06 July 2008

Where's your messiah now, see?

In these miraculous times, even those grown weary can find succor in the second - or is it the third?  - coming of yet another political saviour.

Not content with merely refreshing his own political soul, the true believer must  spread the word of  the (latest) deliverer's imminent return, now that the Way before this one has turned out to be a dead end. 

Maybe messiah-spotting comes easier when you've spotted a few before.

The converted - or is it the prodigal? -  must attack the heretics who didn't turn up for the  loaves and fishes enjoyed by the multitude at a cleverly unnamed event that look's like it was held in  - appropriately enough -  a church basement.

Seems, though, that  multitude-size estimating continues to bedevil the faithful even for sermons they didn't organize.

All of this is in good humour, but it does make you wonder which prescient partisan pronounced these words:

One member of the Liberal Caucus, a sometimes nemesis, once remarked that people did not trust me because no one really knew what my agenda was.

-srbp-

2 comments:

Peter L. Whittle said...

Ed:

Your personal agenda is somewhat questionable. I am not being partisan but commenting on some political events as of late. Unlike you, I am not marching to the beat of some partisan tune.

I will continue to march to my own drum. I am not hailing the potential return of John Efford as some sort of "Messiah". I do see an opportunity here for the opposition liberals. I mean how much worse can it get. As I said all in all, I think he can bring more to provincial politics at the moment than take away.


Messiah's are false prophets and I got no time for them. The right cause and I may jump in.

It is a shame that you waste so much time sniping at me. It is your time to waste I guess.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Peter:

It was actually very interesting to go back and read your first post over at PAP and see all the wonderful words about dialogue, exchange and conversation.

It's actually hysterically funny given that for most of the time you've been running PAP, you've been censoring comments left, right and centre. You've scurried away from anything that even vaguely looks like a conversation like a bag full of scalded cats. At least here, there is no censorship. Your comments appear right away in all their glory.

And now we see that you not only haven't got anything like a sense of humour, you still have the love affair with the ad hominem slag.

If that's all you've got, then slag away. What is it they say about ad hominem attacks and last refuges?

You keep claiming that you aren't partisan. You insist upon it at every juncture. You say it over and over again to the point where anyone could only conclude that you are desperately - even frantically - trying to convince yourself it is true. The rest of us might come to a different opinion.

Had you not posted the FUBAR thing and what amounts to a fairly obvious, venomous attack on Yvonne, you might have been able to keep up the pretense that you are just a casual observer without an agenda.

I won't bother to disprove your self-defence here by throwing your own words at you. others can go read for themselves. In the meantime, you'll just scream some ad hominem trash at me and ignore the evidence of your own posts.

In the end, though, I suppose I am wasting my time not in sniping at you - since that's not what I am doing - but in trying to engage you in a substantive discussion on any topic.

I took your first post at its word. Turns out that was my mistake.