Latest Canadian Political Poll

[Ricki Bobbi]

Which part of that was bashing? Where I spoke about the NDP losing five points to the Greens?

That is what you wrote. You asked me to point out where you were bashing. That was it. Don't you recognize your own words?

Everyone who has read your reponse can see it was bashing.

Good grief. I know I just asked, but again please exercise a little good faith. It's a waste of everyone's time to put up with these purposely ignorant posts of yours.

He did not claim you bashed "him". You bashed his commentary on the article. To claim otherwise is beyond ridiculous.

Do explain how I bashed his commentary of the article by aksing why he misrepresented it?

[jdobbin]

Which part of that was bashing? Where I spoke about the NDP losing five points to the Greens?

Where you cited my name and said bash, bash, bash.

If you disagree with an article, just disagree with it and stop personalizing attacks.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Where you cited my name and said bash, bash, bash.

If you disagree with an article, just disagree with it and stop personalizing attacks.

I didn't disagree with the article, I disagreed with how you posted it. You still haven't responded to the point I made about the NDP losing so much support in such a short time period was a bigger story. Seems like you are just here to pick fights and make Harper look bad at every chance. Your post to start this thread was more of the thread.

If you really want to move on just address why you chose to ignore the NDPs freefall in your original post.

btw, is your call for civility only adderss to people who don't hate Harper? Seems like GerryHatrick's calling my actions *plain ridiculous* is far harsher than asking people to move on from simply bashing Harper.

[gerryhatrick]

Do explain how I bashed his commentary of the article by aksing why he misrepresented it?

He didn't misrepresent it, and you did more than just accuse him of that.

You've crossed the line from debating in bad faith to full-out lying.

[Ricki Bobbi]

He didn't misrepresent it, and you did more than just accuse him of that.

You've crossed the line from debating in bad faith to full-out lying.

Gerry can you post some information on where exactly that line is? Better yet, your guidelines on proper behaviour on a pollitical message board. Your objective and respectful tone on this board is one I believe all posters should strive to follow.

[jdobbin]

I didn't disagree with the article, I disagreed with how you posted it. You still haven't responded to the point I made about the NDP losing so much support in such a short time period was a bigger story. Seems like you are just here to pick fights and make Harper look bad at every chance. Your post to start this thread was more of the thread.

If you really want to move on just address why you chose to ignore the NDPs freefall in your original post.

btw, is your call for civility only adderss to people who don't hate Harper? Seems like GerryHatrick's calling my actions *plain ridiculous* is far harsher than asking people to move on from simply bashing Harper.

The article didn't mention the fall in the NDP's vote. It did mention the Green vote increase which I commented on later. I suggested that it was hard to tell exactly where that support came from and which province based on what was released by Decima. You indicated that the NDP lost support to the Greens but the breakdown of the poll suggests they could have lost to a few parties.

The article's main focus was on the fall the Tories were having in Quebec. It was a major part of that article.

I never mentioned anything about Haper or hating anyone. If you had read the report card, I rated him possibly higher than several of the posters. I did indicate that Afghanistan would be a factor that could and would effect his ability to win a majority election. These last three polls have indicated that is exactly the case.

The fact the Tories are up was less important than where they were down. The Green party increase was the next big news and the NDP decline is third. Only an additonal poll in a few weeks will be able to determine what is happening to the Green Party and the NDP party. I don't know that anyone knows where the Greens are getting their support or where the NDP is losing it.

The way the article was written made it clear they were trying to see how the affect of the war was playing out in key battlegrounds of Ontario and Quebec.

I am trying not to personalize things here. If you have an issue with other people then take it up with them. I don't go using your name in a post and then proceeding to bash it. I'd appreciate the same respect.

If you wanted to make the point on the NDP, then by all means. But the rest of the story and how it was posted by me was accurate and not bashing of Harper.

And if I was picking fights, I'd be seeking out people to ridicule their posts. I am trying not to do that. I might disagree with the post and say so but I won't be indicating you by name for a particular attack.

So please refrain from attacking me personally.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The article's main focus was on the fall the Tories were having in Quebec. It was a major part of that article.

And if I was picking fights, I'd be seeking out people to ridicule their posts. I am trying not to do that. I might disagree with the post and say so but I won't be indicating you by name for a particular attack.

So please refrain from attacking me personally.

No the fall of the Tories in Quebec was *not* the main focus of the article. Quebec isn't even mentioned until the halfway point of the article. Here's a little hint as to what the *focus* of an article is. It's whatever is talked about in the first paragraph of the article. (Yes, I realize the NDP isn't mentioned in that first paragraph *but* they are mentioned before Tory fortunes in Quebec.)

True you haven't mentioned me by name, but using the personal pronoun is drawing a very fine line. Was it really that personal attacking asking to move past your unfair presentation of the article to discussing the article objectively?

[gerryhatrick]

He didn't misrepresent it, and you did more than just accuse him of that.

You've crossed the line from debating in bad faith to full-out lying.

Gerry can you post some information on where exactly that line is?

You need me to explain to you when you're lying?

[jdobbin]

No the fall of the Tories in Quebec was *not* the main focus of the article. Quebec isn't even mentioned until the halfway point of the article. Here's a little hint as to what the *focus* of an article is. It's whatever is talked about in the first paragraph of the article. (Yes, I realize the NDP isn't mentioned in that first paragraph *but* they are mentioned before Tory fortunes in Quebec.)

True you haven't mentioned me by name, but using the personal pronoun is drawing a very fine line. Was it really that personal attacking asking to move past your unfair presentation of the article to discussing the article objectively?

You are free to disagree with my interpretation of the article. You don't have to attack me as bashing Harper as you did. Why not just disagree and not personalize?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Why not stop twisting the main idea of the story to make it look worse for the Government than it really is?

You are free to disagree with my interpretation of the article. You don't have to attack me as bashing Harper as you did. Why not just disagree and not personalize?

[jdobbin]

Why not stop twisting the main idea of the story to make it look worse for the Government than it really is?

You were free to disagree with that interpretation of the article. You attacked personally though.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You were free to disagree with that interpretation of the article. You attacked personally though.

If you want to play this little pedantic game of ignoring every point I make and demanding I don't personally attack you, when it isn't objectively clear it was a personal attack have fun.

Your continually avoiding answering questions and focusing on minutiae that are open to debate says a few things. You are holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself *and* you demand a level of respect that you don't accord to others.

Follow the Golden Rule or don't wonder why people ignore your *orders* on a lightly-moderated message board.

[jdobbin]

If you want to play this little pedantic game of ignoring every point I make and demanding I don't personally attack you, when it isn't objectively clear it was a personal attack have fun.

Your continually avoiding answering questions and focusing on minutiae that are open to debate says a few things. You are holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself *and* you demand a level of respect that you don't accord to others.

Follow the Golden Rule or don't wonder why people ignore your *orders* on a lightly-moderated message board.

What point have i ignored that you made? And why do I have to respond to every post you make?

Look, disagree if you want but stop trying to justify personalizing things.

[Ricki Bobbi]

What point have i ignored that you made? And why do I have to respond to every post you make?

Look, disagree if you want but stop trying to justify personalizing things.

So you ask a question why you have to do anything I ask then follow it with an order on how I should behave.

Hmmm, don't really see why I should be held to a higher standard than you are.

[jdobbin]

So you ask a question why you have to do anything I ask then follow it with an order on how I should behave.

Hmmm, don't really see why I should be held to a higher standard than you are.

I don't have a clue what you just said. Think I'll see how the ignore option works on this forum.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I don't have a clue what you just said. Think I'll see how the ignore option works on this forum.

Great.

[gerryhatrick]

From the article:

"But perhaps most troublesome for the party were the standings in Quebec, where the Tories slipped to 20 per cent from 25 per cent on election day in late January."

Now, maybe it's just me and my objective interpretation...but that appears to justify the sub-title by the topic author. It's a shame that some folks have nothing better to do than complain about nothing.

[jbg]

The intersting part of this poll is the NDP being down 5 points in less than two weeks. Is the Green Party really withing striking distance of the NDP? Wouldn't that be interesting if the Greens finally got into parliament at the expense of the NDP?

Excuse my almost total ignorance of Canadian politics (I couldn't find the igloo in Ottawa on Parliament Hill). However, wouldn't the initial result of Green gains (at the expense of the NDP) to favor Liberal or CPC candidates? I thought FPTP would pretty much ensure that the Greens' reduction of NDP strength in any riding would boost the chance of other, less dissimilar rivals? Isn't that how Kim Campbell's PCPC went from somewhere in the 170's to 2 ridings in one day?

100% correct.

Thanks. Wasn't sure just how good or bad my Yank (lack of) understanding of your politics is.

Let's move past jdobbin's *bash* *bash* *bash* the Conservatives and look at this poll closely.

Attempts by CPC shills to dismiss any commentary as "Harper-hating" and "bashing" are just getting more and more pathetic. It's sad when you get so defensive that you dismiss anything remotely resembling criticism (and even that which isn't criticism at all) as bashing. It looks like you're being overly defensive and, if so, why?

The fact that MSM is so "knee-jerk" in its reactions demonstrates that there is a sizeable contingent that are institutionally suspicious of the CPC. It seems to this American that they represent a refreshing breeze in Canadian politics, one that many fear the way anaerobic bacteria fear oxygen.

[jbg]

The proof is the proof. Good work jdobbin!

Is that Canada's motto, the way "exelcior (sp)" is New York's motto?