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 04, 2007

Poor Johnathon

Transcontinental newspapers published a commentary yesterday I thought you might appreciate. Hopefully some of its points will not be lost on all the anon posters on this site and on other ill informed Canadians.

Enjoy.

Poor Jonathan
By Andy Barker
The Advertiser

Newfoundlanders need hides like elephants in order to thwart off the seemingly endless insulting jokes and disparaging comments.

A few years ago, a Toronto columnist Margaret Wente (Globe and Mail) described Newfoundland as a vast and scenic welfare ghetto. She was not the first upalong to cast snide remarks our way, and sadly she is not the last. Margaret now has the company of a fellow Toronto columnist, Jonathan Kay.

Jonathan is no greenhorn journalist, but an award-winning columnist and editor at the National Post. The native Montrealer is no slouch with metallurgy degrees in engineering from McGill, and a law degree from Yale. He has worked overseas as well as freelanced articles for major U.S. newspapers and magazines.

Jonathan's swipe was an editorial "Maitres chez Newf" in the April 26, National Post. Kay poked fun at the throne speech in which the Williams government expressed its intention that Newfoundland and Labrador be the master of its own house. Kay said that as Canada's poorest province we only survive due to transfers - handouts from Ottawa. Williams he sees as "The surly teenager haranguing his parents over the size of his allowance."

Kay ended with "Either they're rugged individualist proud of their identity and self-reliance. Or they're professional welfare cases, endlessly harassing the rest of us for more handouts."

Poor Jonathan. He has the degrees, awards, and the big job at
the National Post, but he still knows diddly-squat about the Newfoundland economy, people and history.

Jonathan's blatant use welfare, handouts, and allowances all reinforce that jaded image of us as die-hard lazy lushes, out of work, and on the bum as usual. Welfare, handouts, and allowances paint a totally false picture of the Newfoundland economy.

If poor Jonathan had done a little googling, he could have easily learned that our unemployment rate, which can spike upwards due to the seasonal fisheries, is now at 14 per cent. But a minimum of 80 per cent of our work force works year round, year in, year out. Our weekly earnings are nearly in fourth place, and our hot economy (oil driven) is one of the national leaders with an 8.5 per cent growth rate. As well, in 1997-98 we depended upon Ottawa for nearly 44 per cent of our budget. But in the 2007-8 budget estimates we are indeed becoming masters of our house with Ottawa's share now down to less than 29 per cent.

Last year we poor Newfoundlanders managed to spend $6 billion
on retail products that were either manufactured or distributed from Ontario and Quebec. That retail spending will no doubt increase this year due to the tax cuts, and our oil, mining, fishing, and forestry industries will continue to buy all sorts of equipment and parts from the mainland. We keep a goodly chunk of the crowd upalong in a job - and that's surely good- as well as fatten the profits at corporate head offices in Toronto and Montreal.

As a foreign exchange earner Newfoundland has always been one of the tops since 1949. Yankee money poured in here via their four military bases, plus we exported minerals, newsprint, and fish to them and to overseas markets to earn even more foreign currency.

Many of those same exports are now augmented by offshore oil - in its infancy stage - which is sold into the U.S. market. Nickel exports from Labrador with the likelihood of more mines in Labrador and on the island bode well for future exports.

And Labrador's lower Churchill (the upper Churchill is a huge profit maker for Jonathan's native Quebec) has the juice that Ontario Hydro would love to have. Even the fisheries with all its woes still earns a good buck for the national economy. And not to be forgotten are the millions earned each year by Navcan as hundreds of daily flights, to and from Europe, as they crisscross our sky.

On top of the wealth that is generated here, Newfoundlanders upalong are doing fine. Imagine the state of the Alberta and Ontario economies if migrant Newfoundlanders put down their tools be it the wrench, shovel, stethoscope, or laptop and came home? Image the chaos in the armed forces if General Rick Hillier and the thousands of his fellow Newfoundlanders suddenly retired? And how dull would the Canadian airwaves be without the likes of Rex Murphy, Rick Mercer, Bob Cole, and Mary Walsh?

Maitre chez nous - masters of our own house - was Quebec's quiet revolution rallying cry. But unlike Newfoundland, Quebec was never a nation. Perhaps poor Jonathan is unaware that we had our own prime ministers, army, currency, stamps, customs office, Rhodes scholar designation, and our own war memorial in France. Even Canada's Vimy memorial was designed by Walter Allward the son of Newfoundlanders who moved to Toronto many years ago.

If the well educated, like poor Jonathan, can't get their facts straight and do a good critical analysis, then the common folk uplong must believe that what is said about us, must be true.

Perhaps, that ingrained, prolonged, disparaging attitude towards us, steeped into the mainland conscious, nurtured by erroneous writers, will force us to opt for nationhood once again.

But this time, along with our pride, we have the wealth in so many ways be it the environment, education facilities, the arts community, and an ever-growing robust economy to go it, alone. And, dear poor Jonathan, Canada would be the biggest looser - not us!

219 comments:

1 – 200 of 219   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

I bet you the Globe and Mail wouldn't let such an informative article be printed in its paper because of its informative nature.

The Federal Government and the Globe and Mail do not want to debunk the information that is already filling the brains of 97 per cent of Canadians. To let Canadians know the knowledge that Ottawa has pushed down the throats of the majority of Canadians would be truly telling Canadian how corrupt their Federal Government has been for so long.

How much longer do Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to endure the tarnished image we have gotten through the lies their Mother (Ottawa) told them and had spread around about the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is time that the true Cost and Benefits Analysis Accounting of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador was computed and presented to Canadians. When that true picture is presented to them, Canadians will be shocked out of their socks.

Please Premier Williams call a tender for some Accounting Firm to do the accounting and get the information out there as soon as possible. But make sure the Accounting firm is honest and above board.

Anonymous said...

Excellent article. Pretty much says what needs to be said.

WJM said...

I bet you the Globe and Mail wouldn't let such an informative article be printed in its paper because of its informative nature.

Why would they, when it's a rebuttal to a piece that ran in the National Post?

Anonymous said...

WJM- Why would the Globe and Mail not have printed the article?

WJM - since you responded to my first post without an explanation, please offer me your opinion expressing your reasoning for why the Globe and Mail did not print Premier Williams' article. I will await your opinionated answer. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

WJM opinionated? Sat it aint so.

I would not be surprised if coming to this blog (or any blog) and posting contrarian garbage gives that Ottawa sanctioned troll a hard-on. I skip over his posts simply because I now know what to expect from this shill.

Anonymous said...

WJM- Why would the Globe and Mail not have printed the article?

Starrigan said...

Excellent article. Makes one a little sick to the stomach. At least it helps make NL's realize their place in this so called country.

As for WJM, let's not waste anymore time reading his tripe. I see other people, like me, just skip past his crap. But that's what happens when your posts become meaningless. I have no interest or desire to even read your posts. Best get yourself into a$$hole rehab as quickly as possible. Have I called you an a$$hole yet today? Just checking.

Friday May 11th/07 break out the Pink white and Green.

I'd love to see Danny take down that piece of crap we have as a provincial flag and run up the PWG.... It's as good a time as any.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is taking this awful treatment perpetrated on it from the Canadian National Newspapers without the ability to rebut.

Isn't there something wrong with that picture, that the National Newspaper can write all the dribble they want, print it and have it distributed Nationally, and then not accept a rebuttal from the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to be printed and distributed to the same readership in fairness.

Again what is really going on there? I thought that freedom of the press was practised in this country and part of our Constitution.

Premier Williams are you going to allow this to slip by without challenging it?

NL-ExPatriate said...

Listen to Premier Williams speech at the Toronto Economic Council.

He tells how he wrote an OP/ED piece in rebutal of a slanted Mop and Pail piece and the G&M wouldn't print it.

I've experienced the same thing myself when I tried to make comments in their comments section and the editor wouldn't post them.

You can also see the slant the so called national MSM put on stories especially concerning the Atlantic Accord and Harpers broken promise.

They never call it a broken promise but rather they refer to it as an accusation of a broken promise.

They never mention the cap on option A of 50% exclusion of ALL RESOURCES with a CAP,
option B 100% exclusion of only Non-Renewable resources with a CAP.
Option C maintian the status Quo with the Atlantic Accord of 100% exclusion of oil and Gas for a fixed term WITH A CAP!

I even saw one article which referred to the Atlantic Accord as the Atlantic OPPORTUNITIES Accord?

Very subtle ommissions and editing of words but none the less poor unbiased journalism.

Anonymous said...

Thats why its called the 'mop & pail'. Sheryl Crowe made a remark, that we should all try to keep our TP (toilet paper) usage down to one panel of TP to help the environment. Maybe we can keep it down to one panel by whiping with the'Globe & Mail!

Anonymous said...

I really can't see that "poor Jonathan" would give a rat's ass about your opinions Patriot.

He has the right to his own opinions, just as you have the right to yours.

Anonymous said...

Who puts pink on flag anyway?? Puhlease. What other place has pink on their flag??

Anonymous said...

Who cares about poor Jonathan anyway, since HE IS a Rat's Ass.

Anonymous said...

Another excellent Article Mr Patriot

Our first mistake is caring what the canadain rags say's in the first place.
Who The F%@# cares about what thease arm-pit lowlifes think.The quicker that we as a nation get out of this shit-hole of a "wannabe" country the better off everyone shall be.
Has anyone paid attention to the Bloc and the mood in Quebec latley.All is quite on that front.Now that those filthy french scum sucking thieves and their federal monkeys have stolen more money from Newfoundland and Labrador everything is "OK"as long as thier ventures are taking care of.
Just another gift from canada and all the "Canadain Bacon Wrapped Turds" up-along.

The quicker someone puts a "ROCK" in the bottom of the "Good" ship canada the better off we as Newfoundlander's and Labradorians shall be .

"FREE NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR"

WJM said...

WJM - since you responded to my first post without an explanation, please offer me your opinion expressing your reasoning for why the Globe and Mail did not print Premier Williams' article. I will await your opinionated answer. Thanks!

Since I don't have any connection to the Globe and Mail, you'd be better off asking the Globe and Mail.

Given Danny Williams' penchant for making things up, I too would like to hear their side of the story.

WJM said...

I thought that freedom of the press was practised in this country and part of our Constitution.

It is.

That's part of the reason newspapers are free — freedom of the press, right? — to decline to turn themselves into anyone's mouthpiece.

If they were required to print it, they'd no longer have freedom of the press.

Danny is free to publish his letter in any forum he controls, including the provincial website.

Anonymous said...

So the Federal Government and their cohorts are free to use the National Newspapers to denigrate the province of Newfoundland and Labrador anytime they want, but the Premier of this province or anyone else doesn't have the right to use the National Newspaper for a rebuttal. Is that what you are saying WJM, if not would you please explain?

Anonymous said...

Why wouldn't the Globe and Mail print Premier Williams' rebuttal to the liying erroneous figures that were calculated and allowed to be printed, then circulated and kept in the public domain for a week concerning the $11 billion mistake that occurred in the equilization package for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Canadians were under the impression that the province was going to get an extra $11 billion over 13 years.

As far as Canadians are concerned that is what we are getting, they have not yet been apprised of the new figure. I think that is very corrupt for the Globe and Mail not to have allowed the Premier's article to have been printed in which he was giving his assessment of the situation. Why was the Premier denied the right to have his article published?

Obviously if what is said to have occured did happen, well then as far as I am concerned Freedom of the Press doesn't exist for the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Starrigan said...

Of course freedom of the press doesn't exist for the Premier of NL. Not sure why anyone even bothered to respond to Ottawally, you're just wasting your breath on that a$$hole.

Anonymous said...

"So the Federal Government and their cohorts are free to use the National Newspapers to denigrate the province of Newfoundland and Labrador anytime they want, but the Premier of this province or anyone else doesn't have the right to use the National Newspaper for a rebuttal"

C'mon Folks this can't be the first example of "Canadain Propaganda" that you have been witness to.Do you people even relise what thease scum sucking leeches are like in Ottawa.

Well,lets look at WJM.Thease people train bottom feeding leeches such as this to create diversion and create a "us verse them Attuide"then they turn around and play good cop bad cop.

Folks ,when are we going to relise the scum that we are dealing with here are no better then what are fore fathers went to war ,to fight against.Thease people don't care about anything or anyone,unless it effects thier pocket book.And for WJM to come in here and say the "COMPLETE LOAD OF SEAL S@%$" that he isn't being paid to do what he does,then I'm the first person to have the balls to call him a liar to his face .He's a piece of scum sucking seal S#@$,and bud,when I do get a those records ,and I promise you I will ,your the first person that the R.N.C will be coming to visit.
Don't get use to living in the "BIG LAND" ,cause were your going ,the view won't be that good .

FREE NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

WJM said...

So the Federal Government and their cohorts are free to use the National Newspapers to denigrate the province of Newfoundland and Labrador anytime they want

Who are these "cohorts"?

When has the federal government done this?

but the Premier of this province or anyone else doesn't have the right to use the National Newspaper for a rebuttal. Is that what you are saying WJM, if not would you please explain?

Freedom of the press belongs to the guy who owns the press. For an example, see The Independent this week, which exercised its freedom of press to give Danny Williams all the ink and newsprint he could ever want.

Well, they do that EVERY week anyway, but this week is especially slobbery.

If a newspaper is REQUIRED to print a letter from a politician, then the press is no longer free.

Meanwhile, something doesn't ring true about this whole story. Why hasn't Danny released the letter that the Globe and Mail doesn't want you to read?

Could it be that Danny is lying again?

WJM said...

Why wouldn't the Globe and Mail print Premier Williams' rebuttal to the liying erroneous figures that were calculated and allowed to be printed, then circulated and kept in the public domain for a week concerning the $11 billion mistake that occurred in the equilization package for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Why won't Danny Williams publish them on his website if they are so compelling?

I think that is very corrupt for the Globe and Mail not to have allowed the Premier's article to have been printed in which he was giving his assessment of the situation. Why was the Premier denied the right to have his article published?

What "right" is that? Where, in what legal document, is this "right" contained?

Obviously if what is said to have occured did happen, well then as far as I am concerned Freedom of the Press doesn't exist for the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Danny Williams is free to publish his letter in any forum he controls.

Why hasn't he published it on his own web site?

WJM said...

Thease people train bottom feeding leeches such as this to create diversion

"Train"?

At what training school?

And for WJM to come in here and say the "COMPLETE LOAD OF SEAL S@%$" that he isn't being paid to do what he does,then I'm the first person to have the balls to call him a liar to his face.

And yet you do so anonymously.

Myles, that statement, made by anonymous, is false. It is defamatory. You may wish to bear both of those points in mind, OK?

He's a piece of scum sucking seal S#@$,and bud,when I do get a those records ,and I promise you I will ,your the first person that the R.N.C will be coming to visit.

What records?

Don't get use to living in the "BIG LAND" ,cause were your going ,the view won't be that good.

Myles, speaking of the RNC... veiled threats are still threats.

Anonymous said...

Myles: re Anon post 5/6/07, 12:04 p.m. Why did you allow this disturbing post? It amounts to hate-mail. This is beyond reason, Myles. The poster obviously has a very serious problem. I will try and contact you in person to further discuss this issue, as it has gone way too far.

Anonymous said...

My goodness I really didn't know that you had to control a newspaper to have an article printed. Is that really how newspapers work? I am asking the question, since I really don't know but WJM sort of eludes to that as being the case? Is it?

I would have thought that a National Newspaper, especially would be free to anyone in either province, especially a Premier of a province who would want to defend an offensive article(s) that was/were written about his province. In this case the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know that there were many offensive articles written in the past couple of years that appeared in the National Newspapers.

Is there anyone out there who can properly answer that question for me?

Anonymous said...

WJM - you asked the question of why didn't the Premier publish his article on his own site. That would only be preaching to the converted. We have to get our point of view across to the Canadian public who might have read the articles in the National papers that were venonous towards us. Articles that needed rebuttal. Canadians need to know what the province of Newfoundland and Labrador contributed to them with its resources. Also Canadians need to know what the province of Newfoundland and Labrador hasn't received in the name of Federal Regional Offices, Military bases, transfers, research and development monies, while over the years since Newfoundland and Labrador was part of Canada, the other provinces have been padded economically with such wonderful goodies as I named above, compliments of the Federal Government. If the Premier could adequately get the picture across in the National Newspaper, I am sure Canadian eyes would be opened wide and they would understand what we are trying to do. Once Canadians are made aware, I do not think they would be unreasonable in their response. They wouldn't want the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's inhabitants to be any worse of than themselves. Yet we have been quite a lot worse off than the average Canadian now for 58 years despite all the resources that we have contributed, whether we contributed them through choice or not? Nevertheless Canadians got to grow their economies from raw resources that were exported out of this province to other parts of Canada.

Anonymous said...

Why can't the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador have a letter published in the National Newspapers as a rebuttal to something written about us that we would like to rebut. Isn't the province of Newfoundland and Labrador a part of that National Network? So wouldn't we be considered local as it relates to the National papers? After all we are not a province of Africa, we are a province of Canada in which the National papers of which I am referring to are established. So why wouldn't these National Newspapers allow the Premier to utilize a space in their papers for rebuttal of an article(s) they printed? I want an answer.

And please refrain from posting a nasty answer. It is no need to print nastiness. A simple answer will do.

Anonymous said...

Anyone in Canada can submit anything they like to a national newspaper and it might get published.


The big difference is that when Danny does it it he uses MY money and way too much of it.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait to see a bunch of lazy-ass Newfies get off their butts and head to Conderation building with their pepsis, baseball caps, and cigarettes.

Should make for a good laugh and a good clip for "22 Minutes".

Anonymous said...

It is truely unfortunate that a few bigots feel the need to post stereotypical and absolute false nonsense regarding the good people of this province, on this blog. It adds absolutely nothing to the debate nor does it provide any information, in fact it's only purpose is to inflame and denegrate an entire group of people.

Newfoundlanders are just as hardworking and decent a people as those anywhere in Canada. Unfortunately there are a few misinformed/uninformed people who are either unwilling or simply not intelligent enough to recognize that simple fact.

Anonymous said...

I have a feeling the first two of the last three postings are done to protect WJM from having to provide and answer to the Anons of May 07, 2007 12:33 AM
May 07, 2007 12:43 AM

Anonymous said...

My goodness I really didn't know that you had to control a newspaper to have an article printed. Is that really how newspapers work? I am asking the question, since I really don't know but WJM sort of eludes to that as being the case? Is it?

I would have thought that a National Newspaper, especially would be free to anyone in either province, especially a Premier of a province who would want to defend an offensive article(s) that was/were written about his province. In this case the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know that there were many offensive articles written in the past couple of years that appeared in the National Newspapers.

Is there anyone out there who can properly answer that question for me?

Anonymous said...

WJM - you asked the question of why didn't the Premier publish his article on his own site. That would only be preaching to the converted. We have to get our point of view across to the Canadian public who might have read the articles in the National papers that were venonous towards us. Articles that needed rebuttal. Canadians need to know what the province of Newfoundland and Labrador contributed to them with its resources. Also Canadians need to know what the province of Newfoundland and Labrador hasn't received in the name of Federal Regional Offices, Military bases, transfers, research and development monies, while over the years since Newfoundland and Labrador was part of Canada, the other provinces have been padded economically with such wonderful goodies as I named above, compliments of the Federal Government. If the Premier could adequately get the picture across in the National Newspaper, I am sure Canadian eyes would be opened wide and they would understand what we are trying to do. Once Canadians are made aware, I do not think they would be unreasonable in their response. They wouldn't want the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's inhabitants to be any worse of than themselves. Yet we have been quite a lot worse off than the average Canadian now for 58 years despite all the resources that we have contributed, whether we contributed them through choice or not? Nevertheless Canadians got to grow their economies from raw resources that were exported out of this province to other parts of Canada.

Anonymous said...

Some person who posts to this blog is obviously trying to protect WJM from answering questions.

WJM has the habit of asking questions on questions to put a halt to the usefulness of this blog. And he never answers a question. Now WJM there is a question on this site for you to answer. I would appreciate if you would be a big enough man and answer the question which you set up for yourself.

If you don't answer and the same poster comes in to cover up my question so as to protect you from answering, I will keep posting the same posts until you give me the answer.

Anonymous said...

To the same poster who always tries to corrupt this blog site who said QUOTE The big difference is that when Danny does it it he uses MY money and way too much of it. UNQUOTE

Whose money do you think that the others from Upper Canada use, who have articles printed in the National Newspapers?

Of course my Newfoundland and Labrador money from my taxes and my resources that were sent to Canada to create economies there. You people are living high on the hog on economies created out of Newfoundlanders' and Labradorians' resources.

Please wean yourselves of our teats!

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Come on Simon. You know damn well a news paper is supposed to be impartial. Why then do papers like the mop and pail or national post continue to spew venom at NL and it's people yet refuse to accept and publish letters of response? Give it a rest.

I don't have a problem with pointing out the failures and injustices done by Danny Williams or Stephen Harper on any number of issues but when you make comments about Danny's supposed followers it doesn't ring as true as it would if you were not a former political hopeful with a big red stripe who failed to get past the post.

If you're going to go on the offensive at least be open enough to inform those reading your comments about your political affiliations.

Anonymous said...

Don't get use to living in the "BIG LAND" ,cause were your going ,the view won't be that good.

Myles, speaking of the RNC... veiled threats are still threats.

May 06, 2007 10:23 PM

When you fall down WJM ,your "Canadain Mind-set" of victomhood really starts to shout out doesn't it.
What a pathetic excuse for a Human Being.
We can dish it out ,but we can't take it ,lol.Who's got the soft-spot now .

FREE NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

PS ,Guys see the trap being Laid by "Mr Ottawa" .He'll have CSIS here next ,lol.Let me be the first to apologise for threating you Mr Wallace J McLean.
And thease people make "NEWFIE" joke's ,please.Mr Higgons you need a forum to keep this sort of TRASH OUTTA HERE,opppps ,shit I did it again.I'm going to leave now cause I just can't stop insulting this guy .

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edward G. Hollett said...

There are a couple of observations I'd like to make.

First of all, permitting anonymous posters has allowed at least one of them - presuming they are all different people - to make all sorts of personal comments and lay out completely unsubstantiated. It doesn't add to the discussion. It merely drags into the gutter.

Second, as Simon has just pointed, out the entire argument about plots to denegrate Newfoundland and Labrador is lacking in any foundation. When positive articles are published, no one notices. When something critical is said - even if it is warranted - the anony- posters rush forward to man the barricades.

This is exactly the sort of comment we get when someone posts things like this:

"Come on Simon. You know damn well a news paper is supposed to be impartial. Why then do papers like the mop and pail or national post continue to spew venom at NL and it's people yet refuse to accept and publish letters of response? Give it a rest"

Does this apply to a newspaper, say like the local one that criticizes "Canada" often wihtout a solid basis in fact?

I'd go back to the starting point of this discussion: what piece did the Globe refuse to print? If it was the rebuttal to the Post's Claudia Cattaneo, then there's nothing to rant about. The Post printed it in full.

Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work getting the word out Patriot. It's clear that with folks like Wallace Mclean, Simon Lono and Ed Hollett taking the time to jump in with their Federalist views and Liberal connections in the province, that someone is getting very nervous.

It's always good when we see these guys come out of the woodwork.

Oh, by the way, just in case anyone is wondering, I'm not a member of any particular political party and have no particular political ties. Can WJM, Simon and Ed make the same statement with a straight face?

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edward G. Hollett said...

Ah yes, anonymous # 2486/99B, when all else fails bring up irrelevant issues and make claims that can't be substantiated since, well, you're anonymous.

At least I never penned these words:

"Hopefully some of its points will not be lost on all the anon posters on this site and on other ill informed Canadians."

Anonymous said...

Ha, Ha, Ha,

I love it. It looks like Simon Lono and Ed Hollett coudn't get anyone to read their federalist Liberal drivel over on their own blogs so they had to come here to make sure the message got out. You should be proud of yourselves guys. You almost look like a tag team today.

Keep it up. Your transparency is just too funny. I half expect Wallace to jump in when these two get tired of being dismissed. At least they can form a sentance and a thought, even it it is a party line. The best poor Wallace can do is fumble around asking question after question.

Keep it up, I have to say you're far more entertaining than WJM if nothing else.

Anonymous said...

I would like the question in the post below to be answered by WJM. Please Simon and Ed I did not ask for your amibiguous post. I want WJM to answer.

WJM - you asked the question of why didn't the Premier publish his article on his own site. That would only be preaching to the converted. We have to get our point of view across to the Canadian public who might have read the articles in the National papers that were venonous towards us. Articles that needed rebuttal. Canadians need to know what the province of Newfoundland and Labrador contributed to them with its resources. Also Canadians need to know what the province of Newfoundland and Labrador hasn't received in the name of Federal Regional Offices, Military bases, transfers, research and development monies, while over the years since Newfoundland and Labrador was part of Canada, the other provinces have been padded economically with such wonderful goodies as I named above, compliments of the Federal Government. If the Premier could adequately get the picture across in the National Newspaper, I am sure Canadian eyes would be opened wide and they would understand what we are trying to do. Once Canadians are made aware, I do not think they would be unreasonable in their response. They wouldn't want the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's inhabitants to be any worse of than themselves. Yet we have been quite a lot worse off than the average Canadian now for 58 years despite all the resources that we have contributed, whether we contributed them through choice or not? Nevertheless Canadians got to grow their economies from raw resources that were exported out of this province to other parts of Canada.

May 07, 2007 12:33 AM


Anonymous said...
Why can't the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador have a letter published in the National Newspapers as a rebuttal to something written about us that we would like to rebut. Isn't the province of Newfoundland and Labrador a part of that National Network? So wouldn't we be considered local as it relates to the National papers? After all we are not a province of Africa, we are a province of Canada in which the National papers of which I am referring to are established. So why wouldn't these National Newspapers allow the Premier to utilize a space in their papers for rebuttal of an article(s) they printed? I want an answer.

And please refrain from posting a nasty answer. It is no need to print nastiness. A simple answer will do.

Edward G. Hollett said...

So which anonymous is this or is it two?

So what part of the answer would be needed from WJM?

The part that explained how newspapers work, that they are not part of some giant conspiracy to slag Newfoundland?

Would you believe it coming from WJM? I am sure he'll be flattered by your confidence in him.

Now the truly interesting thing about the two posts repeated by one of the anonymous people - or the same one writing under a different name - is that it completely ignores the extensive coverage received by the premier for his speech. he got bags of airtime and print space to repeat all the things you seem to feel people don't know.

So why does it matter that the Globe didn't print one rebuttal to a piece from another newspaper?

Anonymous said...

I believe we have people operating in Newfoundland and Labrador who are no different than the War Lords of Afghanistan. These people once worked in the provincial government and since their party was turfed out, they have taken on the job of disrupting things for the present Newfoundland and Labrador government.

I think Premier Danny Williams is doing a good job, but the difficulties these two disrupters are causing are making his job much harder.

Do these disrupters realize that there are more people in this province than the two of them and that they are making it hard for the rest of us? They were working in Government and they didn't do anything meaningful when they were there, so why are they trying to disrupt the Premier now, who, I might add, seems to be getting things in order? These people suffer from the "Me Syndrome", they are doing what is going to put money into their pockets. It is awful that government operate with the 'patronage tool' in their tool box, it only makes governments corrupt. It is also awful that there are people out there who would allow themselves to fall into such traps and make things bad for the masses of us. It will never be a perfect world with such people among us who allow themselves to fall prey to that tool. And I am not only referring to the Federal Government in this case, since Provincial governments utilize that tool as well. It is the worst form of corruption!

I do expect that these two disrupters will be guaranteed a job with the Feds when the time is opportune, but first they are not finished with the disruption job that they are, no doubt, paid to do here.

Good riddance to them, the quicker the better that they get out of this province. It is a shame that we are susceptible to traitors like these.

Anonymous said...

Did WJM call in reinforcements? It appears that way!

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edward G. Hollett said...

So Now we have two more anonymous commenters.

Or are these the same person having a multi-sided conversation with himself or herself?

Gee, it's so hard to keep track of all of it.

But of course, true to form the anony-poster can't deal with the issues under discussion.

Rather, we have scurrilous personal comments. it seems that whenever the anon-posters are confronted with factual rebuttals of their pet theories the only thing they can do is fling unsubstantiated slurs at people.

Cowardly in hiding under the anonymous feature and scurrilous in the personal attacks.

Guess that says so much about the substance of the cause they claim to be defending. Keep posting. The more people see of the tripe you spread, the fewer who will fall prey to its falsehoods.

Anonymous said...

"NO" like I say you are more like War Lords, trying to win back your turf. A turf your side didn't deserve to lord over in the first place. Your group held it for 68 per cent of the time, and what did you accomplish? Nothing, because your group gave all of our resources away for some other place to grow economies and then there was nothing left to grow economies here in Newfoundland and Labrador. You blew it!

You had a taste of being in Government as cling-ons to the Master, once your Master's tenure was over and you and your Master were usurped and your group was no longer lording over the masses, you really couldn't give up power. We expected you to do what was right and that is why your group was elected to do the best job you could for us not for someone else. And because your group blew your many changes, you will do anything now to disrupt any good that is being done by the now Premier Williams who is trying his best to get things on track, but it is impossible since the two of you and your party will not let it happen. I hope the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see what is happening here. It is playing out on the Talk radio shows and the Blogs every day of the week, but I am not sure the people of the province are in tune to what is happening.

Guys give it up and try and see if Premier Williams can get things on track for once in 58 years. When your group was in power, you didn't have the types of distractions you are imposing on this present Government of Premier Williams and still you didn't get anything accomplished. It appears that Premier Williams is moving forward and your group are going crazy with all types of antics to throw things of course. I would think you would be happy, because down the road when you get your chance again, the road you will have to travel should be much better.

As history always dictates, your turn will come around again and if you do not disrupt things now and give this Premier a chance to make things better, hopefully when your time comes around the ousted party will be kind enough to let you do your work without disruption. And that is my fervent hope that they won't be so childish as to make it bad for everyone. That is what you are accoomplishing by using your childish tactics.

Please think about what you are doing by disrupting things and think of us the masses, who have no control, but who want things to work out for our families for once in our lives, so that we can grow economies here and because of the economies we will be able to keep on living in this beautiful province of Newfoundland and Labrador forever.

Be Patient, Kind and Helpful, your turn will come. It will be sooner than you think. All good things come to an End.

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Let us do a bit of simple accounting:

1. Fish resource passed over to Ottawa. Joey Smallwood was the first Premier and a Liberal, so I will give him the benefit of overseeing that big mistake.

2. Upper Churchill Hydroelectricity Energy bad deal made under Liberal leadersip

3. Vosiey's Bay Nickel contract signed under Liberal leadership

4. Oil contract signed under P.C Government.

I believe the accounting is simplistic, but 75 per cent of the bad deals equates to Liberal Governance.

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I would brand your type of ism as religionism. You seem to be so caught up with the Liberals that it appears to be your religion.


Premier Williams, under the Conservatives, got elected as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador with a big majority in a free election, but ever since the man receive the title, you and your Liberal friends have been voraciously attacking his government for no apparent reason. He barely had the title when your attacks began. The only reason I can see for it is that you are jealous, since you are aware that Mr. Williams is doing such a good job, and you can`t see your party,the Liberals, returning to power for quite some time. You Liberals cannot stand to be out of power. Why give the Premier such a difficult time, eveyone knows he is working very hard? We are quite aware of the problems that he is working on, since we hear stories and updates on these problems every day. And we want him to get those problems worked out to create a better future for our province.


Let me tell you I haven`t been a Conservative all my life. Matter of fact I have been a Liberal, a Conservative, a Liberal, and now a Conservative. I roll with the tide. So I am not suffering from any sort of ``ism``, I am following my good vibes on this Premier. I might add I do not agree with him on every point, I do agree with him on Big Oil and Equilization but I want to hear more from him on joint Custodial Management of the Fishery. He did promise that he was going to look into fishery file and as far as I can see he has done nothing with it, not a word have I heard. I am very disappointed with him on that.

It appears that Premier Williams has a good recipe and I am going to see him through for another term. The gentleman needs two terms, as does any Premier. If he doesn`t deliver on some of the irons he has in the fire by then, I will vote a different flavour and I will be as disappointed as I have been with all the other Premiers entrusted with my faith, who haven`t delivered. But I do feel that we are in the capable hands of a person who knows the problems that have been caused in this province by bad political governance and he is trying his darndest to do something about it. I hope he succeeds.

So please give this Premier a chance. Your turn will come again I am sure.

Edward G. Hollett said...

There seem to be a couple of anons posting here, at least, but both seem to be blinded by partisanship such that they cannot see anything.

For the anon who listed things:

1. "Fish resource passed over to Ottawa." In 1949, Newfoundland and labrador did not own or control a fish resoruce to "pass over". What do you mean by this?

2. "Upper Churchill Hydroelectricity Energy bad deal made under Liberal leadership".

The Churchill falls agreement was endorsed unanimously by the House of Assembly, if memory serves. That would make it a bad deal supported by both main political parties.

3. Voisey's Bay. Interesting you should include this one. It is such a bad deal that the finance minister credited it with supplying a chunk of cash to fuel his record spending.

4. "Oil contract signed under P.C Government."

The 1985 Atlantic Accord that set the basis for the offshore industry was signed under a provincial and federal PC administration.

Hibernia started under the PCs and was finished under a Liberal administration. Terra Nova and White Rose were concluded under Liberal administrations.

All three production deals are so poor that they have supplied the cash to fuel three years of record spending by the provincial government.

It would seems that both your accouting and your history are abysmal.

But really, the problem is that you are looking at this from a purely partisan perspective.

This is the same problem your anon friend makes as well. As a result, you both wind up discussing irrelevant side issues rather than discussing the issues at hand.

The result of this approach should be seen in the comments by the second anonyposter: "I will be as disappointed as I have been with all the other Premiers entrusted with my faith".

If doing something over and over again doesn't work, perhaps it's time to consider changing.

Otherwise, you can only expect the same result again. Perhaps that explains why you keep your identity hidden, so people won't realize you said the same thing 10 years ago about Brian Tobin that you say today about the current Premier, and will say 10 years from now about another Premier of another party doing and saying exactly the same things.

With the same result.

Just because you are mired in the same patterns of thought and behaviour doesn't mean the rest of us have to go around and around in circles with you.

Anonymous said...

You see how WJM's strongmen came in to cover up a question they do not want answered. Reinforcements are wonderful if they work, but sometimes they don't!

Anonymous said...

WJM - you asked the question of why didn't the Premier publish his article on his own site. That would only be preaching to the converted. We have to get our point of view across to the Canadian public who might have read the articles in the National papers that were venonous towards us. Articles that needed rebuttal. Canadians need to know what the province of Newfoundland and Labrador contributed to them with its resources. Also Canadians need to know what the province of Newfoundland and Labrador hasn't received in the name of Federal Regional Offices, Military bases, transfers, research and development monies, while over the years since Newfoundland and Labrador was part of Canada, the other provinces have been padded economically with such wonderful goodies as I named above, compliments of the Federal Government. If the Premier could adequately get the picture across in the National Newspaper, I am sure Canadian eyes would be opened wide and they would understand what we are trying to do. Once Canadians are made aware, I do not think they would be unreasonable in their response. They wouldn't want the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's inhabitants to be any worse of than themselves. Yet we have been quite a lot worse off than the average Canadian now for 58 years despite all the resources that we have contributed, whether we contributed them through choice or not? Nevertheless Canadians got to grow their economies from raw resources that were exported out of this province to other parts of Canada.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"You see how WJM's strongmen came in to cover up a question they do not want answered."

What question is unanswered?

Starrigan said...

Holy smoke, hang on WJM looks like you have a couple of white kights coming to your rescue. Not bad, at least they have some gusto, not the stupid questioning routine that you normally pull. And speaking of pulling, it seems you finally have a couple of other a$$holes that you can have a circle jerk with. Like Borat says "thatsa nice".
All kidding aside I'm surprised to see Simon and Ed here. I take a peek at their slag they call blogs every how and then but it's always the same crap. Go have a look and check out how many comments that get, not very much. Why? because they basically suck. No imagination, content, pertinence, substance etc. They have to post on a "good" blog to make themselves heard because they sure as hell don't have an audience on their blog. You should take this as a very high compliment Myles, well done yourself. I look forward to hearing from WJM once he gets back from his little sulking session. Odd you don't see him much on weekends, that's because he's not getting paid. He's saving us some tax dollars, god love 'em.
Should be amusing to see what these three snapper heads have to say in the next few days. I look forward to seeing them at the confederation building on Friday.

Anonymous said...

Why can't the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador have a letter published in the National Newspapers as a rebuttal to something written about us that we would like to rebut. Isn't the province of Newfoundland and Labrador a part of that National Network? So wouldn't we be considered local as it relates to the National papers? After all we are not a province of Africa, we are a province of Canada in which the National papers of which I am referring to are established. So why wouldn't these National Newspapers allow the Premier to utilize a space in their papers for rebuttal of an article(s) they printed? I want an answer.

And please refrain from posting a nasty answer. It is no need to print nastiness. A simple answer will do.

Anonymous said...

The question we want answered is "Why can't Premier Williams have a letter published in the Globe and Mail as a rebuttal to an article written which is considered venomous to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Premier Williams said the Globe and Mail would not publish his letter that he wrote as a rebuttal to an article that appeared in that paper. I always thought that any paper would allow you a rebuttal.

It baffles me that the Globe and Mail disallowed Premier Williams' rebuttal. I want an answer.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Thank you starrigan for ensuring the exchange stays on its high intellectual level.

As for the unanswered question, this seems to be it: "Why can't the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador have a letter published in the National Newspapers as a rebuttal to something written about us that we would like to rebut?"

The current Premier and former Premiers can and have on many occasions over the years. Ordinary citizens can and do all the time. "We" don't need anyone to speak on our behalf.

One of the marvelous things about democracy is that individual citizens can and should speak their minds without fear of being slagged by anyone, especially on a personal basis just for daring to disagree with those in power.

The Premier made reference the other day to a specific instance. Since he didn't give any details, we frankly can't know what he is talking about. If he is talking about a rebuttal to Claudia Cattaneo of the Post, then he got that one published in the Post where it belonged so the same readers who read her column got to see the rebuttal.

There's no reason to have the same thing published in the Globe nor is there any great cause for alarm because the Globe opted to do what all newspapers do: decide what they publish and what they won't. Go back 15 years and you'll find that the Globe hesitated in publishing a letter by John Crosbie. They hesitated until he called the editor and pressed his case.

At the same time, a group of businessmen took out an ad to make the same point.

If the Premier is referring to something else, well, he has no shortage of ways to get his point across. He's very good at it in print, on television and radio. Frankly, that particular comment sounded like a bit of whining and I am at a loss why he whined about it. There doesn't seem to be any problem in getting his point across.

Of course, just because he says something, people aren't obliged to accept his word as gospel any more than we should accept anyone's word as gospel regardless of who they are.

Make no mistake though, the current Premier - or any premier - isn't being muzzled by anyone. If his message isn't getting across it's not from a lack of opportunity to make his case.

Anonymous said...

"Yes" Mr. Hollett the Premier is very diligent in his duty in getting his point across. He works very hard and I Thank him for it. But in such cases when he isn't allowed to have an article printed as a rebuttal, I think it is unfair.

Premier Williams was talking about the Globe and Mail, as the paper which wouldn't print his rebuttal. I don't know if he was talking about one particular article or many, since there were more than one article printed in venemous tones about the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and not only printed in the Globe and Mail, but the National Post as well.


If the Globe and Mail refused the Premier to counteract something that he didn't respect well that is definitely not a fair system.

I would think that in any news media that one would have the right for a rebuttal. Premier Williams is acting on behalf of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and his charges are demanding that he not let venomous attacks go unchallenged. The Canadian people need to have fair coverage of what is being said. And I think the Canadian people would demand fair coverage for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patriot said...

Simon,

I usually don't respond to most posts here but I do have to take exception to some of your comments. You seem to have a problem with some anons on here and have decided to take the approach of tarring everyone with the same brush.

In your comments you said:

"...This is a snake's nest of hateful venomous neo-nationalist navel-gazing presented by a gang of the NL equivalent of Archie Bunkers who blame the world for their problems and and can't figure out why a red-blooded white-skinned proud patriotic NL'er can't get an even break in a cruel and contemptuous world as you sit in your comfy chair, read the Independent, listen to Great Big Sea on the stereo and drink a bottle of Screech in your fisherman's sweater in the big plastic-covered house in the samey suburbs of Commonwealth Avenues.

It's the same kind of professional NL'er who wears the Pink-White-Green to cocktail parties with your buddies from MUN res - ready to defend the outports but secretly grateful for not living there because it's too far from George Street, the Mall and the LSPU."

Using that sort of stereotyping is not very becoming from someone who once believed they had the character necessary to become an elected member of government.

In fact, it smacks of bigotry in its own right.

Not that there is anything wrong with someone who lives in St. John's but,

I for one am from rural NL, I do not drink screech, I do not listen to Great Big Sea unless they happen to be on a radio somewhere in my listening range, I do not own a fisherman's sweater or a big comfy chair, I do not frequent George Street or cocktail parties, and I do not hang out with the folks at MUN.

I admit reading the Independent but then I also read the Telegram, Western Star, National Post and Globe and Mail when the mood strikes.

I don't know you personally Simon just as you don't know me, but if I can take a page from your book of tactics and stereotype you, then from your words I'd have to say you are a narrow minded bigot who thinks that just because someone has a different opinion of how things are or why things happen, they are not worthy of your time.

Maybe it's time for you to take a look in the mirror before you decide to impune the character of others.

Anonymous said...

Ooooh are you ever simplistic here Simple Simon. You are not who you think you are.

The ordinary Newfoundland and Labradorian didn't know what was happening over the past 58 years and that is why our resources got appointed the way they did. It is not that we are blaming everything on someone else, it is that we were not left with anything to run the shop on.

I think you Mr. Friendly Giant should look up, waaaaay up. Some of the things that you stated in your posting above are frightening and very ambiguous and bias, maybe prejudice. In one statement Sir you say your job is to train the next generation of NL leaders to become clear and articulate speakers and thinkers.

Well Mr.Simon not being clear speakers and thinkers could be part of the reason that got us in the situation of having our resources appointed to the wrong people in the first place; and that sir, resources going someplace else for further processing, is what left us destitute as a province.

When you don't have people who can fight for their rights, corruption takes place on the other side. That is what got us in trouble. We just don't think that everyone is out to get us for no reason, we knew that we were HAD in the first place and that Sir is what has gotten us in the tight pickle that we are in, we cannot seem to move forward since we are embedded in the jaws of the Federal political and beaurcatic system.


Simon I would like for you to fix things, but Premier Williams is also trying to fix things and since he has the reign of Government give him the latitude and You, Simon should work side by side with him in doing so. If you have a hand into it, we will give you credit as well.

What you Mr.Simon , Mr. Ed and Mr. W.J.M. are doing is throwing a wrench into Premier Williams' recipe and that is making things harder for him and us. The Federal Government is happy they brought you on side. That is just what they wanted and got and three of you are causing headaches for Premier Williams and this Province.

Have you stopped to think what you are doing?

Edward G. Hollett said...

The word venomous has been tossed around here quite a bit, anonymous whicheveroneyouare, but in the case of this one single rebuttal - which is all the premier discussed - there is not anywhere near enough information to make any judgement.

It appears it was related the Post piece. That rebuttal was carried in the Post. Job done.

I'd simply draw you back to the point I made: anyone can send a letter to the editor of any newspaper that prints something he or she disagree with.

There is no "right" of rebuttal but in virtually every case I can think of editors will allow fair comment in response to a piece printed.

In the case of a premier, he or she has considerable other means at his or her disposal to make a point far more effectively than in a letter to the editor or a rebuttal comment.

Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would focus on a single example - a single example - unless one were merely looking for a slight to bolster a previous conclusion that the world is biased.

What venomous pieces has the Globe printed lately? Explaining that the provincial government outspends per capita just about every other government in Canada? That's just putting some facts on the table to add to the discussion.

Maybe - just maybe - a lot of the conclusions reached by people here are not entirely accurate.

Anonymous said...

An maybe Ed some of what the Globe prints and you seem to have no problem with is slanted to present a view that isn't accurate.

You mentioned that the globe said the province spends more per capita than any other province. I'm not defending provincial spending by any means, there is enough waste in any government, but a statement like that needs to be presented in a way that at least identifies that part of the reason isn't because we just waste money (the impression left) but that our small population and geography makes it very expensive to deliver similar levels of service as those in more popululated and urban areas. Something equalization should help with but since its based on a head count it doesn't.

I'm sure the Globe had no intention of presenting that side of the story and simply printed that we spend more to make a point of their own.

Anonymous said...

There are too many examples of the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador not being able to rebut things said in the press and on television and radio over the past number of years.

Just this past couple of months the equalization debacle has caused so much bad press, and we all remember the equalization formula accounting numbers that were crunched and were way off-base with regards to the real figures, because the Feds sent the wrong equalization formula to us to be crunched in the first place. That formula produced a set of numbers that showed we would be getting $11 billion dollars more over a 13 year period, or $846 million dollars per year for the next 13 years.

That was so far off base as to what we were going to receive and the Feds knew darn well what figure they had in mind for us.

Imagine the formula that was really devised for us, when sent after those erroneous figures got crunched from the erroneous formula and were put out and left out into the public domain for 1 week, without a word being said in apology to the Newfoundland and Labrador people that they were sorry to have misled the Canadian public, they the Feds not only misled the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, they misled the Canadian public.

The TRUE equalization formula was really showing that we would be losing $1 billion per year off the status quo and that we stood to lose $11 billion over 13 years.

Can you see why the Canadian people are unaware? They got the wrong figures that showed us in Newfoundland and Labrador would be rolling in the dough, along with ample press to embed that notion in their minds. If, after, we were given the same amount of press to tell Canadians what happened, that the first equalization formula was not the correct one, but that instead the province of Newfoundland and Labrador would be receiving far less, we would be happier in this province.

Imagine now because of unfair freedom of the press for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, all those Canadian who read the good figures do not know about the latter or bad figures that show we are $1 billion dollars poorer than the status quo, and $11 billion over the next 13 years. That is the TRAGEDY here, the wrong figures got printed and NOBODY from Newfoundland and Labrador was allowed space in the National Press or on the National Airways to tell the real story.

That type of incident with the Press only serves to set the province of Newfoundland and Labrador back, while putting the Federal Government in good light.

Edward G. Hollett said...

While I am sure it will be impossible to convince anyone here that there is no giant conspiracy to deny mainlanders access to the "truth", let's take a look at the Equalization issue for a second.

There's evidently a mindset here that there is a conspiracy and that the "truth" is being suppressed and nothing will shake that.

But let's have a look at what is being presented here.

The statement by the anonymous poster at 10:46 mixes a bunch of things together that simply make the whole thing a muddle.

First of all, let's be clear that Wade Locke's numbers are based on assumptions, as he will freely admit. Change the assumptions - about the price of oil for example - and his numbers will shift.

Second of all, the $11 billion version comes from an option which is unattainable. Locke makes this plain. Pretty well everyone knows it and it has been plain for some time. The premier knows it too. That's why he isn't out there fighting for it. That's why his campaign isn't to get 100% exclusion; it's aimed to defeat the harper administration.

Third of all, within Locke's two assessments, it really isn't clear whether the province will lose $1.0 billion. That's because he only released numbers in his second effort that looked at the status quo compared to switching to the 50% option immediately. The province should look to maximize the cash flow, so it really isn't clear whether any money will be lost as the whole thing plays out.

Third of all, this whole exercise is focused on federal transfer payments and more particularly on the hand-outs given to poor provinces.

What gets lost in the process is that the Newfoundland government has within its power today the ability generate far more cash than is at stake even if by some miracle the 100% option was possible.

That would come from developing offshore oil and gas. Those revenues flow directly to the province and not a penny is taken away by anyone.

The provincial government has at its disposal the cash - and the potential for more of its own cash - that would allow the provincial government to provide all the services needed PLUS invest in infrastructure and pay down debt.

That's exactly what Alberta and Norway and other places have done to convert a non-renewable resource into a lasting benefit.

So how is it that we are not talking about those ideas here and instead are fixated on a letter to the editor and getting more and more federal hand-outs?

Anonymous said...

This session with me is concerning the lack of Freedom of the Press for our Premier Williams as it concerns this province.

Again, take one thing at a time and this time I want to fully focus on the Press and the lack thereof.

Please DO NOT tell me what I should focus on. The lack of press for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is critical and has to be remidied in order to solve some of our other problems.

Starrigan said...

Ed shouldn't you be hanging out at your own blog? I'm very sure it could use some lively debate, but then again I guess you would actually have to have someone to debate with, it's looking pretty quiet over your way. I'm also curious as to why you have taken it upon yourself to justify the actions of the national press, very odd. Your blind devotion to the national Conservative party is obvious. I can't help but wonder is you and Simon were able to get in on Ottawallys action. Few extra $$$'s in the old pocket. Wink wink nudge nudge say no more.

And what's up with Simon, did you blow a gasket or something. I have to give you credit for the most ignorant,insulting, racist piece of vomit I've ever seen written about NL's. You state that "I coach and train the next generation of NL leaders to become clear and articulate speakers and thinkers", is that some kind of joke, are we missing something here? God help us all. I've always thought that Ottawally was a big a$$hole but now I can't decide between Simon and Ed, who's the bigger a$$hole? I'm strongly leaning towards Simon. Don't get me wrong Ottawally is still a big a$$hole.

Let's get serious here, do you, Simon and Ed, really think that NL is geting a good deal in this confederation? More specifically do you think that this latest version of the Atlantic Accord is really good for NL?

Edward G. Hollett said...

Well, anon, what you seem to be missing is my simple point: the Premier has no problem getting press.

None.

Not a one.

There is no problem. You are talking about a problem that doesn't exist. It obviously doesn't exist.

It's interesting that you actually didn't answer the question I posed, namely why anyone would focus on a problem that doesn't exist. Why are people focused on this imaginary issue and not on other things that the provincial government can actually do something about?

You're free to chat about whatever you want. Don't be surprised though when other people look at the situation and disagree with you. Instead they are likely to wonder, as I do and maybe others, why a simple, straightforward answer - i.e. there is no problem - doesn't persuade you.

Ultimately, that's your issue and you are welcome to it.

And as a last point, thanks again starrigan for demonstrating the bankruptcy of your position.

Anonymous said...

I want the right for the Premier Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador to have Freedom of the National Press for instance the Globe and Mail and the National Post for rebuttals. Mr. Ed why do you have an issue with that?

Please do not bother your otherwise busy brain. This is my issue, and I will keep my brain busy working on it. I also will work on other problems in this province, without pay, I might add. Please do not waste anymore of your precious, probably well paid time, on me and my focus on the Press.

Anonymous said...

Artfull dodger said....

Now I'm not one to park my allegience with one particular political party. I have voted for the provincial liberals more times than any of the other two combined. Having said that, my last selection within the confines of a polling booth gravitated to the PC's. Why did I do so you may ask? Well, the provincial liberals had gotten stale in my opinion at that time. Roger Grimes was just not cutting it, he and his party simply did not resonate with me in the way that would garner my support for the grits. Also, my stomach was pretty much turned with the Tobin regime.

Let me say that I do not agree totally with Williams and the PC's on all counts, but I honestly don't see a viable alternative at this time. The provincial liberals seem content on eating their own (Jim Bennett) and inserting a lackluster leader (Gerry Reid).

With respect to being a nationalist, well let me just say that i am proud of my roots and the place called Newfoundland & labrador. I truely feel that we are good and hard working people with much to be proud of. I freely admit that it raises my hackles when I read editorial pieces or hear slanderous nonsense from those who wish to denegrate this province and it's residents. Standing up for one's place, in this case this province, and expecting to be treated properly in accordance with the rest of the country, is something that I take lightly.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"Please do not waste any more of your precious, probably well paid time, on me and my focus on the Press."

Aside from the numerous anony-posting around here, this business of criticising by smear and innuendo is one of the truly despicable aspects of the exchanges.

It is fairly obvious that not a single one of the various anony-posters here is able to engage in a simple discussion based on fact.

Instead, the exchanges invariably resort to this sort of snide comment that has no basis whatsoever in fact.

There obviously is no problem. When your comments are rebutted based on fact, all you have to fall back on is sleaze. Then you complain about what you call venomous attacks.

As with starrigan, with each post you make an eloquent statement of the bankruptcy of your position.

Starrigan said...

Sleaze?? Eddy, you might want to check the posting by Simon Lono, it certainly makes me look somewhat eloquent indeed. So how about answering my question, do you think that the the current version of the Altantic Accord is good for NL? Be honest.

Anonymous said...

I will criticize the lack of Freedom of the Press from the Natonal Media for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would appreciate if you please quit your childish ranting. Why are you doing this anyway and what is your agenda?

Is it wrong for me to pick a subject that bugs me and fish for the people

Anonymous said...

Artfull Dodger said....


With all due respect Ed, much of the anony postings i've read here have been of a condescending nature when referenced towards the province and it's people.

To be very fair, there are such posters on both sides of the divide who have posted remarks here.

One other thing of note, and that is the partisanship demonstrated by some posters. The political stripe of a few of the posters is more than evident. It never ceases to amaze me that people will take a stand/position based on partisanship even if that stand runs contrary to the present and future well being of their community/province/country.

Anonymous said...

SORRY - MY LAST POST ONLY PARTLY APPEARED.

I will criticize the lack of Freedom of the Press from the National Media for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador for as long as I need to. I would appreciate it if you would please quit your childish ranting. Why are you doing this anyway and what is your agenda? And why are you so anti the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and Premier Danny Williams? Can't you see he wanted the assistance of the press to get the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's story out there on the trickery that the Federal Government played on us with regard to equalization ?

Is it wrong for me to pick a subject that bugs me and fish for people who can provide that answer for me?

Edward G. Hollett said...

Incidentally, since Lord Acton is quoted favourably on the blog header, have any one of you ever read his views on nationalism?

Edward G. Hollett said...

"Is it wrong for me to pick a subject that bugs me and fish for people who can provide that answer for me?"

You have had the answer. You just refuse to accept it because the answer isn't the one you wish it to be.

Not a single Newfoundlander or Labradorian lacks a freedom of speech as guaranteed by the constitution.

Not a one. You prove it every time you post.

Anonymous said...

It's funny, I just popped by Ed Hollet's site The Bond Papers and it looks like nearly every post over there is a rehash of anti NL globe, post and Star articles.

I also notice Ed that you have started a new blog called "In the Free city". An interesting title for a site that you and Simon are member of and where call it a "Free city" but you need to be invited in order to even read the postings.

Your third site "The new Barrelman" says it all though. Clearly a homage to the late Joey Smallwood, who dragged us into Confederation by hook and by crook.

Add to this your job as a "public policy consultant" and I believe the truth becomes clear.

Rave on.

kodak said...

Just reacting to Patriot's comment on what Simon said. Patriot, did Simon really say this? I have no idea what kind of background any of the anons have, what their social preferences are, or where they are from. I don't know Simon only in a vague way through his writings. My impression of him was certainly not the one I just got from reading the prejudiced comment you just responded to. I was surprised to read this, and offended.

Simon you must have been very angry writing that, because it is full of thoughtless, unfounded, old-fashioned stereotyping. What an ignorant thing to say. Screech drinking, George St. mindless hicks. Think about what you've said, and how it makes an otherwise rational, objective person look. There's a lot of name calling here and I personally don't condone it, but you sounded like the Margaret Wente type. Perhaps this is not who you truly are, but I hope your stereotyping doesn't come across to your debating students. What a lesson.

Charles Cheeseman

Anonymous said...

Ed you say "Not a single Newfoundlander or Labradorian lacks a freedom of speech as guaranteed by the constitution.

Not a one. You prove it every time you post."

Ed: WE LACK FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF PRINT IT IN THAT when the Globe and Mail or the National Post decides to print something that is hurtful to the people of this province and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in general, we are at the whim of the editorial staff of both of these papers to accept a rebuttal from our Premier and have it printed. I wouldn't exactly call that Freedom of the Speech and Freedom of the Press. That to me is Freedom of the Editor of both of our National Papers to do as they wish.

MR. ED - Again would you call that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press?

In the first place if they allowed something to be printed that is disparaging about Newfoundland and Labrador, I presume the reason they allowed it to be printed was to show us and this province in a bad light. So with the Editor holding the right of refusal, you know darn well he/she is not going to give us the right of rebuttal. Why would they allow something to be printed only then to allow it to be rebutted and thus cancelled. They have an agenda on behalf of their number one client.

Ed Hollett said...

"In the first place if they allowed something to be printed that is disparaging about Newfoundland and Labrador...".

Well, anon, do you have an example of something said that was disparaging and untrue?

Let's try discussing some specific examples where things were presented as fact that weren't factual and no one was able to rebut them.

Do you have an example when a whole bunch of people were denied the opportunity to comment or respond?

Do you know in this instance cited by the premier why he didn't bring up the matter anywhere else? After all, if it was that bad surely he would have or should have raised a gigantic stink about it?

Rather than simply give unsubstantiated comments or more of the "number one client" slurs, let's see if we can get something concrete to talk about.

I suspect there really aren't any, but I am willing to discuss specific examples, if you have them.

Anonymous said...

Every other day something is printed in the Globe and Mail and the National Post that is not very complimentary and denigrates the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and its people. It would be a full time job to keep up with rebuttals.

Premier Williams said in his speech to the Economics Club of Toronto that he was denied access to one of the National Papers to have an article printed that he penned.

You said earlier you would like to see the article, if you are so interested in having a copy of the article, please use your time and pursue the matter, I am sure the Premier would probably hand it over to you. But then the two of you would probably use it to Newfoundland and Labrador's disadvantage.

I never in my life, in this province, witnessed people such as the two of you, who are going against what our Premier is doing. It is quite clear to 75 per cent of us that the Premier is trying to do what is right for this province, but whether he can get anywhere with the system in Ottawa, I am not sure. All I know is that after 58 years of being part of the Canadian system, we still do not have a Federal Regional Office in this province nor a full status Military base, despite the fact this province provides approximately 10 per cent of the Military in Canada.

Nova Scotia and New Brunswick together have approximately 35 Federal Regional Offices, and this province hasn't one. That sure doesn't sound fair or equal to me. Why didn't the Liberals get our share of these lucrative Offices? After all the Liberals were in office for 68 per cent of the time. Why do the two of you think you are going to change things now when you couldn't when you held power?

Again all I see you do is disrupt things in Newfoundland and Labrador while praising Ottawa. That is shameful!


You both are against the Premier trying to get 5 per cent equity stake in our Oil fields. You always take the side of Big Oil. You are against the Premier with his stance on equalization where he is trying to get us situated in a good economic position, no different than what the European Union did for Ireland. After all I think we deserve something from Canada, they have ignored us for 58 years and in the meantime saw that our resources worked more favorably for themselves and the other provinces while leaving our economy-less.

WJM said...

WJM - you asked the question of why didn't the Premier publish his article on his own site. That would only be preaching to the converted.

How so? Is it only people who agree with danny who are allowed to use the provincial government's website?

I disagree with a lot of things posted here. Doesn't stop from viewing it, does it?

Articles that needed rebuttal.

And they have been. THe papers have printed rebuttals.

Canadians need to know what the province of Newfoundland and Labrador contributed to them with its resources.

What is that? Put it up on the website, Danny.

Also Canadians need to know what the province of Newfoundland and Labrador hasn't received in the name of Federal Regional Offices, Military bases, transfers, research and development monies

What is lacking? The province has two bases; PEI, also a province, has none. The province has one of the highest per-capita federal civil service presences of any of the ten provinces, and is among the most dependent on federal transfer payments.

If the Premier could adequately get the picture across in the National Newspaper, I am sure Canadian eyes would be opened wide and they would understand what we are trying to do.

Yes, they would. But be careful what you wish for. Once the rest of the country realizes that you want to be MORE dependent on federal transfers, not less; that you want the provincial economy to be MORE dependent on federal pork-barrelling, then you might not be so keen to have communicated "what we are trying to do".

resources that were exported out of this province to other parts of Canada.

Why do you use the passive mood?

Who exported them? And which resources? And under whose authority?

WJM said...

Why can't the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador have a letter published in the National Newspapers as a rebuttal to something written about us that we would like to rebut.

A sentence which starts with "why" is a question, which takes a question mark.

So to answer the question you SHOULD have asked: ask the editor of the paper, who will tell you that NO ONE has the automatic right to have a letter published.

I know. I've had many more letters rejected than published.

Isn't the province of Newfoundland and Labrador a part of that National Network?

National network of what?

I want an answer.

Direct your question to that newspaper. Have you done so yet? If not, why not?

And please refrain from posting a nasty answer. It is no need to print nastiness. A simple answer will do.

When have I ever been nasty? Please be specific.

WJM said...

My goodness I really didn't know that you had to control a newspaper to have an article printed. Is that really how newspapers work?

If you want to be absolutely guaranteed of having something published, yes, that's how it works.

Freedom of the press belongs to the guy with the press. Danny doesn't own the newspaper.

He is free to publish this wonderful letter on his own website. Why hasn't he? Very curious.

I am asking the question, since I really don't know but WJM sort of eludes to that as being the case? Is it?

"Eludes"?

I have no idea what you mean by that.

I would have thought that a National Newspaper, especially would be free to anyone in either province

The newspaper prints what it chooses to print. That is what freedom of the press is.

WJM said...

someone is getting very nervous.

Whoever that "someone" is, it sure as heck isn't me.

WJM said...

The Churchill falls agreement was endorsed unanimously by the House of Assembly, if memory serves.

A House of Assembly with an opposition of three, too.

Voisey's Bay. Interesting you should include this one. It is such a bad deal that the finance minister credited it with supplying a chunk of cash to fuel his record spending.

And, it would appear, that the Voisey's Bay revenues are about the same size as the projected surplus. Thank you, Labrador, for balancing the books.

Meanwhile, I'm sure Danny Williams will reveal, any day now, the "holes" in the deal you could drive a truck through.

Any day now.

Right around the corner.

WJM said...

Go have a look and check out how many comments that get, not very much. Why? because they basically suck. No imagination, content, pertinence, substance etc.

Simon doesn't have comments, for cause.

And if Ed "sucks" so hard, why don't people prove it by posting comments - he allows them - expositing how it is he sucks?

Oh yeah - Ed doesn't allow anonymous cowards.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"Every other day something is printed in the Globe and Mail and the National Post that is not very complimentary and denigrates the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and its people. It would be a full time job to keep up with rebuttals."

Amazing how a simple request for an example of the sort of thing that is considered derogatory turns into this sort of ludicrous claim.

What was in the Globe and/or the post on Tuesday, May 8 that was derogatory?

The answer: nothing.

Instead we have - from an entirely anonymous source - al sorts of wild claims. Then the comment turns personal, again and entirely predictable. You give nothing other than a hysterical rant that proves nothing other than that you have nothing to back up your claims.

I am flattered you think I am so powerful as to be able to shag up the plans of the most popular premier in history.

As for the federal offices, as someone who pays taxes to the federal government I'd much prefer that the feds spent only the money needed to do the job, leaving the rest in my pocket. I'd rather not have a bloated bureaucracy full of people sitting around doing nothing just so someone can say they have a "fair share" of federal pork and entitlements.

WJM said...

Ordinary citizens can and do all the time. "We" don't need anyone to speak on our behalf.

Yes we do!

Bill Rowe says so!

"And what a blessing for this province to have a commanding minister in Ottawa again, exercising supreme brawn and brains on our behalf."

WJM said...

There are too many examples of the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador not being able to rebut things said in the press and on television and radio over the past number of years.

Some of these examples would be.... ?

And there - 100!

Anonymous said...

WJM you have left a question unanswered. Why do you keep running away from giving the correct answer?

Why can't the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador have a letter published in the National Newspapers as a rebuttal to something written about us that we would like to rebut. Isn't the province of Newfoundland and Labrador a part of that National Network? So wouldn't we be considered local as it relates to the National papers? After all we are not a province of Africa, we are a province of Canada in which the National papers of which I am referring to are established. So why wouldn't these National Newspapers allow the Premier to utilize a space in their papers for rebuttal of an article(s) they printed? I want an answer.

And please refrain from posting a nasty answer. It is no need to print nastiness. A simple answer will do.

Anonymous said...

WJM said: Quote Freedom of the press belongs to the guy with the press. Danny doesn't own the newspaper. UNQUOTE


WJM: I am very serious here now. Is this really how the National Press works? Are you serious that these guys can print such awful things like they have printed to denigrate a people and a province, and then the editors can deny a rebuttal to anyone who wishes to have a rebuttal printed? I personally don't believe they have that latitude.

If that really is the case the only people who have Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech would be the Owners and Editors of the National Newspapers, since they have freedom to refuse a rebuttal. There is no protection there for the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Article in todays NP comparing apples to oranges.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=6121e256-ac87-403b-903d-836c9d6acd5f&rfp=dta

The truth is Alberta could give away their oil and still be ahead because the real value of their oil/tar sands is in the exponential labour and infrastructure required to extract it. Where as our oil is a sweet crude that simply gets pumped out of the ground and replaced with the sea water it is covered by.

Edward G. Hollett said...

The Post article is hardly disparaging, if that one is being offered up as an example of the persecution of this province at the hands of the national newspapers at the behest of their supposed Ottawa masters.

The piece lays out a pretty sobering comparison of what drives decision-making in the oil industry and what may well wind up happening here for the foreseeable future.

"The truth is Alberta could give away their oil and still be ahead because the real value of their oil/tar sands is in the exponential labour and infrastructure required to extract it. Where as our oil is a sweet crude that simply gets pumped out of the ground and replaced with the sea water it is covered by."

The truth is something significantly different.

Any royalty revenue that isn't collected is just gone. Money collected from income taxes on companies and individuals just won't equal the direct rent applied to the resource. That is plain from our provincial budgets.

Alberta took a very deliberate strategy of foregoing certain revenues to get the oil sands into production. The province can do that because it sits on a well-established industry in which many of the costs of development are dramatically lower than offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
Alberta can afford to give up revenue on the oil sands and settle for less because it is already well ahead of the game.

Here we have a frontier oil patch with high costs and without much of the infrastructure and development that comes from development and that in turn makes other development easier. Success breeds success.

It isn't true that oil here is light and sweet. Some of it is. Hebron, by contrast is heavy and sour and, like the oil sands, costs a considerable amount to extract. It earns less on the market than light, sweet.

More costly to extract; earns less when sold. Add extra cash demands to that project like say "super-royalties" and "equity" and it gets pretty easy to see why oil companies would head somewhere else.

There is other oil and gas out there but frankly, until we know what is there, where it is and how costly it will be to extract, no one knows if we will ever be able to achieve an Alberta-style development.

What the Post referred to as the dispassionate marketplace is exactly that: companies go where they can make the most money.

The challenge for Newfoundland and labrador is finding a balance between what the province reaps in terms of revenue and development of the industry and corporate profits, since it is the corporations that spend the billions to get the oil into production.

Each needs the other so it's in everybody's interest to find that balance. That's about the only thing we can say with some certainty.

It may be nice to dream of all sorts of extra cash pouring in from all sorts of supposed super-royalties and so forth but the larger realities may make that impossible to attain.

Our oil regime has been highly competitive. We can improve it. But - and this is the key part - we must be careful not to raise costs to the point where investment goes somewhere else.

The concern I have raised and other shave raised is that the provincial energy plan may well prove to be nice on paper but totally unattainable in the real world.

It's all fine and good to say leave it in the ground or "not one teaspoon", but in the meantime we will have to watch our pennies carefully. There's no guarantee when the development and exploration will come back in force and no guarantee that when it does come back the province will be in the position to make the best possible deal.

We've made the mistake before of gambling on high oil prices forever. We lost the gamble and we paid the price.

But still, the Post article isn't disparaging in any way. It just presents some facts to consider. That is, consider, if you actually want to consider something other than the conclusions you've already reached.

Anonymous said...

WJM said: Quote Freedom of the press belongs to the guy with the press. Danny doesn't own the newspaper. UNQUOTE


WJM: I am very serious here now. Is this really how the National Press works? Are you serious that these guys can print such awful things like they have printed to denigrate a people and a province, and then the editors can deny a rebuttal to anyone who wishes to have a rebuttal printed? I personally don't believe they have that latitude.

If that really is the case the only people who have Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech would be the Owners and Editors of the National Newspapers, since they have freedom to refuse a rebuttal. There is no protection there for the rest of us.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"Are you serious that these guys can print such awful things like they have printed to denigrate a people and a province, and then the editors can deny a rebuttal to anyone who wishes to have a rebuttal printed?"

Do you know what they printed?

Starrigan said...

Anon (May 8, 2007 9:22), don't waste you time with these a$$holes. We all know Danny was screwed over. Ottawally and Crazy Eddy are here to cause discourse. They could care less if their stand on freedom of the press is pro or con. They're just here to mess with your head, so don't waste your breath on these a$$holes. If Steve Harper wasn't given the chance for a rebuttal these two clowns would be singing a different tune.
Look at the volume of crap they have posted in this thread alone. Then consider the substance, not much is there. Don't buy into their little game.

Again there desperate attempt to cause havoc on this blog is a testament to the great job that Myles is doing. BTW Myles I went back to read Simon Lono's postings but they seem to have been removed. How about putting them back so I can reread them..

Anonymous said...

My point was that the tar sands and offshore oil and gas are not comparible. No matter how the National post or you try to spin it the two are not comparible.

Now if they did a comparison to the offshore oil and gas of Britain Norway or Iceland then maybe their story might have some merit but comparing apples to oranges isn't my idea of a fair comparison.

You would be better of comparing the tar sands to voiseys bay or lab west iron ore, there are more similarities than Hibernia and Hebron.

I would also like to hearyour justification for the Prov Liberal party accepting payment for their offices by the Federal Liberal party?

By accepting payment from the Federal liberals your party has compromised the people of this province. Not unlike what Clyde Wells did when his salary was topped up by the federal Liberals so he would run and be the Premier.

Ed Hollett said...

Well, anon, the oil industry doesn't make your distinction when it makes investment decisions so really it makes no sense to look at it in a way that is artifical.

Projects are evaluated on their own merits, largely irrespective of whether the project is offshore, onshore or in outer space. Cash goes where it gets the best return. Period.

That's why the Post piece was straightforward.

If there was a comparison with Norway, for example you'd find a great many other problems with the current administration policy when it comes to conflict of interest.

The tar sands and Hebron are very much comparable projects since both are very costly to produce and both involve heavy oil.

If you want an offshore comparison, let's look at the Gulf of Mexico.

US federal government controls the resource. It took no royalties simply to spur exploration and increase domestic reserves in production. Now the feds are looking to increase their royalty from zero to a max of about 16%.

Well, our offshore regime (until it changes) runs at about 5% up front until costs are recovered, then it jumps to 30%. Our regime is highly competitive compared to that American example.

It won't be competitive if it jumps dramatically, especially since the Gulf of Mexico has bags of infrastructure, labour etc that help keep costs low.

There is a great deal of information which people in NL simply do not have. Therefore they are often making judgements on only some of the story. Perhaps rather than just think about sending information out, we need to think harder about getting some new information into the province.

Maybe the new information is uncomfortable and that's why you switched topics in the last two paragraphs, especially the last one which is utterly false.

Anonymous said...

There in lies your misconception. Your looking at this from the point of view of the oil industry.

Alberta can and for all intensive purposes does give away it's oil for a measly 1% royalty because they know the cost of developing the oil is much more prohibitive than oil like our offshore oil.

They reap their beneffits from infrastructure and personal taxes from the enormous labour required to extract that bitumenum.

The gulf of mexico is shallow water 30 metres at best and doesn't use the same technology wrong again.

If we owned the continental shelf outright we too would be able to implement Fallow field legislation like Alberta did and England did and Norway so the oil companies couldn't hold us ransom with our own resources.

I didn't switch topics I was just trying to highlight your agenda and how the party you support and represent has compromised it's moral authority to represent the people of this province.
So Danny Dumarese is a Liar when he said that the Fed Liberals are paying for the Provincial Liberals offices?

Anonymous said...

Is someone missing from posting to this blogsite who might instead be sitting at a seat in an Ottawa Government office wasting his/her time posting 'NO' that he/she is not going to attend the Rally on Friday. Apparently, ACCORDING TO Mr. Whittle the organizer of the Rally, that over 100 votes were entered from the same IPO address in Ottawa. I heard the leader of the Rally announce it on Radio tonight. Can you imagine how idle some of these people are and how they are out there willing to disrupt matters in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Oh, the money the Governments waste, when there are so many needs out there in our communities?

Anonymous said...

Are you available WJM to answer the question you set up for yourself WJM?

WJM said: Quote Freedom of the press belongs to the guy with the press. Danny doesn't own the newspaper. UNQUOTE


WJM: I am very serious here now. Is this really how the National Press works? Are you serious that these guys can print such awful things like they have printed to denigrate a people and a province, and then the editors can deny a rebuttal to anyone who wishes to have a rebuttal printed? I personally don't believe they have that latitude.

If that really is the case the only people who have Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech would be the Owners and Editors of the National Newspapers, since they have freedom to refuse a rebuttal. There is no protection there for the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

An analyst on BNN on April 25th said that statistics are skewed on the consumption of oil last year. He said that last year just 3 per cent was used to run industry, the remainder was used for inventory build-up.

The world economy is in a slow down at the moment and when it picks up again, don't worry whose door they will be knocking on.

The oil in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore waters is in the safest territory in the world and the fact that Premier Williams is demanding a 5 per cent equity is far less worrisome than the terrorism that Big Oil has to face with their workers sometimes being kidnapped for large ransoms and the fear of coups in some of the unstable countries of the world where they have big investments, and where they find themselves having to operate for Oil.

The Oil industry is almost in a state of inertia at the moment. I am sure Premier Williams is quite aware of that aspect.

WJM said...

Why can't the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador have a letter published in the National Newspapers as a rebuttal to something written about us that we would like to rebut.

How many times am I supposed to answer that question?

Isn't the province of Newfoundland and Labrador a part of that National Network?

What "national network"?

So why wouldn't these National Newspapers allow the Premier to utilize a space in their papers for rebuttal of an article(s) they printed? I want an answer.

Then ask the newspapers. Since I know longer know, nor especially care, which one you are ranting about, here is the contact details for both:

Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/help#inbox

National Post contact form

Tell us what you learn, OK, Liz?

WJM said...

am very serious here now. Is this really how the National Press works?

Yes.

And the international press.

And the provincial press.

And the local press.

And probably the intergalactic press, too, if it exists.

Are you serious that these guys can print such awful things like they have printed to denigrate a people and a province, and then the editors can deny a rebuttal to anyone who wishes to have a rebuttal printed?

Yip!

I personally don't believe they have that latitude.

What causes you to not believe that?

If that really is the case the only people who have Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech would be the Owners and Editors of the National Newspapers,

"Freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" run against the government. The government can't infringe freedom of speech. Private citizens? Knock yourself out.

Danny Williams has the same freedom of speech as you or I. Why hasn't he exercised it by releasing that famous, supposedly awesome letter on his website, or asked other outlets to publish it?

since they have freedom to refuse a rebuttal. There is no protection there for the rest of us.

Protection from what?

I would like to think newspapers would be protected from being required, like they were in the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc, to print what politicians wanted them to print, which is what you are arguing for, Liz.

WJM said...

We all know Danny was screwed over.

"Danny was screwed over".

"Danny was screwed over"?

"Danny was screwed over"?!?!

Wow.

I knew that Danny has created this personality cult.

I knew that Danny basks in "L'├ętat, c'est moi".

I knew that Danny liked people to identify him with the province and the province with Danny.

But I had no idea he was that much worse than Joey Smallwood.

Wow.

Ottawally and Crazy Eddy are here to cause discourse.

Yip.

Discourse is exactly what I would like to cause. Look it up in the dictionary: D I S C O U R S E. Discourse.

They could care less if their stand on freedom of the press is pro or con.

I think you meant "couldn't care less."

And I am very much in favour of freedom of the press. That means NO media outlet should EVER be under ANY obligation to run ANYTHING written by ANY politician. Not even Chairman Dan of Dannystan.

That there are people (hi, Liz!) who believe otherwise, is scary.

WJM said...

Apparently, ACCORDING TO Mr. Whittle the organizer of the Rally, that over 100 votes were entered from the same IPO address in Ottawa.

Interesting!

I heard the leader of the Rally announce it on Radio tonight. Can you imagine how idle some of these people are and how they are out there willing to disrupt matters in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

You mean, in the same way certain provincial government employees spend all day voting Yes or No, depending, in the VOCM Question of the Day poll?

Oh, the money the Governments waste, when there are so many needs out there in our communities?

Indeed. The money governments waste.

Hi, Liz!

WJM said...

I am very serious here now.

I am very serious here now: How many times are you going to ask the same question, Liz?

Anonymous said...

WJM you said "Freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" run against the government. The government can't infringe freedom of speech. Private citizens? Knock yourself out.

SO, THEREFORE, IN ESSENCE WHAT YOU ARE REALLY SAYING IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THE NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS AND THEY CAN HAVE DAMN WELL PRINTED IN THESE NEWSPAPERS WHAT THEY DAMN WELL LIKE. IT REALLY ISN'T THE EDITOR OF THE NEWSPAPER'S CALL ON WHAT TO REJECT, IT IS THE FEDERAL GOVENMENT'S! YIPES THAT REALLY IS CRUEL AND UNDEMOCRATIC! IF THAT IS THE CASE, CANADA IS NO BETTER THAN CHINA IF CANADA/OTTAWA HAS SUCH CONTROL OVER THE NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS.

IT IS THE ANSWER THAT I WAS FISHING FOR.

I DON'T WANT TO LEAD YOU ASTRAY IN THINKING THAT I AM LIZ! I AM NOT LIZ! SORRY TO DISAPPOINT YOU WJM.

THANKS AND GOOD NIGHT WJM!

Anonymous said...

Yet another story not fit to be published.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/editorials/story.html?id=db6d3893-6ef4-48be-9f3e-08b806c2f243

Here is an excerpt
"Ontario, one of only two provinces actually paying into equalization."

Equalization is paid into by each and every province. Just because Ontario doesn't receive back doesn't mean the other provinces don't pay into it. It is general Federal funds.

This is the problem with Ontarians they are being fed a line and eating it up.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Anonymous, I obviously don't know who you are but before you start correcting me, at least try not to make things up:

"There in lies your misconception. Your looking at this from the point of view of the oil industry.'

Do not assume...as the old saying goes. Except in this case you only make and ass of yourself.

You seem to be the only person arguing from one perspective or another, in your case a partisan one.

"Alberta can and for all intensive purposes does give away it's oil for a measly 1% royalty because they know the cost of developing the oil is much more prohibitive than oil like our offshore oil."

This makes no sense. If developing oil was cost-prohibitive, it wouldn't happen. That's what cost-prohibitive implies.

"They reap their benefits from infrastructure and personal taxes from the enormous labour required to extract that bitumenum."

The NL revenue package collects royalties AND local benefits. The NL approach applied in Alberta would yield even more for Alberta than its own approach does. This seems pretty obvious.

If all there was in Alberta was oil sands and they were in our overall situation, they'd be collecting more royalty revenue. As it is they can afford to forego the royalty since they will make money elsewhere...but the jobs inflow would have to be enormous to match royalty.

"The gulf of mexico is shallow water 30 metres at best and doesn't use the same technology wrong again."

Check out Chevron's Jack 2 well. The water is about 2500 metres deep and the oil is thousands deeper than that. That is exactly like the Orphan and Sub-Laurentian Basins.

Ouch. Does it hurt to be wrong so often?

"If we owned the continental shelf outright we too would be able to implement Fallow field legislation like Alberta did and England did and Norway so the oil companies couldn't hold us ransom with our own resources."

Ouch again. Man, that must smart.

Check the UK regime. It basically came on stream because the overall UK production was dropping. In order to spur development, it put an apparent sunset on certain licenses but...as long as work appears to be done etc etc, there is no problem.

As well, the government has no interest in how a field gets produced...it just wants the oil out so it can take a cut of the royalties. The UK plays down jobs and other benefits.

Very different idea from the one you are talking about.

And speaking of which, there are no fields offshore NL left undeveloped because oil companies decided to leave the oil in the ground. in every case, there are technical or financial issues involved, which incidentally are exactly the sorts of hold ups the UK regime forgives.

Do you have an example from NL?

In Alberta, there simply isn't any reason to leave oil in the ground. physically straightforward, tons of infrastructure.

In NL, when first discovered Hebron oil was thick and heavy that it was considered not viable due to technology and oil prices at the time. By the late 1990s that changed and from 1999 onward the companies spent hundreds of millions trying to bring the field online.

If oil was discovered in the Orphan basin today, it likely couldn't be developed within 10 years. Why would any company invest the $100 million to drill a single exploration well if it knew that any oil found there or in the Laurentian would be stripped away before the company could fairly get a chance to make money on it?

"I didn't switch topics I was just trying to highlight your agenda and how the party you support and represent has compromised it's moral authority to represent the people of this province."

Yeah you did. Plus you again assumed something. I am not here on behalf of a political party. Apparently, you are.

Since you are obviously arguing from a partisan perspective It's time for you to reveal your identity. People have a right to know who is spreading arguments on behalf of a political party, as you apparently are.

"So Danny Dumarese is a Liar when he said that the Fed Liberals are paying for the Provincial Liberals offices?"

Why don't you ask Mr. Dumaresque yourself? Not only does this not have anything to do with the topic at hand, I don't speak for any political party.

I wouldn't know what if any arrangements were made in this case any more than I'd know how much the PC party paid out in airplane charters during the by-elections.

Switching topics and revealing your partisan bias tells much more about you than you probably liked. Do us all the courtesy and be honest enough to tell us who you are. After all, I am here identified for all to see.

For all anyone knows you get paid by some political party or the government.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Late night anonymous wrote: ^Here is an excerpt: "Ontario, one of only two provinces actually paying into equalization."

Equalization is paid into by each and every province. Just because Ontario doesn't receive back doesn't mean the other provinces don't pay into it. It is general Federal funds.

This is the problem with Ontarians they are being fed a line and eating it up."^

Each and every province does not pay into Equalization. The money for the program comes from federal general revenues.

That means it comes from your and my income tax, from corporate taxes and other types of federal revenue. No province pays in.

People in every part of the country get this point wrong consistently.

They all draw wrong conclusions from it. There are probably people in Ontario saying the same things about you. Funny thing is you both are wrong and are trying to educate the other on your own version of "wrong". If you both succeeded, you'd still be wrong.

Frankly, given Equalization is complex, being wrong is nothing bad. It happens to a whole raft of people including provincial finance ministers and premiers.

The way to sort out the problem might be for people to actually listen to what is being said or read what is written. Unlike say the other anonymous poster who made a whole raft of completely wrong assumptions and just wound up with crude oil on his or her face.

Maybe reading those editorials might once in a while show something other than than evidence of the Giant Conspiracy of the caps-writing anonymous.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"SO, THEREFORE, IN ESSENCE WHAT YOU ARE REALLY SAYING IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THE NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS..."

Wow. That couldn't be any more opposite of what he said if you tried. Putting in caps doesn't make it right-er.

I think here we have proof that you want there to be a conspiracy so you think there is one and nothing will shake you from the point.

"IT IS THE ANSWER THAT I WAS FISHING FOR."

You had the answer locked in long before this exchange and nothing here obviously was going to shake you off the belief.

WJM makes a good point though on ensuring freedom of speech, which means, among other things, that no government can force anything into print or on the air.

Personally, that idea seems much scarier than the idea that one single letter to the editor from a Premier with dozens of paid communications people couldn't get a letter in the paper.

Patriot said...

Starrigan asked that I repost Simon Lono's comments as they've been deleted. Unfortunately I can't do that since Simon apparently deleted them himself and I can't access them anymore.

I guess he realized how damaging they might be to his career and image and decided to cover his butt.

Simon, I'd suggest from now on you think a little more about what you are going to say rather than saying it and then trying to "make it disappear" later.

Ed Hollett said...

Patriot:

With anonymous posters given free reign to make whatever sleazy comments they want here, it's a bit hypocritical to suggest that Lono might have damaged himself in any way or giving him a lecture about thinking before he writes something.

Anonymous said...

Artfull Dodger said....

I was frankly somewhat surprised at the posts made by mister Lono, I honestly thought his character was better than that, guess I misjudged mister Lono.

I obviously do not know for certain, however I can only imagine mister Lono deleted the posts due to the caustic nature of them with vis a vis the people of the province (negative stereotypes etc.). I am sure that mister Lono would not want negative/inflammatory remarks which were put forth by him, in print, especially if he has any future political asprirations in this province.

Patriot said...

Hi Ed,

Excuse me but I don't need a lecture in hypocracy from you.

This site is open to anon comments because some people prefer not to post their identity over the web. That should not mean they cannot have a voice. I realize some people may abuse the use of that anon ability but its the price we all pay for freedom of speech.

As for Simon Lono, he is someone who decided to put his name behind his words (until he realized what he had done and deleted them). Simon is someone who has a respected name in many circles and for him to make those sorts of comments about others is something that he needs to be called out on.

If I knew, for example, that one of the anon posters were a publicly elected official or some other public figure who was spreading racist or bigoted opinions I'd call them out as well.

Everyone in here makes the choice to visit, comment or not. They can leave at any time and they are free to say what they want as long as it is within the bounds of the law but if someone is going to put their name behind those sorts of comments they should be prepared to face up to them (not hide them away).

I'm surprised that you would even support such a person as it casts a shadow on your own character (rightfully or not).

You might want to think about the people you are aligning yourself with and be cautious.

Patriot said...

By the way Ed, as a follow up to my previous post. You have to ask yourself why Simon Lono would delete his own coments after making them and posting them.

Could it be that he realized exactly what I said, that he was putting himself in jeopardy with his own words?

Anonymous said...

Whups, I guess simon lono inadvertantly leaked his inner most thoughts there.

Anonymous said...

I suspected Simon Lono would delete that post so I saved it.

Simon Lono said...
Here's the joyful part of this entire exchange.

Look up. . .waaaaay up .. .and you'll see several answers to the question: "Won't won't the Globe and Mail print the letter".

The answers are clear, unambiguous, based in real world circumstances and so simple.

Yet it seems that's not acceptable.

My bet is that no answer that not based on paranoia, perceived repression, and possible political contempt will ever be acceptable because those are the only answers acceptable to you.

There are none so blind as those who will not see and none so closed as those who will only accept the answer that panders to their own prejudices.

But of course the *real* question is "Why won't the world bend to the will of Danny Williams and give is what we want?"

I won't be at the event on Friday because i have a real life and real activities in the real world - I coach and train the next generation of NL leaders to become clear and articulate speakers and thinkers. And I do that the old-fashioned way: through patient effort and mentoring.

Now I will be accompanying a crew to a prestigious national event and they will be going because they *earned* their way out - not because of any sense of entitlement or reparation.

I remember why I stayed out of these discussions and why I normally refrain from contributing. This is a snake's nest of hateful venomous neo-nationalist navel-gazing presented by a gang of the NL equivalent of Archie Bunkers who blame the world for their problems and and can't figure out why a red-blooded white-skinned proud patriotic NL'er can't get an even break in a cruel and contemptuous world as you sit in your comfy chair, read the Independent, listen to Great Big Sea on the stereo and drink a bottle of Screech in your fisherman's sweater in the big plastic-covered house in the samey suburbs of Commonwealth Avenues.

It's the same kind of professional NL'er who wears the Pink-White-Green to cocktail parties with your buddies from MUN res - ready to defend the outports but secretly grateful for not living there because it's too far from George Street, the Mall and the LSPU.

Shallow, hollow, empty, negative pseudo-pride with no motivating force of expression other than greedy grasping demands for endless compensation for historical grievance.

We have the Premier we deserve.
May 08, 2007 9:25 AM
http://freenewfoundlandlabrador.blogspot.com/2007/05/poor-johnathon.html

Anonymous said...

Anon, thankyou for re-posting the comments made by mister Lono.

I read these remarks again and frankly they smack of elitism on mister Lono's part, or maybe I mis interpreted mister Lono's remarks. Perhaps mister Lono would like to take the opportunity to follow up on them.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Well, Patriot, apparently you do if you are going to tolerate not merely anonymous posts but personally abusive insulting posts that make sleazy accusations without a shred of evidence.

irrespective of what Simon wrote, that characteristic of this discussion - which you've done nothing to address - makes it absolutely hypocritical in the extreme for you to make any comment on Simon.

That is, without equally getting rid of the scurrilous trash others write.

Anonymous said...

How powerful must be your blog?

I believe you had one poster self-destruct after just one day of posting.

WOW! The Power Of Patriot's Blog!

Keep up the Great Work Patriot!

Anonymous said...

Some people are very hypocritical, aren't they? They want to have Premier Danny shut down from having a rebuttal printed in the National NewspaperPapers.

Yet they want a far different format on this site.

Believe it or not they are allowed to have a rebuttal here. No problem, so why are they complaining?

Anonymous said...

It seems that the esteemed ed hollet is attempting to do some damage control for the bigoted remarks of simom lono.

Incidentaly, if ed hollet is so upset (whining) that anonomous posts can be made on this blog, he has the ultimate freedom and right to leave.

Anonymous said...

Okay, what happened to Simon Lowno? No response?

Anonymous said...

hello ed hollet, are you there?

Anonymous said...

If a person can self-destruct him/herself, well then what do you think he/she can do to the province? Especially people who are advocating for the Oil Industry and the Federal Government against the Provincial Government. It is a form of anarchy when we have such people working against us!

Anonymous said...

it seems the hollet lono tag team had to regroup following simple simons verbal hari kari.

Anonymous said...

Lono is merely a smarmy overinflated pompas arse who seems to be suffering from the defeat when he ran for councillor. I guess he belives in his high and mighty importance following the pimping of Lono on hollets blog.

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, why are there so few comments on hollets blog?

Deirdre Greene said...

Good heavens! I have only recently stumbled on this blog, and I cannot believe the level of vitriol in the language. Perhaps the most vitriolic commentors feel free to write this way because they post anonymously. The subject matter and the cloak of anonymity seems to bring out the worst in people; I am painfully reminded of Northern Ireland and the Balkans. I am raising my children as self- respecting, thoughtful NLers, so this is one blog they will not have access to. I would not want them to get the impression that THIS violent, foul-mouthed rhetoric in any way represents loyalty to or love for their province. I'm not surprized ANYONE took down posts from here - thank goodness there are some forums where a person can "take back" what he or she has said in a lesser moment.

Anonymous said...

I just checked out the "Sir Robert Bond Papers" and loved it!!!

Great articles.......intelligent points of view ...and not another Danny Williams "Love-in"


Waaay better than this blog.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you should identify yourself Mrs Deirdre Greene/Lono?

Edward G. Hollett said...

So basically, we've managed to establish that:

1. there is freedom of the press but at least one person wants to believe something else just because he or she can't shake the idea;

2. there is more than a little misinformation about the province's oil industry out there among some of the anonyposters on this blog; and,

3. when their position is dismantled on fact, the only thing left is for the anonyposter(s) to resort to personal attacks.

I think that speaks volumes.
:

Anonymous said...

The oil industry is in a downturn stage right now Ed, which you refuse to admit, because the World economy is slowing down very rapidly. One gentleman said on BNN last week that people better get ready to have their heads handed to them in their hands. He said that last year the Real Play in oil was only 3 per cent, he said the stats are skewed as not to show that figure, since nobody really wants to spook the stock market into falling. Three per cent of the oil was used to run the world economy, the rest was used for invetory building.

Premier Danny has lots of time to wait out the Big Oil. They are in no great need for Oil at the moment to run a burgeoning world economy as was the case not too long ago, since the world economy is slowing down and the resevoirs are filled with oil. There are lots of padding in the oil reservoirs and NO great hurry, because the economy is going Nowhere at the moment. When the time arrives and that turn around is seen on the horizon, Premier Williams will get a knock on his door from Big Oil to talk. So don't try to influence us about what is happening to Oil. You are just trying to influence our people to put pressure on Premier Danny Williams, all for Big Oil. I don't know why you are working on behalf of Big Oil over your province, unless, of course, you are working for Big Oil? I do know you spend quite a bit of time promoting that Industry against the plan that this province has to get an stake or equity for this province from Big Oil.

Deirdre Greene said...

If only I had the time to keep up with the dizzying pace of comments in this string! I did identify myself, anonymous: Deirdre Greene. Those who know my name, as you clearly do, know that Simon Lono is my husband. My children are Sarah, Samuel, Simon and Diana. We live in downtown St John’s with our cat Szitzy. I am the youngest of five siblings. My late father was Capt Louis Greene of Pointe Verde, Placentia Bay (our family was recorded there in the d’Ibreville census of 1698). My late mother was Sarah Anne Robinson of Manchester, England. I was raised in Outer Cove, while it was still primarily a fishing-farming community. I was educated at St Francis of Assissi School in Outer Cove, Holy Heart of Mary Regional High School in St John’s, Memorial University and (like the Premier) Oxford University. I spent the first 12 years of my adult life in England. I have brown hair, brown eyes and fair skin in the Celtic type. My favorite song is Una Furtiva Lagrima as sung by the Irish tenor John McCormack. Is there anything else, anonymous, that you feel might be relevant to this discussion?

Edward G. Hollett said...

Wow, anonymous, where could I possibly begin to deal with what you just posted?

Your entire argument is that there is no big demand for oil and that we are heading into a big economic downturn.

Ok. Well, if that's the case, there are a few things that will follow:

1. We can expect oil prices to plummet from the current level in the range of $60 plus down maybe to $45 and below. We might even see something like $25/bbl again.

2. Increasing the provincial government share of oil revenues would make it even less attractive for oil companies to invest here.

3. If oil prices drop because of a slowdown in the economy, many of the very expensive projects offshore NL, like even Hebron, look less and less attractive.

4. So therefore, it is highly unlikely that "Premier Williams will get a knock on his door from Big Oil to talk", at least not until prices rocket back up again.

5. If oil prices drop then the provincial government will have much less money to spend compared to right now.

6. That means we really should have signed the Hebron deal last year since it was loaded in cash and prices were high.

You must be actually arguing that the Premier made a big mistake in Hebron. That's the logic of what you just said.

So why do you criticize me, when in fact you are the one who made exactly the same arguments I have about striking while the iron was hot?

Deirdre Greene said...

BTW, all - if there is a global downturn in the oil industry, the price will fall and we'll earn less in royalties. Bummer.

Anonymous said...

Artfull Dodger said....
Yes Ms Greene, I myself have read many of the scathing and vitriolic remarks on this blog myself, and the vast majority of those I have viewed were of a nature that can only be described as hatefull and inflammatory towards this province and its people. Let us hope that the quality of the posts improves.

Regards
Artfull Dodger

Anonymous said...

Dierdre, you have only recently "STUMBLED" upon this blog? So you would have us believe your hubby didn't inform you of this blog? "cough/b*llsh*t/cough"!

By the way, making reference to Northern Ireland and the Balkans with relation to this blog is a wee bit of melodrama don't ya think! By the way, it is always a good idea to screen sites on the world wide web where the youngsters are concerned, but again the melodrama with respect to this blog and the kiddies is overdone in my very humble opinion. By the way, would you like your kids to read your hubby's remarks directed toward the people of this province as they were posted here?

Let me ask you Dierdre, do you agree with your hubby's inflammatory remarks posted here earlier?

Starrigan said...

There has always been some pretty good discussions on this blog. The biggest irritation was WJM and his moronic attempt at disrupting by continouosly asking inane questions. Then enter Simple Simon who quickly imploded and ran away, much like Georgy Porgy. That was probably a wise move. But now we have Crazy Eddy, never in my life have I seen so much written but so little said. This one article has over 150 comments, astounding, that's more comments than were posted on Crazy Eddies entire blog. Just goes to show that some people are like leeches, can't seem to make anything happen so they are over here sucking us dry. And if I haven't mentioned it yet Crazy Eddy is an a$$hole, as is Ottawally. Just don't want anyone to forget. :0)

Anonymous said...

Sorry Ed but the debate over equalization is not a dead issue until the budget implementation bill is passed in the house (which it hasn't been yet.) And even then, it was changed once and it can be changed again.

It's clear that keeping 100% of non-renewable resource revenue would be good for NL so why are you continue to rail against people who are trying to put pressure on Ottawa over this issue?

If enough Conservative MPs feel the pressure something, anything might happen. Maybe a new 100% exclusion won't happen, though it should if Harper had any sense for good of the nation, but even it it doesn't, other methods of addressing the issue may come to light.

Why don't you tell us all what you have against people standing up and trying to pressure the politicians we elected into doing something that would benefit our province?

Anonymous said...

I have to say I love this. The points are being made right left and center and the fact that three of the purest federalists on the web, Wally, Ed and Simon(some paid by political groups as well) are spending so much time in here the past couple of days is a sure sign of worry upalong.

Good stuff. I suspect this is a transparent attempt to convince those who plan to attend Friday's rally to stay away. I doubt it will work though. In fact it just made up my mind to make sure I get there.

I guess I won't be running into OttaWALLY, Simon or Ed there huh?

Mike said...

Ha, Ha, Ha,

I just noticed the comment from an anon saying:

"I just checked out the "Sir Robert Bond Papers" and loved it!!!

Great articles.......intelligent points of view ...and not another Danny Williams "Love-in"


Waaay better than this blog."

Sounds like a movie review. Come on Ed and Simon, which of you decided to log on as an anon and post that little ditty?

My only response is, if that "other" blog is so good why is Ed wasting his time on this one? Lonely there I guess with only Him, Simon and Wally to talk with.

Signed, Not really Mike but an anon posing as Mike.

Anonymous said...

Ed: Quote You said If oil prices drop because of a slowdown in the economy, many of the very expensive projects offshore NL, like even Hebron, look less and less attractive. Unquote

"YES" Ed Analysts with probably much more trained eyes and ears and expertise, in that area than you, are saying exactly that can happen. Oil can retreat down to $25 per barrel. And, No matter where the Oil Project is, it will look less attractive. It will not be endemic to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador Oil Fields. When it happens it will be like a contagious disease, it will sweep the whole spectrum.

Deirdre Greene said...

My, oh my, anonymous. You have me at a disadvantage. You seem to know (or assume) all about me, though I know nothing about you. How can I respond? Systematically, I guess. First, anonymous, to avoid general embarrassment, my name is spelled "Deirdre", not "Dierdre". It's Irish Gaelic, so I certainly understand your lack of familiarity, though not your apparent lack of ability to read and reproduce what I typed in my previous three posts. Second, anonymous, there is nothing I "would have you believe"; your beliefs hold little interest for me. Third, anonymous, I am more than able to discover things without being "informed" by my husband. Are you suggesting that, as a woman, I am not capable of independent research and recognition? Tut, tut. Fourth, anonymous, if I thought any of my comments were melodramatic, I would not have made them. Nothing is evil in the beginning - most of the most awful things in the world begin with a noble thought and a noble goal. What could be more noble than "From each according to ability; to each according to need"????? Yet it led to desperate privation and ruthless oppression in the whole communist world. I suggest you read more world history to expand your perspective - unless, of course, you see Newfoundland & Labrador as too small, insignificant, isolated or ignorant to participate in the intellectual trends experienced in the rest of the world. Fifth, anonymous, I thank you for your endorsement of my parental right and obligation to review the published material with which my children come into contact. You must have children of your own; congratulations. Sixth, anonymous, if I wanted my children to read anything, I'd provide it to them; literature of all kinds is a staple in my household. Seventh, anonymous, I frankly don't know if I agree with my husband's remarks. They were taken down before I visited the blog and so there really is no way I could know - although we agree on most things, we have some differences of opinion. People of good will often do. Finally, ANONYMOUS, I will have no further conversation with a person who lacks the courage and courtesy to identify him or her self; feel free to "speak" to me if you identify yourself, but do not expect response unless you do. Thank you for this interesting and illuminating correspondence.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your timely response Deirdre (did I spell that correctly?).

When a poster has to use a spelling error as a rebuttal, well lets just say that you are grasping at straws. You come across one of those persons who looks down on us little folk, am I right? You come across as a smarmy, holier than thou snob to be perfectly frank, but its just my impression from your post(s) - Tut tut and all.

You ended you last post by stating that you will not respond to any further post by anonymous posters as myself, well i guess that is your choice/loss. Perhaps you feel I/wee are not your intellectual equals, your loss Tut tut!

Anonymous said...

Thank-you for your comment Deirdie,

Many of your points are well taken but should you be chastizing somone for not identifying themselves when you came online, complaining about what was said to Simon and didn't identify yourself as his spouse?

After being "outed" you finally admitted that he is your husband, finally, so are you any better than an anonymous poster.

You say you don't know if you agree with his comments or not since they were taken down. You neglect to mention that they were taken down by him before too many people had the chance to read them.

Fortunately, a couple of us had the forsight to make copies of his words and though it has already been posted in another comment above (that your husband can't delete) here once again for your viewing pleasure and to give you a chance to say whether or not you (and his other defender Ed) agree with his words, is a copy.

Simon Lono said...
Here's the joyful part of this entire exchange.

Look up. . .waaaaay up .. .and you'll see several answers to the question: "Won't won't the Globe and Mail print the letter".

The answers are clear, unambiguous, based in real world circumstances and so simple.

Yet it seems that's not acceptable.

My bet is that no answer that not based on paranoia, perceived repression, and possible political contempt will ever be acceptable because those are the only answers acceptable to you.

There are none so blind as those who will not see and none so closed as those who will only accept the answer that panders to their own prejudices.

But of course the *real* question is "Why won't the world bend to the will of Danny Williams and give is what we want?"

I won't be at the event on Friday because i have a real life and real activities in the real world - I coach and train the next generation of NL leaders to become clear and articulate speakers and thinkers. And I do that the old-fashioned way: through patient effort and mentoring.

Now I will be accompanying a crew to a prestigious national event and they will be going because they *earned* their way out - not because of any sense of entitlement or reparation.

I remember why I stayed out of these discussions and why I normally refrain from contributing. This is a snake's nest of hateful venomous neo-nationalist navel-gazing presented by a gang of the NL equivalent of Archie Bunkers who blame the world for their problems and and can't figure out why a red-blooded white-skinned proud patriotic NL'er can't get an even break in a cruel and contemptuous world as you sit in your comfy chair, read the Independent, listen to Great Big Sea on the stereo and drink a bottle of Screech in your fisherman's sweater in the big plastic-covered house in the samey suburbs of Commonwealth Avenues.

It's the same kind of professional NL'er who wears the Pink-White-Green to cocktail parties with your buddies from MUN res - ready to defend the outports but secretly grateful for not living there because it's too far from George Street, the Mall and the LSPU.

Shallow, hollow, empty, negative pseudo-pride with no motivating force of expression other than greedy grasping demands for endless compensation for historical grievance.

We have the Premier we deserve.

So let's have the truth Deirdie and Ed, do you agree with Simon's comments or not? A simple yes or no will do just fine.

Patriot said...

Mr. Hollett.

I was reading through a few of today's comments and while I find most of them a little tedious in their subject matter, some of your's included, I was struck by one defending Simon Lono, taking a shot at me and essentially asking that other posts be taken down.

First of all, Simon made his bed, he should lie in it. He also was the one who took the post down, not me.

I don't delete any posts unless I find the language X rated in some way.

As for removing the posts of Anons or even barring them, I will not do that sir. You have multiple blogs, though you appear to be spending more time writing for my site than your own. On your own site you set the rules, on this one I do.

I find it very disturbing that someone who is taking the stand that freedom of speech is all around us would even suggest that I should remove comments. I find it equally disturbing that the only people ever to request that anonymous posts be bared or removed are you and WJM. Both clearly federalist at hear.

Personally I prefer open and honest dialogue even if it sometimes goes astray. I'd much prefer that to type of censorship you are requesting.

I also noticed in my read though of posts that one Anon contributor reposted the comments made by Simon and asked if you and his wife (I believe?) agreed with them. I would also be very interested in that answer since you appear to be defending him.

deirdre greene said...

OK, OK, ya got me. I responded to anonymous posts AGAIN. SIGH. I guess I'm a sucker. Thank you, Anonymous 1, for getting the spelling of my name right. I suppose I used the spelling error as just a way to begin. I always believed that correctly addressing a person - Premier Williams, not Danny; Stephen, not Steve; anonymous, not - oh, you never gave your name - was a sign of respect for the person, as well as attention to detail. But no matter. However, you accused me of some kind of tangential anonymity because I did not declare, on first posting, that I am wed to one Simon Lono. Are you suggesting that a woman's identity is vested in her husband? I'm afraid I cannot agree. I believe all people have or should have individual identity and intellectual standing. Tell me, if you can identify yourself - do YOU think I'm wrong? Are women merely adjuncts of men? I was brought up in a conservative household, believing in the identity, opinions and invilolable rights of the individual. I wonder do you have any belief or confidence in yourself? You may speculate all you like on my attitudes to others, but I do emphasize that YOU raised the issue of intellectual equality. I prefer to relate to people on the basis on more humane and less subjective attributes, such as character. Gotta go read the other "Deirdie" post now. Enjoy your evening.

Deirdre Greene said...

Apologies, anonymous 1 & 2. I attributed comments of anonymous 2 to anonymous 1. I did not mean to, but this lack of self-identification is confusing. It's not how I'm used to discussing things. I identified myself, AS MYSELF, from my first posting. I've been Deirdre Greene for 43 years, and won't stop now. I object to any attempt to require me to identify myself as an adjunct to my husband, and I believe most 20th and 21st century convention is with me. Further, I was not engaging in this discourse to support Simon Lono, but rather to object to the string's corrosive tone - and because I know nothing is evil in the beginning, I understand that this blog is ultimately aimed at celebrating Newfoundland and Labrador, which I support. However, yes, anonymous 2, I agree with Simon's thought as posted above, though I would not have chosen to express it in that way. Perhaps he had the same reflection when he took the post down. But a simple yes or no won't do. This is not Perry Mason. Public discourse is never that simple. But I digress. Yes, I agree with the substance of Simon Lono's comment, as posted here. One thread of Newfoundland and Labrador's public discourse has become infected with grotesquely negative thought and comment. It is founded in a love of this place, but has been embittered by real or perceived injustices and slights. It characterizes Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as degraded simpletons and dupes (what else can we have been if we have been betrayed, manipulated, oppressed and putatively lacking self respect for centuries?) and it characterizes ALL our previous leaders as either stupid or wicked. I cannot and will not accept that. I am NOT engaging in this post to defend Simon Lono - he is more than capable of doing that on his own. Sigh - anonymous 1, 2 and all, you have worn me out. I have a real life to attend to. Regards.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Patriot:

At no point did I suggest removing comments.

What I would suggest is that you eliminate the anon feature altogether.

if that isn't something you want to do then at least weigh in once in a while to have the comments such as "asshole" repeatedly use by starrigan removed - by himself - or face deletion.

Basically what you have here is a free-for-all in which people are able to make any comment they want to make and face no retribution at all...that is unless it happens to be a point of view you disagree with.

This is your space and you can do what you want with it. But frankly whether I comment more here than on Bond is completely irrelevant. Maybe you find it tedious that I simply state facts to dispell some of the myths your other commenters have been spreading. Again, that's irrelevant.

Those two reactions and your acceptance of abusive comments gives a good sense that this spoace isn't so much about dialogue but propaganda.

That and giving free reign to one side while discouraging different points of view. Kind of ironic given the amount of time spent by some discussing free speech.

Anonymous said...

Ed: Your true allegiance to Big Oil is not healthy for this province, seeing that you are against our Premier's proposal of having equity. Why give Big Oil everything without taking an equity position for ourselves? I know that you make an arguement that Alberta only takes a small percentage and picks up ground some place else, but Alberta didn't always use that template. For many years it used the template that saw it to a space where it can do, now, what it is doing. So please Ed let the province of Newfoundland and Labrador finds its oil legs, thus get on its feet with that industry and then the province will find itself in the space eventually where Alberta is now. Alberta had many, many years of dealings in the Oil industry, so therefore, it is well established and knows the oil industry inside out, and is confident of every move that it is making.

We are like a babe in the woods, as it relates to the knowledge that the province has garnered so far on the oil industry, and the province is still in a vulnerable position. I think Premier Danny Williams is taking matters in stride, and he isn't going to rush into things too fast and then see that we have given everything away for a song, no different than we did with our other resources.

Russel Wangersky had an article in the Telegram this week on the giveaways of our resources, and the ridiculous way in which the province's politicians did so. It was a great article by Russel but very gut wrenching to see that whole sectors were given away to one party or another. Thanks Russel for writing the article.

Starrigan said...

Sweet mother of god. We know have Simple Simons Mrs. in on the action. She asks, "Are women merely adjuncts of men?" ARE YOU SERIOUS? It's bad enough we have Ottawally and Crazy Eddy in here yapping off like a couple of crackies on caffeine but now we Deirdre in here shooting off on the wackiest tangent yet. I suggest you go visit one of Crazy Eddies blogs. No need to panic there is plenty of room over there.

And by the way I would like to correct something you whined to Myles about earlier. I didn't call you an asshole, I called you an a$$hole, it's a little different, you see I took out the 2 S's and replaced them with dollar signs $$. Not the same thing. It's just a little play on letters .... get it. Atta boy. There's hope yet.

BTW did I call you an a$$hole yet today??? No? Hey Crazy Eddy you're an a$$hole and so is Ottawally. I'm not sure about Simple Simon, he may just be a spazz.

Be sure to tune in later folks when Crazy Eddy enlists the support of his whacky uncle Jake and his cousin Tommy Three Thumbs. Everyone is welcome to freenewfoundlandlabrador.blogspot.com you don't really have to say anything that matters you just need to be an a$$hole like Crazy Eddy.

WJM said...

SO, THEREFORE, IN ESSENCE WHAT YOU ARE REALLY SAYING IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THE NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS AND THEY CAN HAVE DAMN WELL PRINTED IN THESE NEWSPAPERS WHAT THEY DAMN WELL LIKE.

No, that is neither in essence, nor in anything else, what I am saying, nor what I am "really" saying.

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. You should have it checked out.

IT REALLY ISN'T THE EDITOR OF THE NEWSPAPER'S CALL ON WHAT TO REJECT, IT IS THE FEDERAL GOVENMENT'S!

Where do you get that from?

You're the one who seems to think it should be the government's call, albeit the PROVINCIAL government's.

IF THAT IS THE CASE, CANADA IS NO BETTER THAN CHINA IF CANADA/OTTAWA HAS SUCH CONTROL OVER THE NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS.

You are the one who wants newspapers to be REQUIRED to print letters from politicians, not me.

WJM said...

I realize some people may abuse the use of that anon ability but its the price we all pay for freedom of speech.



If I knew, for example, that one of the anon posters were a publicly elected official or some other public figure who was spreading racist or bigoted opinions I'd call them out as well.


But threats against a person are OK?

Wow.

WJM said...

Well, Patriot, apparently you do if you are going to tolerate not merely anonymous posts but personally abusive insulting posts that make sleazy accusations without a shred of evidence.

And he tolerates threats.

Nice.

WJM said...

Some people are very hypocritical, aren't they? They want to have Premier Danny shut down from having a rebuttal printed in the National NewspaperPapers.

Who are these people?

WJM said...

Premier Danny has lots of time to wait out the Big Oil.

"Big Oil", capitalized like that, is almost as good a signature of the Eighth Floor Bunker in Confederation Building as the line "After 58 years...".

Hi, Liz!

WJM said...

Premier Danny has lots of time to wait out the Big Oil.

"Big Oil", capitalized like that, is almost as good a signature of the Eighth Floor Bunker in Confederation Building as the line "After 58 years...".

Hi, Liz!

WJM said...

There has always been some pretty good discussions on this blog. The biggest irritation was WJM and his moronic attempt at disrupting by continouosly asking inane questions.

Why do you refer to me in the past tense?

Sorry, is that an "inane question"?

Oops, what about that one?

Can't help myself.

Someone has to ask questions, since questions are no longer permitted in Dannystan.

WJM said...

I have to say I love this. The points are being made right left and center and the fact that three of the purest federalists on the web, Wally, Ed and Simon(some paid by political groups as well) are spending so much time in here the past couple of days is a sure sign of worry upalong.

Yes it is, Peter. You are wise to the ways of Upalong. Clever, clever, boy. The conspiracy is unmasked; everyone can go home now.

WJM said...

I don't delete any posts unless I find the language X rated in some way.

But threats are OK?

Wow.

NL-ExPatriate said...

You made me laugh Starrigan LOL.

I too was a little confused with the feminist remarks like where the hell did that come from?

Oh well like I always say what color is the sky in your world.

Anonymous said...

Holy smokes Batman, the federalies are in overdrive it seems.

Deirdre, I thought you were not going to respond to any further anon posters, whats up?

Firstly, nowhere in my posts (please reread if you need to) did I make any reference to women needing men to legitimize them, this I believe is either you being a tad over sensitive or you trying to deflect with a red herring (a federalie trick). Secondly, it is a heck of a coincidence that you showed up on this blog very shortly after your hubby put in an appearance. Be honest, you did not STUMBLE upon the blog, be honest now.

You stated that you were not aware of the post put forth by your hubby, in reference to the inhabitants of this province (was not flattering). You can scroll up to read it if you like, one of the anon posters saved your huby's comments for us to take a peek at, I guess your hubby did'nt delete it quickly enough, sucks to be him.

Deirdre, I hope you will not feel that I am picking on you here, its just that I felt some points needed to be brought up for your consumption.

Have a lovely day, and say hi to hubby.

Anonymous said...

How many of the anonymous posters are:

- Paid officials of the provincial government?

- Well known figures masquerading as ordinary citizens?

- Paid agents of the provincial PC Party?

- Some of the same people who get messages to spread from the Premier's high paid staff?

- People who work for the Premier's companies or for companies his good buddies own?

That's the reason they don't want people to know who they are.

Anonymous said...

Sure it is anon. That's why you just posted anonymously and why 90% of anonymous posts on this site are anti-NL (this particular thread excluded).

Get a life.

Anonymous said...

I would like to say I have never received $1 dollar of Provincial Money or Federal Money in my whole life. I have worked for private companies; and I am one of the regular posters to this blog.

I have never met Premier Williams personally, I once saw him at a distance in a 'Meet and Greet' for the Brad Gushue Curling Team.
I do this for the love of my province Newfoundland and Labrador. I know full well how we had the wool pulled over our eyes and and that we lost most of our natural resources, which have made us a 'have not ' province and instead reinforced strong economies in the other provinces that were on the receiving line of our resources.

I knew someone had and has to wage a campagin on that issue. I decided a few years ago that I would do what I am doing. And I continue to battle people like WJM, ED and Simon, all Federalist, who appear to be suffering from the "Me Syndrome". Those people think they are the only ones in this province who have needs.

Anonymous said...

Okay, what is Wally smoking? Why is he tossing out the threats red herring, or maybe I do know (federalie trick).

I sauntered over to ed hollet's blog (the toilet papers), not much activity over there, well besides hollets scriblings. Did you get lonely and decide to pop over here ed?

Anonymous said...

Speaking for this anon;

I am NOT affiliated with ANY political party.

I do NOT consistently vote for ANY particular political party.

I have NOT recieved one red copper from a political party or politician.

Anonymous said...

Neither would I stoop so low to disadvantage my people. Taking patronage handouts has been the bane of the problems that exist here in Newfoundland and Labrador. A few people will do anything to destroy it for the masses of us. Patronage plums have to stop. It sucks the blood or resources out of this province. Some people will stoop so low as an insect.

Deirdre Greene said...

This stuff is too much fun. Starrigan said "BTW did I call you an a$$hole yet today??? No? Hey Crazy Eddy you're an a$$hole and so is Ottawally. I'm not sure about Simple Simon, he may just be a spazz." I haven't had so much fun since Grade 6, in the playground. I keep promising myself I won't come back, but it's a guilty pleasure, like watching a soap opera. Starrigan, the fact that you refer to me as "Simple Simons Mrs" lends some credence to my feminist concern. Try not argue against yourself; it'll work out better for you.

To the anonymous poster who has the simple courtesy to call me by my own name: thank you - your comment is measured and thoughtful, though I do not agree with you here. Don't worry, I don't feel picked on - I've been verbally attacked by some of the best minds in the English-speaking world and walked away with only minor cuts and bruises ;-)

Because you asked so nicely, I'll explain: I really did stumble on this blog, but not entirely by accident. I'm not a blogger and I'm not particularly political, so I don't really read many blogs, except a periodic gander at BondPapers, OffalNews and MeekerOnMedia. Over dinner the other day (you know, the way people talk about their day?) Simon mentioned that there was a crazy discussion string on Web Talk that was just getting out of hand. I started googling around when I got back to my computer and eventually found it.

I have to say, I don't think I could spend much time at this - all the negative talk and personal attack is a BIG downer. It's funny for about 30 seconds, when when you realize that the people who are slinging insults and innuendo under cover of anonymity (I'm not talking about you, Mr Courteous Anonymous) are actually adults, it stops being funny. This is not MY Newfoundland & Labrador. And while some folks seem to think the sheer quantity of comment is a good thing, I don't think it's very productive, as public discourse.

I *will* have a good day, thanks; have a good one yourself. And if I talk to Simon (he's out of the province on a volunteer project - coaching and chaperoning Jr High debaters at a national competition) I will give him your regards.

Ed Hollett said...

One of the anons wrote: "I know full well how we had the wool pulled over our eyes and and that we lost most of our natural resources,..."

Would you like to explain that one. Who pulled what wool and when? And since the Province of NL controls all natural resources in the province PLUS controls offshore oil, how does that constitute a loss of any, let alone "most resources?

"I decided a few years ago that I would do what I am doing."

And that would be making comments under the cloak of anonymity and slagging people off who disagree with you.

Obviously it's been a very successful approach. About as convincing as the people who have been insisting they aren't on the government payroll yet who still refuse to identify themselves.

I don't know if that's irony or hypocrisy, but it is hysterically funny.

WJM said...

Okay, what is Wally smoking? Why is he tossing out the threats red herring, or maybe I do know (federalie trick).

Do you know what "red herring" even means?

No, you do not.

An anonymous coward has twice now made veiled threats against my person ont this blog.

Myles, compassionate Newfoundlander that he is, doesn't care.

Patriot said...

WJM,

Thank-you for recognizing me as a "compassionate Newfoundlander". I am.

Also I do care if someone has threatened you here but I haven't seen the posts. I'm sure if this is the case you must have copies so if you send them to me directly (you know my email address) I'll take a look at them and if they appear to be threats I'll remove them.

I don't appreciate being accused of allowing that sort of behaviour especially by somone who identified a similar incident in the past and I indeed removed the post and suggested you contact the police. Other than that there isn't much I can do.

And in case you planned to ask again, no, I won't bar anon posters.

Anonymous said...

whether you believe I am on the provincial gov payroll or not is of little concern to me, believe whatever fantasy that you will.

Anonymous said...

that is what WJM does best Patriot. His purpose is to weave a web of deception and stir up trouble. I'll give him full marks on both counts, he has performed well in that role.

Apparantly his life is endangered from somebody on this site now (we need a roll eyes emoticon). WJM, 'M' for martyr I suppose.

I tend to pass over most of his tedious postings.

Anonymous said...

Ed I see you choose not to agree or disagree with me that Alberta is in a much different space in its Oil Industry than the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Alberta is the King of the Castle and knows the industry inside/out. Newfoundland and Labradors' Oil Industry is in its infancy. Alberta has gone through all the phases that we are now going through long ago. It takes years of knowledge and experience in dealing with Big Oil to know Big Oil. Like I said Premier Williams is taking his time and trying to do this right. He is trying to get for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador what it deserves out of its Oil resource. We have been a 'have not' province for far too long, and if you read Russell Wangersky's column of Tuesday May 8, 2007 in The Telegram, you will get some idea of the reasons why.

Ed could this be the reason? Alberta is now going for less equity because it is gaining in the area where the Oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador has not matured to? Give the industry time and Newfoundland and Labrador will probably be able to play the same game. And maybe because of Ottawa's control over our Oil since it is under the Ocean, maybe we will never evolve to that stage? Maybe the type of manoeuvring that is available to Alberta is not available to Newfoundland and Labrador. I don't know, do you?

Edward G. Hollett said...

Anonymous on Alberta:

Frankly I don't quite follow what you are on about.

I have contended all along that Alberta and NL are in different stages of oil and gas development. That's a penetrating insight into the flipping obvious.

All you have done - having made numerous factual errors previously if you are the same anon - is agree with the facts I presented. Nobody is suggesting that anything in the oil industry has been given away or would have been given away under the Hebron proposal.

No one that is except the Premier who makes strawmen and then bravely sets them alight. Likewise, we get claims like yours: "He is trying to get for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador what it deserves out of its Oil resource."

Who hasn't?

Who doesn't want that?

If we strip the ego content in that comment we are left with not much at all. He can try all he wants but his intentions won't matter a row of beans if his approach has the opposite effect. That is the point that I and others have been trying to make.

With that said, what you have not addressed is the point that I made. Increasing the costs in a highly competitive industry may have the opposite effect of encouraging further growth.

You state: "And maybe because of Ottawa's control over our Oil since it is under the Ocean, maybe we will never evolve to that stage?"

Well, actually under the 1985 deal, the NL government functionally controls offshore oil and has all the ability to regulate the industry and collect revenues from it as if it were on land. The control argument was fought and won by Peckford in 1985.

The only people who continue to talk about it are those who don't want to face the 2007 reality that we know a great deal about oil and gas. Control becomes a diversion for taking a hard look at actual policies to see what can realistically be done to develop the industry. We need serious talk; we get heated - and largely hollow - rhetoric.

If we do not reach a higher stage of oil and gas development we have no one to blame but ourselves.

WJM said...

Also I do care if someone has threatened you here but I haven't seen the posts.

Yes you have, since you discussed one of them with me via email on March 26.

I don't appreciate being accused of allowing that sort of behaviour

It's not an accusation. It's a fact. You've allowed it twice now.

Anonymous said...

Ed: Even though the Inventory is great now in the holding tanks of Big Oil around the world and there is a slowdown in the economy that is upon us. Be assured Big Oil is still looking for resevoirs of Oil to tap. Don't worry Ed, when inventory in the holding tanks is looking like it is about to be depleted, Big Oil will be knocking on Premier Danny's door, a door that not only holds the entry to a resevoir of Oil but also holds great security for Big Oil, once the proper contract has been negotiated.

WJM said...

His purpose is to weave a web of deception

No, actually it's to cut through the web of deception willingly spun by Newfoundland nationalists and other assorted ignorant folk.

Patriot said...

TO WJM

In your post you quoted me and said:

(Myles)Also I do care if someone has threatened you here but I haven't seen the posts.

(Wallace)Yes you have, since you discussed one of them with me via email on March 26.

(Myles)I don't appreciate being accused of allowing that sort of behaviour

(Wallace)It's not an accusation. It's a fact. You've allowed it twice now.

Wallace:

That's not a very nice response to an honest attempt to address what you see as threats.

I have not seen the most recent comment you are referring to and until you send it too me I won't. As you can see there are hundreds of often lengthy comments in here and I don't intend to weed through every one looking for anything you might view as a problem.

As I said, send it to me and I'll address it.

As for the incident in March, I had just assumed I deleted it however I guess I may not have since you never asked me to do so.

In your email to me at that time you said:

What, then, do you propose we do about the message posted by LIE at
March 24, 2007 5:49 PM?

I have conserved a copy even if you remove it.

I responded by saying:

Hi Wallace,

I just read the comment in question and although I believe it is simply rhetoric, I can see how it could be seen as a threat to your well being and be upsetting. I usually don't remove comments at a readers request but in this case if you would like me to delete it just let me know and I'll take it down.

One of the perils of any of us being involved in speaking out is the potential for some tempers to become heated. Just let me know if you would like it removed. As I said, it's likely just some hot head but I would suggest that you keep a copy and if you feel strongly enough about the potential threat perhaps you should also make a police report on the issue.

Myles

I did not receive a follow up email from you asking me to take it down even though I offered to do so. I guess I considered it a dead issue at that point because you didn't.

I really can't do much more than that except what you have asked me to do multiple times, block all anons. That I won't do.

I'd prefer in future that you at least try to be civilized enough to respond to sincere attempts to address your concerns in a reasonable manner rather than going on the attack.

Once again I will ask you if you would like to forward me any worrisome comments and if they truly appear to be threats I'll remove them.

WJM said...

I really can't do much more than that except what you have asked me to do multiple times, block all anons. That I won't do.

I have never asked you to "block" them; I've asked you to disallow anonymous postings. There's a difference.

I have not seen the most recent comment you are referring to and until you send it too me I won't.

It's in this thread. I already drew your attention to it at May 06, 2007 10:23 PM. Would you like it FedExed or something?

It's up to you to read the comments in your own blog.

Patriot said...

Listen Wallace, if you want to get snotty when someone is honestly trying to help you then I'll block your posts. And yes, not allowing anons is not really any different than blocking them if you get right down to it.

You may have called my attention to it through a post but if you were really serious you would have emailed me. You know my email address or do I have to FedEx that to you.

Once again, I will look at the post and if I find it threatening (which the first one you complained about really wasn't, then I'll delete it.

The original one in March was just some guy who said he didn't believe in the death penalty until he read your stuff. Come of for heaven's sake, I've had more serious threats than that from a two year old and even then I offered to take it down but you failed to respond to tell me you wanted me to.

I do read the comments on this page but over the past few days with you, Ed and Simon tag teaming I certainly don't have the time to read them all.

Get over yourself.

Patriot said...

WJM,

For clarity, the folowing is the comment you claim is a threat against you. However I read it as somone saying they will be calling the RNC on you over some issue and that you will be put in jail.

Not a nice thing to say but hardly a bodily threat of any kind. If this person has some evidence against you that would require the RNC putting you in jail it's essentially his or her civic duty to present it to them. Hopefully that is not the case.

Here is the the so called threat which won't be removed because it doesn't threaten your life or physical well being at all:

"...for WJM to come in here and say the "COMPLETE LOAD OF SEAL S@%$" that he isn't being paid to do what he does,then I'm the first person to have the balls to call him a liar to his face .He's a piece of scum sucking seal S#@$,and bud,when I do get a those records ,and I promise you I will ,your the first person that the R.N.C will be coming to visit.
Don't get use to living in the "BIG LAND" ,cause were your going ,the view won't be that good .

Anonymous said...

Artfull Dodger said....

I just thought I would jump in here with my two pennies.

It seems to me that Patriot's blog is rather busy, even with anonymous postings. To those who are asking for the anon postings to be dis allowed, consider that many people, perhaps casual observers, wish to jump in on the various issues and add their point of view. WJM seems to have a problem with anon's, as do a couple other persons, but they have no problem responding to the anons. My advice to WJM and company, is to ignore the anons if they have such a problem with them posting on the blog. Patriot is well within his right to allow or dis allow content on the blog as he see's fit. I don't think it is reasonable for others to dictate to Patriot how he should run his blog.

My sense is that WJM would not be as voiciferous in condemning anons if the anons were in agreement with all of WJM's points, but I could be mistaken.

We all can use our own judgement whether or not to post or not post to a particular blog, aint nobody twisting our arm to do so!

Patriot said...

Thanks for the clear headed comment Artful.

Well it looks like we are approching the 200th comment on this thread. I wonder who will be the one to hit the mark.

I hope it isn't WJM or ED. They many not fully appreciate the PWG flag I'm offering as a prize.

Edward G. Hollett said...

If anyone cares to look, anyone offering a comment here can post anonymously, use a blogger account or post under a name.

The people posting anonymously chose to do so. When some of those same people - or the same person - carries on with what we've seen here, it is pretty obvious how quickly the whole discussion gets sidetracked with what should be, frankly, a total non-issue.

And Patriot, I'll gladly accept the PWG. I'll add it to my collection.

Part of the issue has to be handled by those making comments themselves, of course. If all you have left is a personal smear, then perhaps there's no reason to make a comment at all.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 219   Newer› Newest»