Sunday, December 06, 2009

Fiction Posing as Fact



The other day it was noted that Christie Blatchford had her facts wrong. She drew conclusions that fit her narrative, but she had her facts wrong.

This morning, we are treated to some more fiction from yet another opinion writer, who couches his narrative in what seems to be fact, except it isn't.

Glenn Pearson, MP from London, who is probably the most respected MP in the House is mentioned in the story. He read it this morning and was quick to rebut Persichilli's assertions.

Here is his post:

I woke up early this morning to a shock. In the news, I read a headline claiming that MPs were planning Michael Ignatieff’s early retirement. And then I read my own name mentioned as one of those who took part in a planned meeting at the Chateau Laurier to discuss how to move the Liberal leader out of the way. The piece, by Angelo Persichilli, claims that Bob Rae called a special meeting of Liberal MPs following a retirement party for Liberal senator Jerry Grafstein to discuss moving Mr. Ignatieff on. I have no idea how Mr. Perichilli came to such a conclusion.

For the record, let me state that Carolyn Bennett, Bob Rae, Ruby Dhalla and I did meet on the night mentioned. This often happens in the evenings following parliamentary sessions as politicians and senators seek to wind down following hectic days. On the night Perichilli mentions for example, other MPs and senators were in the lounge, though not at our table. Someone was singing at the piano, the place was packed and noisy. The only part of this meeting that was planned was between Ms. Bennett and myself. She has been to Sudan with my wife and I as a part of two special teams we took in the last couple of years and has made significant contributions regarding public health, rural clinics and need to build better infrastructure for health in that troubled country. We had agreed to meet to discuss my upcoming trip to the region in a few weeks’ time. Mr. Rae and Ms. Dhalla were not part of that invite.

Partway through the discussion, Mr. Rae did appear in the lounge but had no idea we were there. It was me that waved to him to see if he wanted to join us. About 15 minutes after that, Ms. Dhalla walked in and she was welcomed to join us as well. Talk of Sudan ended as we spoke of some of the speeches and persons present at the Grafstein dinner. As always on such occasions, things got around to politics. Angelo Persichilli claims in his piece that I stated Mr. Ignatieff was losing the trust of the party. This is profoundly untrue. I did comment that he maintained the loyalty of caucus but that Mr. Rae was a trusted performer in the House. I also stated that with Mr. Ignatieff traveling the country more, it would be good to see Bob take on more responsibility for helping us as the official opposition to hold the government to account in the House, especially during Question Period.

Where Mr. Persichilli got the idea that a discussion was held to seek the removal of Mr. Goodale from his responsibility in the House I have no idea. Not once – nada – was this discussed. In fact, we think we’ve done better in the House lately and that Ralph Goodale has been an important part of elevating that performance. And for Persichilli to claim that it wasn’t an isolated meeting is totally unfounded. It was isolated and the only planning was between Ms. Bennett and myself re: Sudan.

I have never met Angelo Persichilli, nor do I know what he looks like. But I do occasionally hold discussions with a few journalists, some who are friends. If they received such information, they would clarify our positions before writing the story. Angelo Persichilli didn’t provide that opportunity and got his story wrong. It’s just the way everything has been going in Ottawa these days, as people rush to the lowest common denominator. I have sought to keep a low profile during these last three years, in large part because of situations like this. Mr. Perichilli has it wrong and he has done proper politics a great disfavour. Our discussion about Mr. Ignatieff did cover his trouble in the polls and how we trust he’ll do better, but the rest of the talk was about how we could help him in the House and how we could take on more of the load. Mr. Rae, Ignatieff’s competitor for past leadership bouts, called no such meeting and I feel the sorriest for him because he neither led the discussion (no one did) and he affirmed that Michael Ignatieff has the loyalty of caucus and that was a good thing.

It’s hard for some of us to try to move politics to a higher level in Ottawa, but with journalism like this it’s almost impossible. At least check it out with us to make sure you have your story straight. I’ve been as honest as I can be in Ottawa and, Mr. Perichilli, you’ve got this one wrong. And Michael, I’m sorry this happened at all. We’re all fully there behind you and saddened by the pain this must cause.

Carolyn Bennett also rejected the story this morning.

This pseudo-journalism, (opinion told in such a way as to twist or distort facts) is helpful to no one, not the least of which is the electorate. It feeds cynicism and that is bad for democracy.

Blatchford and Persichilli are hardly retiring when it comes to their political leaning and that is fair enough, but distorting the truth has become far too common place and we deserve more than this. Had he written, 'X MP's were spotted at Y lounge and in my opinion, here is what they might have been discussing'...fine. Obviously no opinion writer would do that but you get my drift.

Thanks to Glen Pearson for setting the record straight.

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

It would seem Pearson didn't even read Persichilli's column. Persichilli did not say that Rae called the meeting. Pearson got his facts wrong.What else is he spinning?

One logical conclusion is that someone at the meeting gave their version of events to the reporter much to the frustration of others attending and now there is now damage control going on.

I suspect that The Star will stand by their reporter if formally challenged by anyone from the Lib party.

- David

Anonymous said...

Interesting image. There is great vivid colour in what seems to be an overcast day.Nice work.


I suspect though that the Libs.won't use this pic the next time there is a story about how climate change is polluting the Earth. They like the ones with focused smokestack billowing with Toronto out of focus in the background on a cloudy day.

sharonapple88 said...

t would seem Pearson didn't even read Persichilli's column. Persichilli did not say that Rae called the meeting.

Actually if you read the column, Perischilli implies Rae did organize a sitdown.

From the article:

"After they had all feted the popular senator with great words of love and affection, some MPs – invited by Rae for a drink – moved "100 yards away from the Hill" into the Château Laurier

....

"Glen Pearson, an MP from London and one of those present for the nightcap with Rae..."

Anonymous said...

I read this in the Star this morning, and thought..What?... not again... I thought , what is he trying to do and can't these Liberals ever learn..and Goodale, a very respected man. I hope more come out to refute it.

Anonymous said...

Pearson's denial sounds more like a non-denial. The interesting thing about his blog post is that he feels "sorry" for Bob Rae, but does not express any measure of resounding support for the leader, Mr. Ignatieff.

This is bad for Ignatieff. He really doesn't have a support base or deep roots within the party, or indeed close ties to the power structure (the Desmarais family is a strong Rae backer, for example). The people who brought him to Ottawa -- Davey, et al -- are also gone.

It'll be very hard for him to stick around if polls do not quickly improve. The Liberal party crowned him because of his alleged "winnability."

But are the Liberals that desperate that they'll go with Bob 'Rae Days' Rae especially during a recession?

sharonapple88 said...

This morning, we are treated to some more fiction from yet another opinion writer, who couches his narrative in what seems to be fact, except it isn't.

There seems to be a rush to get a certain story out. If he wanted to check to see whether it was true he would have at least tried to contact the MPs in the piece. It's embarassing to have the people involved come out the morning it airs to refute its claims.

sharonapple88 said...

Pearson's denial sounds more like a non-denial.

Yes because when Pearson says the following:

"The piece, by Angelo Persichilli, claims that Bob Rae called a special meeting of Liberal MPs following a retirement party for Liberal senator Jerry Grafstein to discuss moving Mr. Ignatieff on. I have no idea how Mr. Perichilli came to such a conclusion.

"Angelo Persichilli claims in his piece that I stated Mr. Ignatieff was losing the trust of the party. This is profoundly untrue.

"Where Mr. Persichilli got the idea that a discussion was held to seek the removal of Mr. Goodale from his responsibility in the House I have no idea. Not once – nada – was this discussed.

"Angelo Persichilli didn’t provide that opportunity and got his story wrong.

"It’s hard for some of us to try to move politics to a higher level in Ottawa, but with journalism like this it’s almost impossible. At least check it out with us to make sure you have your story straight. I’ve been as honest as I can be in Ottawa and, Mr. Perichilli, you’ve got this one wrong."


Pearson is obviously making a "non-denial, denial."

As for this:

The interesting thing about his blog post is that he feels "sorry" for Bob Rae, but does not express any measure of resounding support for the leader, Mr. Ignatieff.

What do you think Pearson was doing here:

"And Michael, I’m sorry this happened at all. We’re all fully there behind you and saddened by the pain this must cause."

I'm going to make the "leap of faith" that the Michael he is referring to is "Ignatieff."

Look, it would be easier to make some of the claims you're trying to if Pearson's rebutal wasn't on this blog. Talk about claiming one's narrative is factual....

Gayle said...

"One logical conclusion is that someone at the meeting gave their version of events to the reporter much to the frustration of others attending and now there is now damage control going on."

Ethical reporters do not quote people without calling that person to verify the quote.


The Star should be issuing an apology.

Anonymous said...

Gayle

I'm not so sure your statement is accurate. He may well have done that anyways.We have seen frustration from Liberals on many occasions with "Anonymous Liberals Sources".

David

Gayle said...

David - I suspect if he had contacted Mr. Pearson both he and Mr. Pearson would have said so.

It really is shoddy journalism to attribute a quote to someone without checking with that someone first.

Gayle said...

Has anyone else noticed that not one single comment on the Star website refers to Pearson's refutation of this article?

Is it possible no one has pointed that out, or is the Star just blocking those comments.

KNB said...

Haven't been reading them. Did you try linking Gayle?

Gayle said...

I am not registered there, but I find it surprising that not one commentator would link to Pearson's comments.

RuralSandi said...

If you've got time, go through the archives of Persichilli's articles - his sole purpose as a journalist is to try to defame Liberals. He's on a personal mission.

He never writes about Harper much or the NDP.

The Star should be ashamed of this shoddiness.

I saw other journalists (Lawrence/Travers today say that you hear grumpiness but this does not mean coups, etc. They didn't seem too impressed with Persichilli, but journalists won't totally speak against each other. In fact, as journalists for years, this grumpiness is not uncommon for oppositions parties.

Anonymous said...

Susan Delacourt heard that Persichilli did not think think up..that it was leaked to him..she has more, but not saying now.

Anonymous said...

What has Iggy done to command the respect and loyalty of his caucus? Anyone?

Gayle said...

Hi Anon - if it was leaked that does not exonerate him from the duty to check the source of the quote.

Maybe, just maybe, if it were leaked, the person who leaked it was not being truthful. If only he had sought comment from Pearson this all could have been avoided.

CanadianSense said...

The wagons have begun to circle. An award winning reporter is being attacked by bloggers for an article that reports unhappy comments about the leader?

Hyperbole or sour grapes? Are those attributed comments out of context?

Are those comments libel or are they an inconvienent truth?

The LPOC has many lawyers they can contact the Toronto Star legal department to "clear" this matter up.

Stay tuned...for more denials and no legal action....

murdoch said...

I posted a comment quite early on, pointing out that Pearson had denied several of the facts in the column.

It was suppressed by the moderator, and didn't appear.

The first thing that came close to questioning the facts was a post just after 11 AM referring people to national newswatch. (National newswatch had both the column and the denial linked at that time.)

Around 2:20, someone called the column a work of fiction and dared the Star to post Bob Rae's letter to the editor. Is that online somewhere?

RuralSandi said...

His most recent articles:

Articles
Liberal MPs plot early retirement for Ignatieff
Nov 29, 2009 Persichilli: Troubled Vaughan waits for new leadership
Nov 15, 2009 Persichilli: Voracious banks have confused ends and means

Nov 8, 2009 Ailing Liberals keep looking for a miracle cure

Nov 1, 2009 Canadians lack a political alternative

Oct 25, 2009 McGuinty must light

Oct 18, 2009 Feuding Liberals are hobbling our democracy

Gayle said...

"An award winning reporter is being attacked by bloggers for an article that reports unhappy comments about the leader?"

Actually, he is being "atacked" by the people he quoted in his article, who claim they never said what he is claiming they said.

CanadianSense said...

Gayle,

Can you provide the link demanded by the LPOC legal team for the retraction?

Gayle the "truth" is the only defence for libel and I am betting this journalist has done his job and verified his source (a liberal insider)

For months those in the Bob Rae camp have been sowing the seeds of dissent. Bob Fife and many on the Hill have stated that and they have ignored those MP's. In September the media pundits said MI supporters were now giving negative feedback.

Nothing has changed. Just a story reporting on comments that show bunch of "sour grapes" by Liberal MP's.

The "denial" that Liberals may be critical of each other is funny.

Gayle said...

Why would I post a link to something I never said?
If you have to make things up to make your point, maybe you just don't have one.

KNB said...

Murdoch...very interesting. That's worthy of a letter to the editor.

Anonymous said...

Pearson's latest post suggests that there may have been a leak. I'm thinking Carolyn Bennett spilled her guts and the columnist burned her.

KNB said...

Canadian (non)Sense, you are using a Perschelli tack to get your point across.

You chose the wrong forum my friend.

Wanna spin this nonsense? Go to your friendlies. This space is about debunking the spin you are trying to weave.

CanadianSense said...

KNB,

Reporters have been citing liberal insider complaints for years.

I have read for years everyone complaining about using "inside" or unnamed sources for air problems or complaints.

This reporter took the high road and used names and some of you attacked him as a con-hack.

Look at the Don Martin, Jane Taber, Bob Fife use of "unnamed" sources.

This article is an improvement and has forced some to recant or offer up their version of what took place over drinks.

Nothing in the article was disturbing or "shocking" news.

Perhaps you guys are a bit too thin skinned lately.

KNB said...

Used the high road?

If you actually knew your stuff, you would know that Persichelli is a right leaning opinion writer. That's it, that's all..and that is fair.

He's not a reporter however and that people like you believe he is, is precisely my problem.

You don't discern between opinion and journalism and that is a big problem in this country in my view.

Maybe you do and you are playing dumb, but I have no doubt that most don't get it now. YOW, we have a problem.

My skin is stil pretty thick, my patience level however, is somewhat thinner.

CanadianSense said...

KNB,

what in this puffy piece was objectionable in an "opinion" section?

Do you have a list of "pre approved" journalists?

Who cares if Don Martin, Jim Travers (Lib cheerleaders) share their opinion?

Do you want censorship?

KNB said...

Wow, I çan't believe you asked the question.

You assume people can tell the difference.

There was a time, but no longer.

Online doesn't really discern, does it?

That's a problem if most people are reading on line.

Yea, I'm all over censorship...gag.

You obviously don't read me often.

RuralSandi said...

CS - you are so partisan you can't see in front of you.

Don Martin, writer for the NP and Sun - Liberal LOL.

I didn't refer to Don Martin. But, Don Martin does have his input in the "Conservative NATTY Post" this morning.

Why does freedom of speech mean freedom to lia and misinform to you folks?

Again, all you have to do is take the time to read prior OPINION pieces by this guy and you know what his mission is.

CanadianSense said...

RS,

Don Martin repeats my point, "whinning grumblings" and every party has MP's who bitch.

The speculation about an early retirement was an "opinion" piece from an award winning writer.

Nothing that was "quoted" was shocking or unbelievable.

RS, we are both partisan and I have been critical of mistakes when I don't agree with the current gov't decisions.

( I don't support Cap and Trade -Carbon Trading Plan for transferring wealth)

I support other priorities wth our tax dollars. Billions cleaning our local pollution providing safe drinking water. I did not support the size, speed of EAP or Auto bailout.

RS- Point me to a party that wanted more restraint and less tax payers money spent. Thanks.

RS I don't understand your reference for FOI (freedom of information)

Gayle said...

"Nothing that was "quoted" was shocking or unbelievable."

Except that the people who were quoted says they did not say it. But don't let those inconvenient facts get in the way...

CanadianSense said...

Gayle,

"Maybe you should re-read the comment. I am sure you can figure that one out all by yourself."

the named MP's can seek a legal remedy from the alleged "libel" by the Toronto Star.

Have you seen the retraction or apology from the Toronto Star?

Until WE do, many of us will go with the journalist's version.

Best of luck.

Don't forget to bring up the torture allegations next time.

KNB said...

Update: Just heard Persichilli on radio

He was not there. He did not verify the quotes or contact anyone involved.

He received his story second hand (maybe 3rd) and stands by his source.

He read Pearson's rebuttal and twisted it to fit his article.

IMO, this journo has completely discredited himself and practices the shoddiest form of journalism.

Gayle said...

"the named MP's can seek a legal remedy from the alleged "libel" by the Toronto Star.

Have you seen the retraction or apology from the Toronto Star?

Until WE do, many of us will go with the journalist's version."

Ha ha ha.

I guess you will have to acknowledge those generals were lying, and Colvin was telling the truth.

Unless, of course, the generals decide to sue Colvin...

Or maybe, you might want to accept that not every lie is going to result in a lawsuit. That maybe, just maybe, every lie and misquote is not actionable, or the expenses involved with such an action verses the damages that may be awarded mean that lawsuit is not worth your while. And maybe, the mere fact that someone does not choose to sue over every single lie that is printed in the paper does not magically make that lie come true.

The fact you have to resort to such a weak position should be a clue that you might want to reassess your argument.

Dame said...

Angelo must be sued ..it is an unbelivable lie a meanspirited Concocted story aimed to destroy characters and liberals generally. Should not be tolerated.

CanadianSense said...

Gayle,

You usually go through an argument. It is just that what you believe is the right thing to do does not make it the right thing to do.

Which has what, exactly, to do with my comment again?

Oh yeah, absolutely nothing.

Maybe you should re-read the comment. I am sure you can figure that one out all by yourself.

FredfromBC said...

KNB said...

Canadian (non)Sense, you are using a Perschelli tack to get your point across.

You chose the wrong forum my friend.

Wanna spin this nonsense? Go to your friendlies. This space is about debunking the spin you are trying to weave.



It's also about taking cheap shots at anything and everything conservative, and you have no qualms at all about making unsubstantiated accusations or indulging in character assassination or petty slander, do you? ANYTHING that shows the Conservatives in a bad light (real or imagined) is just fine with you.

The problem is, you choose to proudly share your Liberal bias with others of your ilk by blogging about it, and that in turn exposes you to people like me who regard most of your efforts as either mildly amusing or slightly annoying...until you get all bitchy the way you just did. That's just like waving a red flag in front of a bull, honey...

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Or take your blog private, or try to be less obnoxious to people with different viewpoints (you know, show some of that 'progressive' compassion and tolerance your kind keep bragging about).

Gayle said...

Oh CS - when faced with the folly of your own position, you resort to cutting and pasting my quotes from another blog?

It is to laugh. And believe me, I am laughing.

CanadianSense said...

Gayle,
Ha ha ha.

Which has what, exactly, to do with my comment again?

Oh yeah, absolutely nothing.

Maybe you should re-read the comment. I am sure you can figure that one out all by yourself.

KNB said...

Fred, I'm happy to have a conversation if the points being made are intelligent.

You're quite when you infer that I don't suffer fools gladly.

I'll handle my blog as I see fit and need no advice from a condescending commenter such as yourself....honey

Your tone and choice of words is pretty revealing.

penlan said...

And so, once again, ConSense, & now Fred, have hi-jacked this thread/post, just as planned. Pointing fingers, drawing away, bit by bit, from the point/topic of this post.

They don't deserve responses to their comments.

CanadianSense said...

Penlan,

the left cherry picking of facts, ignoring "gossip" for years and react when one reporter names names.

Don Martin the LPOC best cheerleader defends Libs on a regular basis and uses "unnamed" sources on a regular basis. Many reporters do.

KNB has decided to single out a reporter who wrote a tabloid style piece.

Asking him and others what is shocking of what was reported?

Apparently the smear and insult strategy by yourself and others is the reflex response.

Gayle said...

penlan - I do not think either has hijacked this post at all. Non-sensical and completely off topic comments can be posted without the rest of us forgetting what this is all about.

And as for the topic at hand, it has made barely a ripple and has probably gone by unnoticed by all but the most partisan and rabid of political followers. I think Persichilli has had his wrist slapped. No one expects all members of the liberal party to be happy right now, but it would be suicide to plan a coup, and I do not think most people think the liberal party is suicidal.

No, this was a little scandal the CPC hoped would divert our attention from allegations they were complicit in torture.

I must say the LPC has to keep their soap opera out of the news. I know their poll numbers are low but right now I think it is in their best interest to lie low and force the media to concentrate on Harper. Eventually these stories about lies, and deficits, and overly partisan nastiness chips away at them. When that happens the LPC better be ready to start positioning themselves as a government in waiting.

CanadianSense said...

Gayle,
ha ha
This Post is about correcting an "opinion" piece from a reporter using second hand information and KNB offering his version.

You than smear everyone including yourself and suggest we are

-"most partisan and rabid of political followers".

2. the CPC conspiracy to use the reporter to write a "little scandal" and finish off by reminding everyone this is about distracting us about torture (you forgot to use allegations btw)

Great off topic and smear job Gayle. I have lost count on Lib blogs and Blogging Tories you are over 30 posts on this gossip article you indentified as a "little scandal"?

ha ha ha?

Impressive feat.

The contrarian views agree with the reporter and gave supporting reasons for KNB that's it.

Gayle said...

Yes, of course, this is all about me. How could I forget?


Let me know when you want a serious discussion about the issues CS. Until then, your little habit of pretending I said something I never said is all just noise...

By the way, today the Edmonton Journal had yet another story about how all the facts coming out are proving MacKay has been lying. Not one mention of liberal dissenters and a rumoured coup though.

Hey, did you like the editorial in the Globe today???

The biggest difference between us is not that I am coherent and you are not (though that is a big difference). It's that the facts are on my side.

CanadianSense said...

Gayle,

ha ha,

I have tried to explain this to you many times. People who resort to personal attacks, without anything else, demonstrate they know they have no real response to the argument.

I do not care about people who insult me. I simply point it out when they use the insult in a lame attempt to cover up the fact they have nothing else to say.
(Familiar?)

Gayle said...

Very familiar. They are my words.

Not sure why you are posting them, though they are generally applicable to you. I just never realized you had such good insight. Maybe I underestimated you.

Oh well, now that you have admitted you have a problem, the next step is to change. Staying on point might be a good start.

By the way, while it could be flattering that you seem to invest so much time running around the internet counting my posts and cutting and pasting from them for your own use, I cannot help but think you must surely have better things to do than obsess over me. Just something to think about.

Meanwhile, the coup story has all but disappeared from the media webstes. Now they are all talking about all those former ambassadors who are speaking out against the government's treatment of Richard Colvin.

CanadianSense said...

Gayle,

If things were all black and white, I would answer according to your dictates.

But they aren't. I suspect you know that, which is why you demand an answer without an explanantion. Sorry, but you do not get to set the rules. You are

not seeking a real discussion and I am not interested in letting you dictate terms of any argument.

Shorter answer - because you really really want it to be true.

(Where did you get the script from?)

Gayle said...

Thanks for that CS. Those are some fine comments of mine.

So, do you have anything to say about the Globe editorial, the former ambassadors or the NDP's call for MacKay to resign? Or are you still trying to pretend the internal dealings of the LPC are more important to people.

CanadianSense said...

Gayle,

Which has what, exactly, to do with my comment again?

Oh yeah, absolutely nothing.

Maybe you should re-read the comment. I am sure you can figure that one out all by yourself.

marie said...

There is a lot of fiction posing as fact in the G&M and on TV. IN general all the media are guilty of that name. The problem is that gullible people like the Harpercrits believe that garbage. Also those who never read or watch the news believe their CRAP.

Sorry ! I call it like I see it. Sugar coating it doesn't make it truth and denying it to much only makes those look guilty

marie said...

Oops, my last post should of ended that the Cons and their supporters continual denying make their stories appear fictional and blatant lies and they are running around scared trying to cover up the real truth again.

Anon, 10:06 Am; Pearson's denial sounds more like a non-denial. You know what? Nobody cares what you think. This man has a lot more credibility in his little finger then that of the whole Harper government and his lame brain supporters who need to grow up and face reality. Persichilli is not a journalist but a mere opinion writer that is no better than you or I. If you believe other wise, your denser than I previously thought.

FredfromBC said...

I'll handle my blog as I see fit and need no advice from a condescending commenter such as yourself....honey


I think you can use all the advice you can get, honey. Your little 'embellishments' to the truth are embarrassingly inept as best, borderline actionable at worst; you wouldn't be the first blogger sued for libel in recent months, would you? Be careful.


Your tone and choice of words is pretty revealing.


Sadly, that's true. I can scarcely hide my contempt for people like you at the best of times. But I do try...;)

FredfromBC said...

penlan said...

And so, once again, ConSense, & now Fred, have hi-jacked this thread/post, just as planned. Pointing fingers, drawing away, bit by bit, from the point/topic of this post.

They don't deserve responses to their comments.



Well, I can't speak for CS, but I know I was first drawn here by your good friend Gayle trolling the Blogging Tories. She seems to like picking fights, but invariably runs away when she starts getting smacked around (a hint: try to pick places to troll where the regulars aren't smarter than you).

But no one ever needs to 'hi-jack' any threads here anyway, do they?. All they really need to do is point out a flaw or two in your reasoning, and you and your kind will quickly jump to the personal attacks anyway. In the beginning, I *did* try reasoning with you girls...it was a wasted effort...

FredfromBC said...

CanadianSense said...

Gayle,

Which has what, exactly, to do with my comment again?

Oh yeah, absolutely nothing.

Maybe you should re-read the comment. I am sure you can figure that one out all by yourself.



Didn't take you long to figure out how to handle Gayle's favorite techniques of obfuscation and misdirection (with the odd little semantic game thrown in). Kudos to you...