I'm still thinking about that amazing 600-person town hall meeting in London, Ontario on Monday night.
Paul Berton, explaining why the London Free Press didn't bother to cover the event:
"The event was discussed and considered. It was never actually rejected, but simply didn't make the cut, for reasons, as you have so astutely observed, mostly related to staffing.
"That is not unique. You should know there are dozens of other events each year attended by 300 or more people that we also do not cover, mostly for similar reasons, although space and timing are also factors."
So, how about this as a standard rule-of-thumb: take everything the Ez says and divide by two.
h/t
Note: this is Berton's response to an email complaint. Read the whole thing and you can see that the "300" figure is originally raised by the complainer.
10 comments:
They counted the livestock on the Western Fair grounds which wandered in during the presentation, attracted by the troughs and rain barrels they had set out for Five Feet's snack. Ezra can't tell the difference between bovine and the people he normally associates with.
Ezra and Kathy are of course lying. The capacity of the LCMH is 600, but the balcony as well as the upper and lower corporate seating were not open for this event. That cuts the max. capacity down to around 400.
In a city of half a million people, I think that event qualifies as a non-. Especially given the fact that the members of the so-called panel all agree with each other.
I love how the complainer called it a "non-partisan" event.
It's only non-partisan in the sense that there isn't a political party willing to embrace those dregs of society. But everyone on the panel has steadfastly supported the Conservative party and its non-PC predecessors.
I was at the meeting. The venue was formerly an IMAX theatre. There are 600 theatre seats. They also brought in chairs for the front of the room.
I sat in the balcony, so it could not have been closed. I got one of the very last seats in the house. The line had stretched out into the parking lot.
So, it was over 600 people. Why are y'all so quick to try and find a problem with the numbers?
Dr Kyla Dillard, London
Why are y'all so quick to try and find a problem with the numbers?With this gang of liars, isn't it obvious?
Glad a good time was had by all. I see what passes for entertainment for the natives of the Forest City hasn't changed much since I was liberated from that overgrown hick town two decades ago.
Interesting that you bother to dispute Ezra/Kathy's numbers but don't say anything about the issues raised at the meeting. Apparently in your mind there are NO issues here beyond partisanship and the best mileage to be gained from bandwidth devoted to such a meeting comes from discrediting those whom you regard as political antagonists.
You know "BCL", I couldn't give a damn what party you represent or don't, or whom you find distasteful or whether you wish to sit in the peanut gallery tossing insignificant barbs. Do you have any stake in the issue? Where do you stand?
Are you with the HRC's? Do you support the Hate Speech section of the Human Rights act? Do you find what the HRCs have evolved into as odious as a growing number of Canadians of all political stripes are finding them to be, or are you just sitting there hedging your bets, waiting to see what the politically expedient stand on this issue will turn out to be once the final opinion polls come in? Have you got any spine at all, any sense of the merits of this issue, or are you just a party animal whose only instinct is to protect the clan and lash out against opponents?
I only ask because I really can't tell from anything in this post (which gives me no incentive to read anything else your blog to find out). And if all you have to say on this issue is to try to stick it to those who wear ther stand on the issue on their sleeves -- well, I have a suggestion for a far better place for you to stick it.
Boy, I'd love to give Ezra a tongue-lashing like that, but the censorious nazi won't let it through his comment moderation.
None of the speechies like free speech, really.
That's "Dr Kyla" to you, RB.
Ti-Guy, you really got a comment blocked over at Ezzies? Well, congrats. As far as I know his moderators only block the most egregious, filthy pus. You must really have a potty mouth...you know, like RealityBites a couple of comments up.
Interesting that you would think that there is some relationship between controlling the content of one's own blog comments and censorship. Free speech, for your information, is not a license to commandeer every forum for any and all reasons. Never was. BCL can boot me off his page any time he likes, you won't see me crying foul.
When you send a letter to the editor of your newspaper you are exercising a privilege , not a right . If they don't print it, that is not censorship or an infringement of any of your charter rights; it's simply an editor exercising their right to control the content of their own publication. It's a fundamental right and part of what we call freedom of the press; even prior to that, it's a fundamental property right of the publisher.
Choosing to control, filter or even edit visitor comments on a blog falls into the same category (as does choosing NOT to do such things)---it is a right of the owner. You have no right to demand someone else provide you with a forum for your speech.
Here we encounter one problem with discussing this issue with many who style themselves as "Liberal" these days. Like many "Liberals", you appear to be too illiberal to even bother to learn what the issues are about. Just as "Human Rights Commissions" stand more for the violation of human rights than the protection of them, so the label "Liberal" in today's society is unfortunately becoming more and more associated with the very antithesis of liberal values the name is supposed to arrogate, such as the freedom of speech.
A few Liberals get it. But you guys are pathetic caricatures. You apparently don't even stand for anything, you just think you know who "the enemy" is, though you can't raise any response higher than tossing excrement into their yard.
For some of you, the snobbery and dismissiveness is built right into your online handles, like "BigCityLib". The facile, (private-)schoolyard smears about "bubbas", "livestock", "hick town", "dregs of society" and so on. Just about says it all, doesn't it?
It so happens that I work in an environment that affords ample opportunity to interact with both (true) liberals and also with "Liberals". The latter variety is easy to identify -- she's the one whose main way to disagree with someone is to write them off as belonging to some category of humanity (redneck, right-wing "extremist", "closet Reform party" -- Ooh!), and the classification alone is supposed to suffice as ample answer to whatever point they have just made.
Uh, yeah, just like you guys are doing here. Classify, classify, classify. Tell me what group they belong to and I'll tell you what I think of them ... the sign of a modern "Liberal" is when their criticism is 100% label and 0% content. It's the new bigotry.
Oh, and BCL, forget about spoonfeeding this particular knuckledragging pastyfaced rube---not much you could say at this point could put a dent in the contempt your approach so far has inspired, but of course that appears to be your object anyway, so enjoy. As for me, I'm getting a little tired of shooting fish in this particular barrel.
Post a Comment