... notwithstanding your anecdotal reminiscing fondness for Mulroney, your natural predilection is towards a self-comforting 'nothingness'. On the other hand when I read Patel acknowledging the absence of a criminal pursuit outlet, coupled with his expression of continuing to pursue justice related to the other legal options still available to them, well... if not criminal, what remains - hey Dancer?... I mean, what remains aside from your comforting natural predilection towards 'nothingness'? Speak civilly now Dancer, speak civil - hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 whaaa! You're a peach... notwithstanding your anecdotal reminiscing fondness for Mulroney, your natural predilection is towards a self-comforting 'nothingness'. On the other hand when I read Patel acknowledging the absence of a criminal pursuit outlet, coupled with his expression of continuing to pursue justice related to the other legal options still available to them, well... if not criminal, what remains - hey Dancer?... I mean, what remains aside from your comforting natural predilection towards 'nothingness'? Speak civilly now Dancer, speak civil - hey? Gosh Sport, pull your pants up.... Earl;ier you spoke with such...what was that word?...irony...no....bullshit? close... authority?...you said quite authoritatively they were pursuing a civil investigation (what everbthat means) but all you have is an amiguous statement when they found out their PR stunt was being taken seriously.... Seriously son, come back when you have something more than a guess on your part. And for christ sakes, pull up your pants! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Dancer, notwithstanding your overt advances with your over-the-top repeated reference to lowering my pants, the quoted avaaz statement is anything but ambiguous. My last post was also quite clear... you've simply chosen to ignore it - whatever! Should you choose to respond to it, please speak civilly now Dancer, speak civil - hey? when I read Patel acknowledging the absence of a criminal pursuit outlet, coupled with his expression of continuing to pursue justice related to the other legal options still available to them, well... if not criminal, what remains - hey Dancer?... I mean, what remains aside from your comforting natural predilection towards 'nothingness'? Speak civilly now Dancer, speak civil - hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Dancer, notwithstanding your overt advances with your over-the-top repeated reference to lowering my pants, the quoted avaaz statement is anything but ambiguous. My last post was also quite clear... you've simply chosen to ignore it - whatever! Should you choose to respond to it, please speak civilly now Dancer, speak civil - hey? Glad you asked the question Sport. The foreign lobby groups statement is quite ambiguous. (do you need a definition for that word?) We still have legal options available, and will continue to pursue justice and stand up for Canadians' right to freedom of expression. If you have an authoritative source that specifically shows what options that have chosen and not what options you are guessing they have chosen...go ahead and post them. If not, goi waste someone else's time with your prattle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 sure buddy, just as soon as you come forward with something other than your anecdotal reminiscing fondness for Mulroney, your natural predilection towards a self-comforting 'nothingness'. I would suggest you seek a counter quote from Patel that advises avaaz's intent to follow the path of your anecdotal reminiscing fondness for Mulroney reference - hey? Until then we'll simply need to refer to the formal avaaz statement where we can read Patel acknowledging the absence of a criminal pursuit outlet, coupled with his expression of continuing to pursue justice related to the other legal options still available to them. So, again Dancer... if not criminal, what remains - hey Dancer?... I mean, what remains aside from your comforting natural predilection towards 'nothingness'? Speak civilly now Dancer, speak civil - hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Blah blah blah blah I edited out the bits that weren't relevant. Since you are unable to provide any substantial reference, then my statement that the lobby group's PR campaign stands. It failed. Thanks Waldo, Normally I would need to go to the circus for such clownish antics.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 ... if not criminal, what remains - hey Dancer?... I mean, what remains aside from your comforting natural predilection towards 'nothingness'? Speak civilly now Dancer, speak civil - hey? A lot remains Walloping Waldo ....from ....nothing to....nothing. Perhaps the US lobby group thinks we have a US system here where they can take anything to a civil court....poor Walloping Waldo....poor US lobby Group.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 A lot remains Walloping Waldo ....from ....nothing to....nothing. Perhaps the US lobby group thinks we have a US system here where they can take anything to a civil court....poor Walloping Waldo....poor US lobby Group.... from a previous thread There was no investigation. Baird complained about their announced intentions and Election Canada said there was no reason to presume they were going to violate the spending laws. No review of their advertising costs was ever conducted nor did Elections Canada ever look at their advertising to see what it said. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that f they had been campaigning on behalf of the Conservatives Elections Canada would have set up a branch office just to oversee the massive investigation which would have been launched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 uhhh... no. The RCMP handed it over to the Ottawa Police Service... jurisdiction and all that - hey? Do you have any authoritative scribbler updates on the status of the OPS investigation... or are you just huffing and puffing? I heard that the Ottawa Police have now referred the complaint to the Internet Police. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 At least this outed Avaaz for what they are, as we know that they also interfered in our elections. I'm never anti American, but in this case - Yankee go home.http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/20/kevin-libin-the-third-party-no-one-talks-about hey scribbler... I recall reading that NP/Libin article when it first came out... something about Conservatives/Rusty Baird complaining to Elections Canada, and Elections Canada advising there was no substance/basis/merit behind the Conservatives/Rusty Baird complaint. Have you new or updated information/detail to supply to Elections Canada? from a previous thread There was no investigation. Baird complained about their announced intentions and Election Canada said there was no reason to presume they were going to violate the spending laws. No review of their advertising costs was ever conducted nor did Elections Canada ever look at their advertising to see what it said. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that f they had been campaigning on behalf of the Conservatives Elections Canada would have set up a branch office just to oversee the massive investigation which would have been launched. great - thanks for acknowledging Elections Canada saw no merit in the Conservative/Rusty Baird complaint against avaaz. How are things progressing with you putting together the basis for your hate mongering/hate speech charges against avaaz - hey? Those who condone the hate mongering Avaaz are having hissy fits over their failure to silence views they don't like, so really, who is really poisoning the debate. hate mongering and hate speech are serious charges you've assigned to avaaz... I trust you won't keep us waiting too long for the basis of your charges - have you consulted with Ezra yet? As you detail the basis for your hate mongering charge, make sure to include the foundations of your hate speech premise - hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 sure buddy, just as soon as you come forward with something other than your anecdotal reminiscing fondness for Mulroney, your natural predilection towards a self-comforting 'nothingness'. I would suggest you seek a counter quote from Patel that advises avaaz's intent to follow the path of your anecdotal reminiscing fondness for Mulroney reference - hey? Until then we'll simply need to refer to the formal avaaz statement where we can read Patel acknowledging the absence of a criminal pursuit outlet, coupled with his expression of continuing to pursue justice related to the other legal options still available to them. So, again Dancer... if not criminal, what remains - hey Dancer?... I mean, what remains aside from your comforting natural predilection towards 'nothingness'? Speak civilly now Dancer, speak civil - hey? A lot remains Walloping Waldo ....from ....nothing to....nothing. you never cease to amaze... Dancerspeak rules! Somehow... somehow... you're able to cut through that avaaz/Patel statement, the one you label as "ambiguous". Apparently there is enough clarity within that avaaz/Patel statement to allow you an ability to meet your natural predilection towards 'nothingness'... however, all others (those without Dancerspeak prowess), are unable to cut through your described/labeled ambiguity! Such is the power of the Dancer! Please... please... if you choose to respond, speak civilly now Dancer, speak civil - hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 I heard that the Ottawa Police have now referred the complaint to the Internet Police. -k :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 you never cease to amaze... Dancerspeak rules! Somehow... somehow... you're able to cut through that avaaz/Patel statement, the one you label as "ambiguous". Apparently there is enough clarity within that avaaz/Patel statement to allow you an ability to meet your natural predilection towards 'nothingness'... however, all others (those without Dancerspeak prowess), are unable to cut through your described/labeled ambiguity! Such is the power of the Dancer! Please... please... if you choose to respond, speak civilly now Dancer, speak civil - hey? If it is unambigous, please be unambiguous....you know Waldobelle....just show some proof for the claim you made..namely, the civil investigation (what ever that is supposed to mean)... You can do it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 it's right there... within the Patel statement! You know, the statement you labeled as ambiguous... the statement to which only DancerPower has the capability to cut through the labeled DancerAmbiguity and decipher and conclude DancerNothingness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.