Da Legal Stuff...

All commentaries published on Web Talk are the opinions of the contributor(s) only and do not necessarily represent the position of any other individuals, groups or organizations.

Now, with that out of the way...Let's Web Talk.

Friday, May 25, 2007

My Visit to Canada

Hi folks,

I thought I'd take a minute to let you all know that I'll be away from the province for the next week or so visiting some of our neighbours in Canada. I hope to be back in early June and while there may not be any new commentaries published in the interim (though you never know) I hope you'll take some time to run back over our archives and enjoy those you may have missed the first time around.

Cheers and I'll be speaking with you again real soon.

Myles

234 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 234 of 234
WJM said...

Oh my god what an incredible bunch of a$$holes, if you want to debate the appropriate number of seats for Australia

The premise of your statement is flawed: we don't.

How much difference do you really think it would make to NL if we had 8 seats or 5 seats.

A lot, supposedly. I remember when the seat total was going to go down to 6, and it was The Worst Thing In The World.

Then, it was going to go up to 8, and it was The Best Thing In The World.

People have short memories.

Either way we have no influence on the national stage you moronic a$$holes.

None?

You have a strange definition of "none".

WJM said...

"Troll:
A commenter whose sole purpose is to attack the views expressed on a blog and incite a flame war, for example, a liberal going to a conservative blog, or vice versa.


In which case, Starrigan clearly qualifies.

I don't: my sole purpose is to challenge erroneous assumptions and dubious claims of fact.

Not a troll.

Anonymous said...

racist tendancies???

grow a brain said...

"Babe, are you not aware that the Ottawa government has been downgraded by Transparency International on a number of occasions for low grade transparency. Canada was once rated the number one Nation in the world, it has now dropped to the 11th position because of poor grade transparency in its operations. Why would you defend an organization..."

Quoted from above


Actually, the organization in question assesses Canada as a whole, not just its federal government.

Too bad they don't offer an assessment of a provincial government which has reduced its legislature to the fewest sittings in history, swept the members' allowance issue under the rug, is run by a Premier who allows only three of his own executive members to speak, has jacked up staff salaries with no reason, has bought and paid half the reporters in the province, is allowed to use his "charity" to buy votes and lauds himself for having bought the last campaign all by himself, a Spekaer of the House of Assembly who knows no rules, and a Leader of the Oppositon who is no better. Not to mention cable deals, expense rip-offs, etc.

Yessir - if Canada's corruption rating has fallen it is due in no small part to the disproportionate efforts of the govt of its youngest province...

Ed Hollett said...

"A commenter whose sole purpose is to attack the views expressed on a blog and incite a flame war,..."

Obviously, anon, you aren't that familiar with trolling and flame wars.

Invariably flame wars are the sort of personal attacks (name-calling, etc) that some people thrive on. It's pretty much all they post. The definition is absolutely correct since that is the sole purpose of the troll's comment.

If you have been following the comments sections here at all lately you would see that my comments have been directed at challenging some of the fundamental assumptions some people use and some of the things stated as facts that are not facts.

People are free - and in fact I'd expect them - to challenge and discuss my comments based on facts. People can reasonably disagree about a whole bunch of things without things descending into name-calling.

There are plenty of examples of flame exchanges. nf.general is full of them. Plenty of onlines sites are plagued by flame artists.

They are the sort of people who do nothing but post comments like "so-and-so is an a**hole". As one online site put it, a troll might be the person who intentionally makes sexist remarks on a feminist site.

Trolls are people who typically use "anonymous" as their name or post under some sort of alias or pseudonym.

The wikipedia definition is accurate: "a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding...".

Key words: intentionally, derogatory, inflamatory, sensitive.

There is plenty of good information available on the trolling idea.

One of the key points is the motivation and style. If you were to go back and read my comments honestly, I doubt you'd find anything that even vaguely looks like trolling.

Experienced people can usually spot a troll when they see one. They can also tell when someone is using troll incorrectly and as a deliberate attack against the person in question, as opposed to countering the argument. It's yet another form of the ad hominem argument that actually seems to be the staple of some people around here.

There are trolls on line. Plenty of 'em.

Some of us though are just looking for a sensible discussion. it's amazing how often that can't be found.

Anonymous said...

Ed,

Please, your behavior on this blog clearly falls within the definition of an internet troll.

You have your own blog and thus have a platform for your views yet you insist on commenting endlessly on a blog which clearly does not share your world view. You in fact are just baiting people who don't believe the same things you do. A troll is not simply defined as someone who is rude or absurd in their statements. This thread is a perfect example as you have persisted in commenting just on comments as in fact the original post was nothing more than Mr. Higgins saying he would be away for a period of time yet there are over 200 comments in this thread. That is ridiculous.

If you want to engage in a flame war (polite or otherwise) then perhaps you could do it on your own blog or set one up for that very purpose as you are adding nothing to the content of this site.

Ed Hollett said...

Anon, just because the majority here do not share some of my views is no reason for you to insist that I am doing something wrong and seeking my departure.

"A troll is not simply defined as someone who is rude or absurd in their statements."

Actually that pretty much is the definition of a troll. The word is often misused, as I'd suggest you are doing.

Just because you disagree with my comments doesn't mean I need to go away. Perhaps you'd like to actually engage in a substantive discussion on something either here or at Bond.

WJM said...

At Bond, anonymous could no longer be anonymous.

That's why you get few comments, and I get nearly none.

Some people fortify their courage with beer.

Others, with anonymity.

Super-Patriot! said...

Hmmm. .

Sounds to me like "trolls" in this context defines as "people who make comments that I don't like."

Starrigan said...

WJM said:

That's why you get few comments, and I get nearly none.

LOL, you both get few and none because you're a$$holes. What's more is you really have nothing of any substance to say. The Bond Papers are chock full of useless drivel, why would you possibly think that someone would be caught dead wasting their time there. You knobs are just here to disrupt things.

WJM said...

LOL, you both get few and none because you're a$$holes. What's more is you really have nothing of any substance to say.

People can judge for themselves bu visiting labradore.blogspot.com That's labradore.blogspot.com.

The Telegram though it was insubstantial enough that they ran one of my postings as an op-ed last year.

The Bond Papers are chock full of useless drivel, why would you possibly think that someone would be caught dead wasting their time there.

Yes, waste your time at Bond Papers.

And labradore.blogspot.com.

Anonymous said...

We have far better places to waste our time than at either the Bond Papers or labradore.blogspot.com. If we want to get a point across, most of us would much rather to utilize Web Talk - Newfoundland and Labrador. Myles your site is much for democratic.

Ed Hollett said...

So if people know Bond and labradore enough to run them down, then people must be reading them.

Yet certainly, anon, while you might use Web Talk to get a point across, are you saying you don't bother to read anything that doesn't agree with your own conclusions?

That seems like a pretty enlightened way to go, he said sarcastically.

Once again though, the discussion winds up being about the prejudices of the people who post here anonymously against certain things, and not about an issue of substance.

Anonymous said...

I know about you Ed ONLY from the moment that you were the only person who took an opposing view to Premier Williams on the Atlantic Accord on VOCM Open Line. Nobody, who heard you, could understand where you were coming from. Everyone appears to have been as baffled as I was and still am. And after we learned that you worked for the government of Newfoundland and Labrador in some compacity, we were all shocked? I am assuming you are the same person. I am not 100 per cent sure?

And I learned of WJM from this blogsite. WJM is here for the same reason that you are here and that is to dispute what people are saying; and trying with all your might to shut down the information that comes through this blogsite. I do not know either of you and I do not care to. People who work presently or once worked for government on behalf of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and then come to this forum and argue our very existance, like the both of you do, turn me off completely. It is no different than having the FOX guard the HENHOUSE having the presence of the two of YOU on this blogsite who once worked for government or presently work for government, supposedly?

Edward G. Hollett said...

"Nobody, who heard you, could understand where you were coming from."

Since I have no idea who you are anonymous, let me make it clear what occurred three years ago.

First, I was concerned that the Premier's initial demand was to re-open the original Atlantic Accord agreement. That would likely have jeopardized a whole range of other benefits in the 1985 deal that were are are ignored.

Brian Peckford - who negotiated the 1985 deal - made almost exactly the same point. Do you doubt his loyalty to the province and its fundamental interests?

As it turned out the provincial position moved off that option and took another route.

Second, I was and remain concerned that the position on oil and gas taken by so many people is based on incorrect information.

Collectively we cannot make any decisions based on myth, fabrication or nonsense.

To remind you of how pervasive the incorrect information is, let me point you to the Globe yesterday.

The minister's information on offshore revenues is incorrect. She may have been misquoted in that she may have been talking only about Hibernia. If she was talking only about Hibernia, she has a fundamental responsibility to point out that the provincial share of the overall project will increase as a result of the existing royalty regime. The assessment by Wade Locke on relative shares of oil revenues is available on Bond Papers.

People are being misled into believing the provincial government is getting little or nothing from the offshore when the work of previous administrations - Liberal and Conservative - have provide the base for the current success.

The revenues in the treasury now and in the immediate future are the result of those agreements. Mr. Williams' long-term contribution will obviously come in the future.
He has secured about $2.0 billion and give him full credit for it.

However, the real long-term benefit from the offshore will come not from the federal transfers of the kind he negotiated. It comes from developing the offshore and developing a strong local industry.

There shouldn't be anything confusing or mystifying about any of that. My position has been consistent.

What causes some people concern is that I challenge their comfortable assumptions and the misinformation being spread. We should all have our assumptions challenged based on facts and goodness knows we have been hoodwinked by nonsense in the past. Let us not have nonsense - or incomplete or incorrect information drive our collective decisions today.

I really don't understand how you find that to be confusing or difficult to appreciate.

As a last point, let me make it abundantly clear that I have no interest in closing this blog. It really is nothing less than silly for you to suggest that and it borders on the despicable for you to do so from behind the coward's cloak of anonymity.

Let's have a discussion. Let's talk about those issues that are out there based on our mutual desire to find the best for our province.

If people can't understand that, then I don't know what else to say.

WJM said...

Nobody, who heard you, could understand where you were coming from.

Very few people understand equalization to begin with; let alone after they were pumped full of Danny Willams' lies.

WJM is here for the same reason that you are here and that is to dispute what people are saying

No, I am only "here" to dispute things which people say THAT ARE NOT TRUE.

Hi, Liz! Loves ya!

Anonymous said...

Ed you said: First, I was concerned that the Premier's initial demand was to re-open the original Atlantic Accord agreement. That would likely have jeopardized a whole range of other benefits in the 1985 deal that were are are ignored.


My Question: So once you figured out what Premier Williams was asking for, I assume you both were wanting the same end result? Am I right in assuming this from your statement above?

Anonymous said...

PDNFTT

Edward G. Hollett said...

Sue? Is that you?

But seriously:

Actually, there were at least three separate things he was seeking, if memory serves.

Frankly, I really had no interest and saw no value in looking to Ottawa for more handouts under what were essentially false pretenses.

My position remains that it is best to put in place the right policy that develops the offshore to its fullest extent, encourages exploration and ensures the development of a local oil industry that can do work locally and elsewhere in the world.

The provincial government sets its own revenues and has always received 100% of them. The 1985 deal was working exactly intended by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador at the time.

Bravo for getting the extra cash, but basically there is much more money to be made from developing the oil industry and actually employing the same policies as ALberta and Norway to get there.

Edward G. Hollett said...

To the acronym lover:

SBACARYI

Anonymous said...

Not bunkum at all, surely your memory isn't so short that you cannot remember the lobbying done by the Globe and Mail Columnists to win the Voisey Bay Nickel Ore for the installations in Sudbury, Ontario and Thompson, Manitoba. And then, of course, the smoke screen that was initiated by Brian Tobin that not one teaspoon of Nickel Ore would leave the province of Newfoundland and Labrador for processing.

Ed why do you think the activities of the Globe and Mail Columnists were initiated and the smoke screen of Mr. Tobin was activated? Of course it was done to drown out the noise of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who were vehement that not one teaspoon of Nickel Ore was to leave the province, just as Mr. Tobin told us.

My direct question to you Mr. Hollett is why do you think both of those activities occurred. Was it to drown out the noise of the people of this province who wanted that Nickel Ore to stay in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador for processing?

Ed Hollett said...

Caps Lock, you must be losing track because you responded here to a comment on another thread.

In your original comment you made a blanket statement about all resources at any time ever.

That was bunk.

How many people in this province pay attention to the Globe and Mail, besides you? it hardly would be a very effective lobby effort. Rather it simply reflects opinion like a whole bunch of other opinions.

Many of us felt that the teaspoon comment was a silly, cheap attempt at hoodwinking gullible people when in the long run the demand was one that either wouldn't be met or a promise that wouldn't be kept.

You give the Globe far more credit for influencing anything than I would, especially when it comes to opinion within this province.

Therein lies the fundamental bunkum in your position: the provincial government makes decisions on these resource developments. The Globe and Mail editors can spit nickels and it won't matter a whit.

Anonymous said...

You got to be kidding Mr. Hollett! The Federal Government, the provinces and the National News Media have more influence over our resource development than you give them credit for.

Ed Hollett said...

"You got to be kidding Mr. Hollett! The Federal Government, the provinces and the National News Media have more influence over our resource development than you give them credit for."

Please give a specific example.

Anonymous said...

1. The power of the pen of the Federal Government under Prime Minister Harper to change a contract when supposedly it didn't have the right to do so, for example the Atlantic Accord. It was a sealed and delivered contract between the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Federal Government. What gave the Feds the right to change it without even consulting with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador?

2 The provinces, Ontario and Manitoba, which had a penchant or design on obtaining the Voisey's Bay Nickel Ore to keep smelters going in their province had the Federal Government and the National News Media on side. In the end they received the right to the Ore and the right to process the Ore, that Ore has been going to Sudbury, Ontario and Thompson, Manitoba for approximately 3 years now, despite Mr. Brian Tobin, a prominent Newfoundland and Labrador ex-politician, assuring the people of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador that not one teaspoon of Nickel Ore would be exported out of the province for processing.

3. The power of the National News Media not to print anything revealing by the province of Newfoundland and Labrador that they do not want to print. But the columinists of the National Media waged a vociferious lobby campaign through its columns, on behalf of the Nickel Ore from Voisey's Bay to be exported out of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, against Newfoundlanders and Labradorians wishes, to have the Nickel Ore processed in the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. But despite the wishes of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the rightful owners of the Ore, the successful lobbyists for the Nickel Ore were the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. Aided and abetted with the strong columns written by the columnists of National News Media in support of the winning provinces.


Mr. Ed you will ask for the proof. The proof is that all of the above happened, so therefore one can only assume the proof is, as it happened. It has all come to past. All three items have left footprints which can be obtained. We have experienced all of the above, AND there is no better proof than actuality.

Ed Hollett said...

1. That has nothing to do with resource development. That is about federal transfer payments to the province.

2. Your second one has no basis in fact.

Why would the Government controlling the resource agree to the demand?

When did the Government of Canada make any demand to process any resources from this province in another one, let alone specifically on Voisey's Bay?

of course you do realize that Brian Tobin was not the Premier when the VB agreement was signed and you are aware that a smelter refinery is being built in the province.

3. "The power of the National News Media not to print anything revealing by the province of Newfoundland and Labrador that they do not want to print." Again, we have another fiction. The one example discussed here previously was a rebuttal to a piece posted in another newspaper.

So besides these fictions, what have you got?

My guess is nothing.

Anonymous said...

John Crosbie doesn't come to the Open Lines Shows freely to talk about the Ottawa Federal Government, but I heard Mr. Crosbie on VOCM Night Line last night, and he said that the Atlantic Accord Contract of 1985 could not be changed, but he said a change of "intention and objective" did occur in the Budget of 2007 that changed the Atlantic Accord.

Apparently there was a clause in the 1985 Atlantic Accord Contract that said "no ceiling" would be imposed on what the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia were to receive from equilization or any other revenue. Under the Atlantic Accord Contract the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia were supposed to be the primary beneficiaries of their non-renewable energy resources but the 2007 Budget change cancelled that clause.

When something as serious as this can occur in a negotiated Contract, what security exists for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador within Canada? I would say never in a million years would a change such as this be made to a contract that was negotiated with a province such as Ontario or Quebec?

WJM said...

Not bunkum at all, surely your memory isn't so short that you cannot remember the lobbying done by the Globe and Mail Columnists to win the Voisey Bay Nickel Ore for the installations in Sudbury, Ontario and Thompson, Manitoba.

1) I want to find the person who introducted the verb "to lobby" into Newfoundland, and cut their tongue out.

2) Columnists lobby?

3) What are the names of these columnists? For which papers did they (do they) write?

Ed why do you think the activities of the Globe and Mail Columnists

Which Globe and Mail columnists?

Which activities?

WJM said...

The Federal Government, the provinces and the National News Media have more influence over our resource development than you give them credit for.

How so? In your answer, please make reference to the fact - it IS a fact - that the province has sole jurisdiction over its resources.

WJM said...

But the columinists of the National Media waged a vociferious lobby campaign

Do you even know what "lobby" means?

through its columns,

Writing and publishing a column is NOT "lobbying".

on behalf of the Nickel Ore from Voisey's Bay to be exported out of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador

They conducted a campaign "on behalf" of ore?

You don't know what "on behalf of" means, either, do you?

against Newfoundlanders and Labradorians wishes

Question: There were Newfoundland journalists who argued for the processing of Labrador minerals in Newfoundland. Was this morally wrong? Why or why not?

But despite the wishes of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the rightful owners of the Ore, the successful lobbyists for the Nickel Ore were the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba.

Who approved this? In particular, WHICH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT DID?

WJM said...

John Crosbie doesn't come to the Open Lines Shows freely to talk about the Ottawa Federal Government, but I heard Mr. Crosbie on VOCM Night Line last night, and he said that the Atlantic Accord Contract of 1985 could not be changed, but he said a change of "intention and objective" did occur in the Budget of 2007 that changed the Atlantic Accord.

If there was an "intention and objective" that the province never see its equalization payments go down... WHY DIDN'T HE WRITE THEM INTO THE ORIGINAL ATLANTIC ACCORD?

Super-Patriot! said...

It's pretty clear we can't possible trust anybody who is a former or current government employee. They are biased, misguided and generally full of crap.

Their view is not to be trusted!

I say we start making a list of these deceitful former and current government employees!

1) WJM
2) Ed Hollett
3) Ed Martin
4) Kathy Dunderdale
5) Danny Williams

Come on folks. . . let's come up with some more!!

Anonymous said...

Goof Grief those ANTI the province of Newfoundland and Labrador want to keep the status quo going. That is keep digging the NON-RENEWABLESS, Newfoundland and Labrador Ore and Oil out of the ground and keep it being exported to the other parts of Canada to be utilized in the processing plants there, so as to keep their economies going. Not only those resources, BUT Ottawa is treating the Fish Resource, they have title to as a non-renewable, just as they are treating the Ore and Oil, since they are allowing foreigners to suck the last fish of every species out of the Ocean, and soon they will be down to harvesting the undersea flora or kelp, just like Spain, which happens to be one of the culprits off our N and L Coast. And, of course, keep the Upper Churchill Hydroelectricity Energy going across Quebec with puts billions into the Quebec coffers and the comtract still has another 35 years on a 72 year cntract, with Quebec being the Primary Beneficiary of that resource. Everything will be Utopian in Canada, since they have control and THE BIG PROBLEM for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is, the Canadians who are the beneficiary of our resources, DO NOT WANT to pay for those resources. Do they not realize that if that is the way they grow their economies, that is with, Ores, Oils, Fish and Hydroelectricty to create processing jobs and every other type of industry that is spun-off because of the processing of those wonderful Newfoundland and Labrador resources, THEN that is the way eeconomies would have to be created here in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador? But as a result of joining Canada we have to give up living in our province PERIOD.

another loyal Newfoundlander said...

It is a BIG conspiracy. Right from the start they were looking to take every LOAD of ore, fish and anything else they could get ahold OF.

Canada Really Acts Poorly when it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 234 of 234   Newer› Newest»