06 December 2009

When Worlds Collide

There is one Steve who is dear, oh so dear to the Premier’s heart.

We speak, dear friends of Danny Williams former law partner – Steve Marshall – who apparently came out of his self-imposed Internet retirement this week to leave a comment on a column by Telegram editor Brian Jones.

Now others have taken a few smacks at Steve as you can see from the stuff after his little rant, but for this post let’s look at his words from another angle or two.

For starters, there is nothing in Brian Jone’s column that should leave Steve evidently so overwrought that one would suspect a youtube video cannot be far behind.

Besides, if the wind beneath Steve’s wings is really enjoying the “the highest of approval ratings from us out here in that real world”, Steve should hardly be so distraught he must not only pen a comment criticising a Telegram editor for a column but also drag in another fellow who wasn’t mentioned in the column, and who does nothing more exciting than clack out a few words on a small corner of the Internet.

No, he wouldn’t.

So what gives?

Simply put, Steve is like Tony the Tory.

He is a barometer, if you will, of the mood in certain circles.

The mood is evidently quite black.

You can tell it is black not only because Steve is haunting the comments sections again but also because Steve uses all the classic Fan Club arguments – hugely popular, tireless toiler for the peons like us blah blah blah – and the usual direct personal attack using equally shop worn invective against those who are, in Steve’s World anyway, defilers of the Kingdom.

Yes friends, those of us who dare to speak our minds do not live in what Steve considers the real world.

Yet consider this: for the past three years or so, your humble e-scribbler has faithfully and regularly warned that provincial government spending was unsustainable.

What with the known pressures on spending for health care that are already here and will grow, with the changes in the work force and all the rest, it would be folly to raise government spending to incredible heights in such short period based solely on highly unpredictable oil prices and without doing something significant to pay off debt. That is a opposed to masking it with an assets and liabilities statement about the “net debt”.

That’s what has been one of the major themes here in what Steve would regard presumably as the unreal world.

These are views that Steve would likely characterise as being “negative, pessimistic, constant, repetitive and downright boorish”.

And incidentally, your humble e-scribbler was not alone in his wicked contentions. The Auditor General said the same thing, in slightly different words. According to finance minister Tom Marshall, even one of the province’s bond raters even asked about sustainability.

How odd then that in the past few weeks, the Object of Steve’s Affection and his key ministers have acknowledged that provincial government spending is …wait for it… “unsustainable”.

This is what happens when unreal world lawyer/businessman Steve lives in meets head-long the world the rest of us toil in to earn our crusts of bread.

You get that sort of jarring disconnection in which Steve leaps to the defence of someone who – by his own account – would [not] need any defence whatsoever from the peanut gallery.

Then you hit that arresting moment when he winds up attacking with such vicious personal slurs the very person he supposedly defends.

2012-movie-431x300And above all else, you see not so much what Steve wants you to see, but really a hint that maybe some great upheaval is about to take place; okay, well at least that some people are shit-baked their world is about to come to a crashing end.
-srbp-

45 comments:

steve said...

Eddie
third last paragraph...missed a negative....even when you're spitting mad you should really take time to re-read your posts before hitting send.
Cheers
Steve
PS..for the fourth time, who pays your salary?

Ed Hollett said...

Hey Steve, thanks for pikcing up the typo.

Who said anything about being angry? If you are Steve Marshall, you seem to be the one in a rather heightened emotional state these days.

Then again, since you are another one of the anonymous one's you could be anyone's sock puppett.

Nice of you to drop by, though.

steve said...

darn, forgot to put my last name there. Figured by giving my gmail account to log in it would be evident. I'm not mad Ed, just disappointed that there is never ever even a hint of support from you or Brian Jones no matter what this Government does.
Steve Marshall

spb said...

My thoughts exactly Steve. Ed how is it possible that you can always find a negative spin to everything the government does? It's truly a gift to be so consistently negative.

Just say one good thing. Try it. The Liberals may still give you another job the next time they are in power.

This is what this is all about isn't it? With the PCs in power, you job market suddenly dried up.

Ed Hollett said...

Nice to see you are working hard into the night for the Fan Club, Steve.

So when your man has got 70% or 80% popularity/support, why the heck should you care - let alone be disappointed - in what Brian Jones writes?

Ed Hollett said...

Wow, guys. I am so flattered that you are out late on a snowy night showering all this attention on this tiny corner of the Internet.

Evidently, the Fan Club is mighty riled about something.

You can tell the Fan Club is incensed because all they can do is take personal jabs.

Keep it up, guys. It just keeps reinforcing the point I made in the post.

The more you slag away in the way you always slag away, the more people can see that there is anxiety out there among members of the Fan Club.

Every one of your comments proves my point.

Keep it up.

WJM said...

It's truly a gift to be so consistently negative.

Indeed it is, which is why Gifted Lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, when he was Our Dear Opposition Leader, was so consisently negative. And look where he ended up.

New said...

Does the Danny Williams Government require support to get things done? Is there some secret special support engine with an empty love tank? If everyone started to support the Danny Williams Government would it magically start to get things done? That is a preposterous argument in every way imaginable. It reminds me of the old road-runner cartoons where you can walk off a cliff and so long as you don't look down gravity does not exist. Is pointing out these obvious inaccuracies akin to reminding the Danny Williams government that reality does exist? Why would Steve or spb need to attack people who are asking real pertinent questions. It is very curious indeed.

Wm. Murphy said...

So when your man has got 70% or 80% popularity/support, why the heck should you care - let alone be disappointed - in what Brian Jones writes?


The answer is simple when you are partisan and you support your Party. You care, because you either want your Leader to stay the same or for your Leader to improve his popularity. To do any less, wouldn't make you a good Party man.

Isn't that the basis of your partisan blog?

Concerning this claim of anxiety???? Now that is bewildering when your Party/Leader is 80% in the polls. What anxiety could there possibly be?

My definition of anxiety would be what the Liberal election fundraiser's are experiencing... not what Steve Marshall and company are going through

Wm. Murphy

Ed Hollett said...

1. "The answer is simple when you are partisan and you support your Party. You care, because you either want your Leader to stay the same or for your Leader to improve his popularity. To do any less, wouldn't make you a good Party man."

I am sure Brian won't take offence at this but he is hardly the most influential columnist at Telegram. If DW was really at 70 or 80% AND people like Steve genuinely believed it, the thoughts of Brian or me wouldn't matter a tinker's damn.

You read 'em. You chuckle and then you go back to work.

The fact that Steve even bothers to clack out a comment is telling.

2. "Isn't that the basis of your partisan blog?" I don't write a partisan blog. Ask the Liberals who've been on the receiving end of some of my comments.

In my experience the only people who consider this a partisan space AND who let that shape their view of what's written are already commited partisans.

Normal people remain open to considering that just maybe all those inconsistencies are real. They can read the comments, take 'em in and then move on.

Only partsans even have the need to keep arguing that BP is partisan...and therefore that explains something.

And trust me: I know from experience some partisans find it very disconcerting to see what was said at one point and what was said later or what was done. It really throws them for a loop. They lash out, take it personaly, make it personal, the whole nine yards.

Again a dead give-away.

Or, as with the unsustainable finances, they just go away because they just can't make reality fit with their slogan.

Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch.

But it is damn funny to watch.

3. "My definition of anxiety would be what the Liberal election fundraiser's are experiencing... not what Steve Marshall and company are going through."

Well, the next time I see a Liberal fundraiser writing letters to the paper, a la Tony the Tory, I'll buy that. As it is their life is pretty simple. They can draw in a bit of cash but people aren't gonna shell out cash for people not in a position to return the favour with some government cash. There is at least a perception of that if there isn't a reality and it goes back a long way into the dim dark not so distant past of local politics.

Take a look at the donation records. Companies that used to give big to the Libs now give big to the Tories and before the Libs they gave big to the Tories.

In fact that reminds me to post a curious bit of donating history.

And lookit, at the end of the day, if the Liberal Party goes tits up, it would be the banks holding the huge unpayable debt. As in other provinces, a new party might emerge or there a migration to the Tories and NDP, thereby dramatically shifting both.

But to get back to the point,

Steve, spb, PIG, Bones II, Taxpayer and a few others turn up in very predictable patterns saying very predictable things.

They are all over certain places lately for a very specific reason.

Jingles said...

This is a legitmate question: do you have a doctorite degree in Psychology?

Ed Hollett said...

This is a really legitimate question:

Who are you?

Wm. Murphy said...

I was with you until you said you don't write a partisan blog. Now no matter how you phrase that pronouncement , the fact of the matter is that you are partisan. We have had this chit chat before and you are completely dillusional if you think that that you are not a Liberal blogger. For the record, I have no issue with your leanings but to say otherwise is out to lunch.

What I did find telling is that all of a sudden I noticed that your profile does not include the fact that you worked for two Liberal Premier's.

Is that a coincidence or a "public" cleansing of your past partisianship?

The fact that some Libs are pissed off, does diddly squat to erase the fact that you do write a partisan blog. Again, the fact that you, or anyone else for that matter, writes a Liberal blog is not the issue, but the fact that you say you are not, is maddening!

It is no secret that you are Liberal and by extension your blog is also considered a Liberal blog. The more you say you are not partisan, the more you are considered to be one. I hope you have noticed that I said "considered." You may say you are not, but the general consensus in the small world of your Internet is that you are a Liberal

You have worked on countless campaigns for the Libs and to my knowledge not one PC or Dipper campaign over the years. Each morning you make your daily call to your dear friend on the 5th to get the buzz and from your regular emails from those outside of Borg central.

Now Ed, before you start tapping away on the keyboard in vigourous response, let me remind you that your political history, or who you break bread with, is not the issue. The issue is that you keep repeating the statement that you do not write a Liberal blog. It's time to come to Jesus and recite the edict ...."ED Hollett is a Liberal Blogger"...
Come on Ed, say after me. "Ed Hollett is a Liberal blogger"

and...so what if you are

Wm. Murphy

Ed Hollett said...

I am who I am but to say this is a partisan blog suggests that the arguments are twisted and distorted to fit a partisan spin.

That simply isn't true. They reflect my own views and that's it.

You may find that frustrating but that's your problem. I will not conform to fit your own view based on what appears to be entirely a matter of your own (mistaken) assumptions.

I have a certain background and experience but any suggestion my comments can be put down to the fact I was once a Liberal political staffer is facile, bordering on the imbecilic.

I make arguments based on something of substance. I provide the links to my own work and that of others as evidence to show where I got the ideas. Some people find that problematic, likely because it consistently shows that I am not simply pursuing a partisan agenda as they would like to believe.

BP is considered a partisan blog by some but that some consists almost entirely - in my experience - of Tory partisans who can think of no other way to deal with it.

I write a blog about public policy. I write it from the perspective of someone who was a political staffer in a Liberal administration between 1989 and 1996. But in addition I have my academic background in defence policy and my professional work as a public relations and public policy consultant.

People may like to try and stuff others into convenient pigeon holes but I will resist such an effort with my writing with every ounce of my being.

That sort of categorization suits all too conveniently the agenda of certain people who themselves have a decidedly partisan agenda; whether that includes you is an entirely different matter.

For my part, I started writing this almost five years ago for the simple reason that so much of what was being said in public about major issues was simply wrong. It was and is factually wrong.

Sound public policy cannot be based on misrepresentations, half-truths, fictions and fables and since there was no one offering that count-point, I stuck myself into the fray.

At times, I have defended Brian Peckford as vigorously as I have defend Clyde Wells. I did so because others were trashing him without even so much as a simple courteous acknowledge of what he accomplished during his tenure.

Frankly I think it is despicable that the attacks on Brian Peckford came from people who ought to know better and it is even more detestable that not one of his friends and colleagues came forward to offer so much as a whisper in his defence.

The bottom line is that you will believe whatever you will believe. But I think that if you read what I write without that partisan prejudice in your mind you will find - as some already have - that there is much more here than that very narrow view would admit.

steve said...

Ed
Why then have you never (ever) defended Danny Williams regards anything he has said/done?
Steve Marshall
PS. for the fifth time.....

Ed Hollett said...

well, Steve, why do I need to do that in your mind?

After all, there are enough knob-polishers out there falling over each other to do just that. Government employees a veritable army of people who bet paid to do nothing but put a happy shiny face on every government action.

As I said in response to Wm. Murphy, the point here has been consistently to present an alternate viewpoint, particularly one that is found on fact and evidence.

But given the legion of knob-polishers, yes-men, and all the rest, why would it be necessary in your mind to have one more added to the pile?

Aren't you able to handle the job yourself?

steve said...

Eddie
For the sixth time.....
Steve Marshall

Jingles said...

Mr. Ed of course you are a Liberal. You are listed under LiberalsONLINE.ca I too worked for Clide Wells and knew his wife very well. We are in the Girl Guides together. I respected the man and still do but I am not partiscan like you.

Jingles said...

Oppps....wrong spelling...that ought to be Clyde. Cheers, Cheers and more Cheers

Jingles said...

Oppps..another...were in the
Girl Guides. CHEERS

Jingles said...

"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." — Robert Francis Kennedy

Ed Hollett said...

@Steve:

For the umpteenth time, for the rest of the universe outside The Fan Club, it is not all about Danny and whether people love him or hate him. Your perspective is skewed, distorted and totally off base.

Your perspective becomes risible after a point because it is both obsessive and relentless. It never changes.

One gets a good sense of that perspective by your question. You referred to defending Danny Williams.

The rest of the world does not judge the rightness of their thoughts or their value in the universe by the proximity of their nose to his hind quarters.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Since there is a legion of knob-polishers out there already, the world needs a fresh point of view. It helps keep things in balance.

Maybe rather than wonder why I have not embraced the saviour you might ask yourself why it is that you have not publicly disagreed with him on anything.

Not a thing.

Not on slinging hydro lines through a world heritage site.

Not on unsustainable public spending.

Not a thing.

or did I miss something?

$ Jingles:

Thanks for the chuckle.

And @both of you: thanks once again for proving my point in the post over and over and over again.

Wm. Murphy said...

I am who I am but to say this is a partisan blog suggests that the arguments are twisted and distorted to fit a partisan spin.

That simply isn't true. They reflect my own views and that's it.


I am not twisting a thing. Your relections are rooted in being a Liberal. You are correct in saying that much of your arguments are based on substance and there is no denying that that you put a lot of effort in forming your arguments. But again that is not the point.

When most people read your posts they do so under the assumption that you are a Liberal. Your comments and assumptions may not be partisan but the fact that the author is a Liberal is tatamount to the argument that that they are reading a partisan blog.

That's the fact of the matter and you will be a busy and tired man in order to ..." resist such an effort with my writing with every ounce of my being."

And for something completely different, why don't you muse about the sorry state of the Opposition Office, the lack of grass roots organization in the Liberal Party and the fact that they do not have a credible Leader/interim Leader for Premier of the province.

Your silence on these public policy matters as it relates to the state of democracy in the province, is another reason why some may think that you are shying away from so called partisan views and topics.

Wm. Murphy

Ed Hollett said...

Your obsession with defining purely by a single aspect is commendable only for the obstinacy with which you stick to your effort.

But, that one single point does not define all - as you are contending - any more than everything about any given PC defines everything about that individual.

Your argument is built on assumption and then you assume that the assumption is a fact.

It isn't. It is an assumption.

You see, I would contend that you are a Tory. Everything about your comments - including your obsession with identifying me as a Liberal - screams Tory partisan. Maybe I am wrong.

But ultimately what difference does it make?

I opposed slinging power lines through Gros Morne because I thought it was the wrong thing to do.

I pointed out unsustainable spending because I thought it was the wrong thing to do. I proposed alternatives because I thought they were good ideas.

I think the Hebron deal is a good deal because it is a good deal. There are some areas to watch out for but, like Voisey's Bay, on balance, it works. White Rose extension and Hibernia South? Ditto. Good fundamentals with good add-ons by the current crew.

But if you think those positions or any others are the result of my being a Liberal, then you are sadly mistaken.

Mark said...

"I think the Hebron deal is a good deal because it is a good deal."

I dunno Ed, it's pretty hard to argue with that.

Ed Hollett said...

Ouch, Mark!

I don't support it because I am a Tory and my support for it doesn't make me a Tory any more than my opposition to slinging power liens through Gros Morne makes me a Liberal.

But yeah, when you point that out it looks pretty stunned.

D'Arcy Butler said...

Ed,

the reality is that we all have lenses through which we see the world, and this colours what we say and what we then reflect to the world. Like Wm. Murphy said, the fact that you are a liberal/Liberal (you choose) is not the issue, it is the fact that you do not own up to bias that colours all you write.

Lets step aside of politics for a moment, and consider the argument from a different angle. Andy Jones, and CODCO had many jokes against the Catholic church. Understanding that Jones et al had experienced many hardships as a result of the Catholic church helped people to gain a better perspective of their point-of-view. An outsider who had not experienced what they had would be offering a very hollow critique of the church and its many scandals, not too mention the many other issues they tackled. Do you believe someone from BC or ON could have offered the same perspective? It is simply the same with you and your blog.

Again, it is not to fault you, but having you lay your allegiances on the table will simply clear the air about your perspective. There are many columnists/bloggers/talking heads who are employed specifically because of their perspective, often to offer balance to the perspectives floating in the ethos.

A declaration of your affiliation would seem to clarify your posts rather then to take away from them. Most people, regardless of the medium and/or subject matter simply wish to know from where one develops their ideas.

D'Arcy

Ed Hollett said...

D'Arcy:

Thanks for the input but two things come screaming to mind:

1. We all have biases. This is a penetrating insight into the obvious

2. I do not deny my biases.

I simply reject your contention that the fact I once worked as a political staffer for a particular political party makes me view the world differently than someone else based not on the experience but because of the fact it was Liberal as opposed to NDP or PC.

Your contention suggests there is some factor at play - like maybe an ideology - which is simply not the case.

You are apparently making that sort of connection when you refer to "allegiances".

You also seem to be making that sort of point when you refer to liberal and Liberal as being synonymous. They are no more synonymous than conservative and Conservative.

As I noted above, my views of budget issues, environmental and other issues are not determined in any way by the way I may have cast a vote or by who my employer was at one point.

And just because I refuse to accept your contentions does not mean I am in denial of anything except a facile construction that suits someone else's own assumptions.

D'Arcy Butler said...

Ed,

let me clarify a few things:

1. While it may have been obvious, I was simply offering the lens comment as thesis and set-up statement about what I had to say. Personally, I like context. I like to know from where others are coming from and likewise, I wish to confer on others the basis/bias of my comments.

2. I wrote "liberal/Liberal (you choose)" because I very much understand that there is a difference, and why I specifically wrote "you choose". While you have been an employee of a Liberal administration in the past, I was curious about whether you saw yourself a liberal (ideology) versus a Liberal (party member), again to understand your perspective.

Personally, I think all ideologies have something that they can bring to the table, I just want to know from which perspective someone is arguing to gain a understanding of where they are coming from. As I mentioned in my first comment of this post, I do not see this as limited to political issues. Were someone arguing against gay-marriage, I'd like to know if maybe they were a born-again Christian v. a Roman Catholic or some other denomination.

Again, understanding someone's experiences and past can add clarity to an argument. And yes, I know that there are numerous issues that you have written about through the 5 years of writing this blog, that if I had read, I am certain I would understand your perspectives, but I have not been reading it for that long. And I'm sure many others like myself find your writing interesting, but do not have the time nor desire to sift through what's likely 1000s of posts to grasp fully you perspective.

I do find it interesting though the lengths you will go to avoid being pigeon-holed. For someone in communications, you do seem to spend far greater time denying other's stories about you rather then determining the narrative yourself.

D'Arcy

Ed Hollett said...

I resist being pigeon-holed for exactly the reasons you describe.

it shouldn't be any more curious than that. And it really shouldn't be any more curious than that it comes entirely as a response to people who are relentlessly attempting not only to slot my writing into their hole but also to have me accept it.

D'Arcy Butler said...

Ed,

One other thing I'm curious about, if associations do not matter, why then do you so often simply dismiss others as members of the "Fan Club"?

Again, like I said, I often like what you have written, and think that you do offer some insight, but at times you come across as a kid that wasn't allowed into a secret club who then pouts and says they never wanted to join anyhow. Or worse, someone who mocks others with condescension about the fact that they have joined someone club and sits in a corner being smug and feeling better about being the lone voice.

D'Arcy

Ed Hollett said...

The Fan Club is my derisive term for a very specific group of people, readily identified by their comments in both the form and the content they take.

They pursue every issue as one of Danny's popularity and about an individual's emotional attachment to him or lack thereof. it's a pretty small group but they are enthusiastic in their pursuit of perceived enemies. They suaully get down - at some point - asking why you don't love Danny or as Steve put it why I don't defend or support him at all.

They never want to discuss the issue itself. It is always about DW. Consider it a variation on the concept of a cult of personality.

WJM said...

Consider it a variation on the concept of a cult of personality.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no variation.

spb said...

Ed,

If you read through my posts you will see that I rarely defend DW.
Most of my frustrations have come from the everlasting impression you give of being completely partisan. Whenever a good thing happens in this province, I quickly read your blog thinking, "There's no way he can completely negative on this one." However, this has yet to happen and each time, I become more flabbergasted.
It just seems you are shrouded in a cloud of negativity towards this government. I often get frustrated with how they have dealt with multiple areas/situations (pretty much everything in health care). However, I have to sit back and think they are doing a pretty good job with our energy resources at the present time.

"I think the Hebron deal is a good deal because it is a good deal."
-Please show me where you stated this when the deal came out. And if you did say something a little bit positive how many buts are after it?

"Frankly I think it is despicable that the attacks on Brian Peckford came from people who ought to know better and it is even more detestable that not one of his friends and colleagues came forward to offer so much as a whisper in his defence."
-So Steve Marshall defending DW is different how?

Anyways, go ahead and tell me I'm in a cult etc. as your rebuttal.

And everybody should thank WJM for his outstanding role in the peanut gallery.

Ed Hollett said...

- "Please show me where you stated this when the deal came out. And if you did say something a little bit positive how many buts are after it?"

CBC Here and Now, province wide, the day the deal was done.

Too bad you missed it but then again you seem to miss a great deal.

Lots of people miss stuff that doesn't fit their prejudices and preconceptions.

New said...

Sometimes it seems the main purpose of the "fan club" comments is merely to take away time. There are very few people devoting resources to real discussion of the Danny Williams Government. If the "fan club" can spend a few minutes writing mindless BS and take a few more minutes getting a mindful response. That equation is a complete win-win for them. It would be a similar strategy to burying your opponent in pointless paperwork. I believe there is nothing to be gained from responding to these people unless there is some genuine thought put into the questions. The Troll always wins.

Ed Hollett said...

True, New and you will notice that neither speeb, Steve nor the rest of the fans comment in any substantive way on an actual post using anything other than their usual techniques.

As you can tell, however, their efforts don't diminish the output in these parts.

They'd only win if people actually started paying any attention to them beyond giving them more opportunities to prove they are exactly as I have described them.

steve said...

Eddie
37 comments generated by my little observation/comment??...you usually average 2.4 comments per Danny slag you write.... (well, actually, everything you write is Danny slag). So, it looks like I'm good for your business. Trouble is I can't figure out what your business is as you've not answered my basic question (6 requests) in that regard.
Have a great night.
Steve Marshall

spb said...

New, where have my comments taken away time? I think I made legitimate comments/questions. I actually gave Ed an adequate opportunity to call a truce. He's still mad from my previous posts.

And New, how is your post less BS than mine? It's actually one of the biggest BS posts I've seen in these comments when I read back.

"It would be a similar strategy to burying your opponent in pointless paperwork."
- If anybody was guilty for this, it would be Ed. He definitely has a way with words and the time to manufacture them.

Sorry Ed that I wasn't tuned into your news cast. Working men don't always have the time to tune into Here and Now. I follow your blog and I never read many positive comments here. Are you 'allowed' to have positive comments on this blog?

And Ed it's funny that all of a sudden you embrace those who leave anonymous comments (i.e. New) when they suit your needs.

New said...

spb, i responded to this comment recently
"It sickens me to think that another spineless Liberal could get into power again. They'd gladly bend over and reinsert us into our role as the country's whipping boy.

Once again, your distaste for Williams is blinding you to the facts. Once again I am nauseated."

Questioning where are the facts. You dont use facts. Its all just feelings. You havent added anything to any debate. You are a Troll.

Ed Hollett said...

Actually Steve, this isn't where the majority of my traffic is reading. This one is confined to you and your fan Club friends and a couple of others.

An overwhelming majority of my readers are busilly devouring all the energy related stuff.

You see, if you want have some impact around here - as in the real world - you have to talk substance and facts and evidence and go where the real interest is.

You don't get any bonus points, actually you don't have any substantive effect at all when you and your friends come to this space and repeat the same fan Club commentaries over and over and over again.

All you do is prove my point in the post I made.

Over.

And over.

And over.

steve said...

7th request Ed, who do you work for? Your bio is silent regards present employer and unless I've somehow snuck in through the turnstile there doesn't seem to be a subscription fee to your propa...er, newspaper.
I don't expect to receive a substantive reply so by lowering my expectation level I've reduced my chance of being disappointed. You are well researched and very articulate in my humble opinion however I won't hold my breath that you will use these talents to ever support this Government on any of the things it does to try to make this Province a better place for all of us and those who we have brought into this world. I'm done.
Have a great day.
Steve Marshall

Ed Hollett said...

Thanks Steve.

You proved my point.

over.

And over.

And over.

And then that last time just for good measure.

Jingles said...

Mr Ed I haven't been around for several days and so it took me some time to get through your latest blogs and all the comments. I am happy I was able to provide you with a chuckle. Actually, I've tried to do that on several other occassions to lighten the load but to no avail. I read your blogs because I like to get another opinion on what is happening in Newfoundland. Way out here in AB land, we don't hear much unless DW has made one of his bombastic comments about other provinces and or some of his opponents. However, DW is trying his best given the circumstances of where Newfoundland is located. Getting back to your blogs.....It seems you do your best to put forth pertinent information regarding your topics and it does take a lot of research to do so. I would like to also add, I haven't wanted to write comments regarding your blogs due to a snotty attitude and being labled as part of the fan club. Just why are you such a snot when people try to communicate with you?

Ed Hollett said...

roflmao.

That's really precious, there Jingles, especially considering you don't have the courtesy to identify yourself and take even the slightest responsibility for your words.

But on a serious note, I just scanned back through your comments and my responses to them. Except for the one where you posted a link to something Myles Higgins wrote - and that was it - which I deleted as spam, you've been able to comment here pretty much unmolested.

You got one snarky comment when your comment consisted entirely of pointing out a typo.

And most of your comments on this thread have just been left there to sit for all to see. They didn't really require any comment, snarky, snotty or otherwise.

Somehow I don't think that you have been avoiding comment nor do I think that you've been avoiding it because you are afraid of what I might say in response.

You don't seem the shrinking violet type.

But if that's what you want people to believe, who am I to disagree with the way you characterise yourself.

And BTW, Joe Smallwood didn't sign the CF contract. Pick up a copy of BRINCO the story of Churchill Falls at the library and go through it. Great reading. There are also some other sources of factual information online which I've linked to as well which give good background on Churchill Falls.