Rob Ford's Toronto

[doug]

Thank-you (though I think I detect some sarcasm).

you think?

 

[Irishmonk]

you think?

Dude, your comments are pure snark and contribute nothing to the discussion. Either say something constructive or give it a rest. Also, try emoticons for "sarcasm" if the intent isn't clear from the wording (which it often isn't with regards to sarcasm on the internet)

 

[Justin10000]

Really? I know Rob is a very big guy, but I thought Doug was just a bit heavy (like much of the population)

ooohhh... Doug Ford. Your post said Rob Ford. No worries. I haven't seen Doug either, only a few face shots. He looks to be a fairly large guy, but not as large as Ford.

 

[Marko]

That's another topic of course. The discussion here was the poster's assertion that streetcar passengers account for a large amount of energy and carbon footprint, and are the cause of congestion, and that the fuel tax somehow makes car-driving a neutral factor in all this, which is of course, completely absurd.

No, that wasn't the assertion I made at all, but considering how your replies have deviated from what I actually said into some different version of the conversion - which is where you incorrect $100 figure came into play to begin with - it doesn't surprise me that you think I said driving a car was somehow neutral. I never said such a thing.

I wasn't making an assertion - I was refuting yours that a streetcar was zero emission, which I have proven to be false. Your claim about standing next to the streetcar and experiencing no emissions is ridiculous, since the power emissions from power generation don't stay only above the power plants either. Either it uses energy or it doesn't.

You then started bleating about the cost of the transportation netwrok and how drivers don't pay anything towards the cost of it. I proved that not only do drivers pay the same taxes as everyone else - some of which are allocating to things like streets, and snow cleaning and emergency services - but that drivers in fact pay $14.6 billion or so a year in fuel taxes alone. To say they don't contribute to the costs of the transportation is simply false - they do - and probably a larger % of the true cost than transit riders do to their mode of transport (which I'm OK with and not disuputing - it needs to be subsidized).

Now you're shifting the goalposts yet again and claiming a streetcar costs only $100 a day to operate, which is bunk. $100 a day in electricty, maybe, but the unionized opertors probably cost the TTC at least $1000 per day, per streetcar. That's part of the cost that riders and government subsidies have to include in any calcuation so no, it's NOT "another topic, of course". You can't dismiss things that are simply inconvenient to your claims.

The only statement I made was that Doug Ford never said that he does not know who Margaret Atwood is but rather that he does not know her. I believe that to be an important distinction. Does that somehow give me an agenda?

No - that's contrary to the narrative that is being presented. You're not allowed to present alternate interpretations or factual distinctions if you wish to be part of the mob.

 

[doug]

Dude, your comments are pure snark and contribute nothing to the discussion. Either say something constructive or give it a rest. Also, try emoticons for "sarcasm" if the intent isn't clear from the wording (which it often isn't with regards to sarcasm on the internet)

Dude, get off your high horse, and get a haircut

 

[Bruvyman]

you think?

Ummm, yeah... I was being sarcastic too.

It seems to me like you think I was somehow defending Doug Ford on this. I was not. I was just correcting what I see as a mistake in the perception of a quote by him in order for us to have a reasonable discussion based in fact.

If I must clarify my position regarding the Fords, here goes:

I did not vote for Rob Ford, I do not care for Rob Ford the person or the politician, I am against his policies and priorities, I am disgusted at the nepotism given to Doug Ford which allows him to sub-in as Mayor at will, I cannot believe Rob Ford as Mayor of our city would not attend a single Pride event, I believe he probably did give that lady the finger (but find it a bit of a non-story since its petty and we all know his character already), I believe him to be a self-serving liar, I believe his election has divided this city in a horrible way (as evidenced by this thread and every comment section of every newspaper and blog in the city), I am not in favour of library closings (as I am an active member and see real societal value in them), and I have read The Handmaid's Tale (but still couldn't pick Mags out of a room of seniors).

In short, I love this city and worry greatly for it in the care of Rob and Doug Ford.

Having said all of that, we really need to tone down the rhetoric, hyperbole, and personal attacks regarding the Mayoralty if we are ever to have a position of truth and righteousness on our side in these debates.

 

[Thanos]

Exactly. He doesn't KNOW her. I don't KNOW him either, but I know who he is. I probably wouldn't recognize Doug Ford if he walked by me either. He's not exactly a memorable or distinctive looking person, and frankly, either is she.

What kind of crock of bull is this? Spinning it any way possible i see.
If someone says "i don't know that person" it means i don't know who that person is, i have no clue of his/her existence, etc.

 

[Thanos]

I am just taking the quote at face-value and interpreting it as I understand it. I meant distinct and memorable in their appearance only. If Shaquille O'neil walked by me, I would definitely recognize him because of the obvious. If Colin Farrel walked by me (since he happens to be in town right now), I might recognize him, but other than being a handsome guy, there is nothing that would clue me in to who he is and I probably would take no notice. That's all I meant. Margaret Atwood looks fairly average and I am fairly sure I wouldn't recognize her either unless I was looking for her.

If you know Colin Farrel is an actor then you know who he is, regardless of whether you can spot him on the street or not.

 

[Bruvyman]

What kind of crock of bull is this? Spinning it any way possible i see.
If someone says "i don't know that person" it means i don't know who that person is, i have no clue of his/her existence, etc.

I agree to disagree.

 

[Tulse]

I agree to disagree.

But can you then explain what Ford's comment was supposed to mean? If he merely meant that he didn't know what Atwood looked like, what relevance was that to the argument? His comment only seems to make sense if he meant that Atwood was so unimportant that he didn't know who she was -- suggesting that he knows who she is, and how important she is, but doesn't know what she looks like makes no sense at all in the context.

Take your Colin Farrell example: If Colin Farrell publicly complained about something that you did, would it make any sense at all for you respond with “I don’t even know him. If he walked by me, I wouldn’t have a clue who he is.” How would that be a response to his complaint, unless it was meant as saying that his opinion was unimportant?

 

[Irishmonk]

I did not vote for Rob Ford, I do not care for Rob Ford the person or the politician, I am against his policies and priorities, I am disgusted at the nepotism given to Doug Ford which allows him to sub-in as Mayor at will, I cannot believe Rob Ford as Mayor of our city would not attend a single Pride event, I believe he probably did give that lady the finger (but find it a bit of a non-story since its petty and we all know his character already), I believe him to be a self-serving liar, I believe his election has divided this city in a horrible way (as evidenced by this thread and every comment section of every newspaper and blog in the city), I am not in favour of library closings (as I am an active member and see real societal value in them), and I have read The Handmaid's Tale (but still couldn't pick Mags out of a room of seniors).

In short, I love this city and worry greatly for it in the care of Rob and Doug Ford.

Excellent summary of Ford's failings. Particularly the nepotism issue with The Rookie Councillor from Etobicoke which is a disgrace to our local democracy. The question really is, why should Margaret Atwood know who Doug Ford is.

 

[Bruvyman]

But can you then explain what Ford's comment was supposed to mean? If he merely meant that he didn't know what Atwood looked like, what relevance was that to the argument? His comment only seems to make sense if he meant that Atwood was so unimportant that he didn't know who she was -- suggesting that he knows who she is, and how important she is, but doesn't know what she looks like makes no sense at all in the context.

Take your Colin Farrell example: If Colin Farrell publicly complained about something that you did, would it make any sense at all for you respond with “I don’t even know him. If he walked by me, I wouldn’t have a clue who he is.” How would that be a response to his complaint, unless it was meant as saying that his opinion was unimportant?

I am with you. I believe Doug Ford's comment was made in a dismissive tone, but my point is that he never said or meant to say that he doesn't know who she is and has never heard of her. People have taken the quote to mean that, which is simply intentionally distortive. He was rudely dismissing her which is very different from proudly wearing a badge of Margaret Atwood ignorance.

 

[Tewder]

Excellent summary of Ford's failings. Particularly the nepotism issue with The Rookie Councillor from Etobicoke which is a disgrace to our local democracy. The question really is, why should Margaret Atwood know who Doug Ford is.

... except to add that I do think the finger to the lady incident is important. It is telling in how he views those constituents of his as mayor who don't agree with him, challenge him, or question him. He's acting like a bully rather than like the civil servant he is.

 

[Thanos]

I agree to disagree.

To clarify, if i know someone from the actions they've done or through history but i don't know how they look i should then go around saying "i don't know him/her"?
I don't know how Sir John Alexander Macdonald looks like, i have no clue as to his facial features or his hair colour. But i won't go around saying "i don't know Sir John Alexander Macdonald".
I can't even comprehend your argument.
Please clarify it for me.

 

[Tulse]

he never said or meant to say that he doesn't know who she is and has never heard of her. People have taken the quote to mean that, which is simply intentionally distortive. He was rudely dismissing her which is very different from proudly wearing a badge of Margaret Atwood ignorance.

He dismissed her by pretending she was so unimportant that he didn't know who she is. Why is that supposed to be better than actually not knowing who she is? Is feigning ignorance better than actual ignorance?