Northwest Passage

[Charles Anthony]

I have often suspected that certain avatars are actually catalysts created by the board owners to keep the pot stirring and encourage controversy and subsequently more "action".

You are wrong.

I combined the threads.

To Michael - I have noticed that you have chosen to attach my OP to a thread which was active 8 years ago. I ask why?

--- because they were all of the same topic. That is the policy and custom here.

All posts are date-stamped. There is no barrier to continuing your recent addition to the discussion.

I suggest focussing on the merit of a message rather than formulating prejudice towards the messenger.

[Derek 2.0]

That is why I do not react to or respond to certain "posters" whose only function seems to be to aggravate other posters.

Its a shame you don't wish to discuss your now merged OP, though I didn't agree with several of your points, the meat and potatoes of the topic are a very underrepresented topic within Canadian politics........though I didn't partake in this original thread, I see no reason not to continue with your merged OP.

[eyeball]

It has long been common practice on this forum for mods to combine identical or very similar topics into one thread.

Works fine IMHO.

What he said.

[Big Guy]

To Charles Anthony - I suggest that the merit of any message is based on the credibility of the message. Prejudice is pre-judging the value of reading a message. I judge that based on the avatar of the individual poster. We all pre judge the messenger based on our experience on interacting with that messenger. This, like many other boards, allows some wide parameters of expressing opinions. I for one have learned that some posters have never had anything constructive to add to a discussion so consequently do not waste my time reading them.

There are posters here who post long, detailed and well thought our posts. I enjoy reading their points of view, expecting a civil and intelligent analysis and an opinion. Their presentations are worth the time to read and comment upon. There are other posters whose contributions consist of passionate incomprehensible babble that is generally ignored by most. There are yet others who post to insult, demean and bait other posters. Personally, I look at the name of the author of a post and decide if it is worth the effort to read.

The mods themselves have advised posters to ignore and move on.

But it is your site and you have the ultimate say.

I am sorry to have added to the thread drift but I still do not agree that a discussion that began 9 years ago during conditions that existed 9 years ago should be tacked on to a new proposed OP. Posters change, the conditions around issues change, references are no longer valid, and new members are forced to read through ancient views by anonymous authors, whose credibility has not been established.

I assume you do elicit feedback so I have provided some.

[Charles Anthony]

To Big Guy - It is only a suggestion. I respect anybody's choice to reject it. Far be it for me to tell anybody what they should or should not get out of participating here in the forums.

I pre-judge messengers too. However, I read them all and I am always surprised by the most unlikely messengers. I do not read the forums for the purposes of picking and chosing who to ignore. That is your prerogative.

The decision to merge a thread is purely subjective. In some instances, multiple threads are left apart if there is reason to believe the reader would be confused following a merger. That is judged to not be the case here. This is a very good discussion and you all bring a lot of good testimony to the table. I do not see how the time lapse takes anything away from that.

In this particular case, there is a clear break in all time-lines of the initial threads. That is the 1st thing I seek before all others. After that, I judge whether the topics are related enough.

Nobody is "forced to read through" anything here. All posts are still displayed in chronological order and the page jumping links still work.

[Big Guy]

Thank you for your consideration.