• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Rick Mercer Fights Back!

rick mercers da man  :salute:
rick hillier hes the dude  :salute:
ya gotta love em both
there made of steel
just my observation
regards to her  :nana:
there ya go
                          best regards,,,
                                            scoty

 
Hmmm... looks like an interpretation of Politicaleese is required here.  Stand back, this could be dangerous. 

"Please find attached a copy of my article."
(You obviously have been listening to slander and second hand comments about my article.  Here's what I really wrote.)

"I offer it to you in the hopes you will have an open mind when reading it."
(If you would only listen, you would realize that mine is the only logical argument.)

"I also hope you might realize that despite how offended Mr Mercer was by an unfortunate phrase I used to describe the coverage of the troops..."
(Why is everyone so offended at the phrase I used?)  (Special note on word tense - used the words ‘an unfortunate phrase’ to make it sound like everyone is picking on her for a single grammatical error rather than a whole editorial rant)  (Special note on contextual use of 'unfortunate' - often used in a rebuttal by public figures who think they are really clever speechwriters)

"... (a phrase I would take back if I had the opportunity to)..."
(I cant admit I was wrong.  Maybe, if I can make myself appear overworked or that the word was left in there by mistake despite reviews and editing, they will back off)

"... the tone of his letter was very injurious to me personally;..."
(The nerve of that guy to insinuate that I'M the one who doesn’t understand the situation!)

"... it is essentially an angry and patronizing personal assault which has disturbed me and people close to me a great deal."
(I’m getting a lot of negative email and feedback, and my editor is pressuring me to either retract my article or issue a public apology)

"My whole point was not to disrespect the troops…”
(Despite the fact that I did make several disrespectful comments about the military)

“… but to point out that the media has an important responsibility to show all sides of what is indeed a very complex issue, one that Canadians feel quite ambivalent about."
(Distracts readers from the source of the complaint by blaming the media for being biased)

“Mr Mercer did not really speak to that main theme.”
(A good defense is a good offence - undermine your opponent’s credibility whenever possible by claiming he didn’t understand what he was talking about)

“If this exchange leads to a more open conversation…”
(Challenging your opponent to an open debate is a win-win tactic.  If he doesn’t accept it, you can claim he ‘chickened out’ beacuse he knew 'he was in the wrong'. If he does accept, you can always ‘be too busy’ later on.  Being a public entertainer, Rick Mercer is probably booked up the wazoo until 2010 anyway.  Either way, I can get some good media coverage out of this for myself and my organization)

“… about this very serious matter then perhaps some good…”
(So far nothing good has come out this for me.) 

“…and nor merely sheer spite, will come out of it."
(When I criticize, it’s logical analysis.  When others criticize me, its ‘spite’)  (Special note – the word ‘nor’ is probably supposed to me ‘not’)

Clear!    :warstory:

Okay, its safe to come out now…   
 
I am glad to see that standards of professorship haven't changed much at Arts faculties since I was at Carleton in the mid-eighties.  Noreen's piece (and the note she sent with it) displays all of the usual blather about why things that make her "feel" bad are the basis for a political diatribe.  You are a professor at a University.  You are not Oprah.

I commend those would seek to debate her but wonder whether you are just wasting the keystrokes.  To get to her level in academia, you have to have been wilfully sipping the Kool-aid for many years.  They don't get it, will never get it, and their whole little twilight world in the professors lounge would fall apart if they got it.  They would lose their jobs and be shunned professionally if they got it.

I had a professor at Carleton in the "Refuse the Cruise" years, who called herself a "sophisticated Marxist", to separate herself from the clods that were then running the Warsaw Pact, and who, in her opinion, had charlie foxtrotted the historical inevitability of socialism.  She insisted in class that Canada was a police state, and bragged that she thought that CSIS was breaking into her car and going through her papers.  She and her fellow professors would get together over wine and cheese and compare notes over how many times they each had caught CSIS spying on them.  Like they were bird watching. "Oh yes the blue car.  The blue car followed me as well."

Having a father working in a "national security capacity" and having at least three neighbours growing up in Ottawa who were members of the RCMP security service, I knew that there were so few of them that they had trouble trailing all of the actual KGB and GRU officers that packed the Soviet Embassy back then, much less going to Sandy Hill at night to break into the Mazda of an assistant professor at Cartoon U.

As a crew-cutted smart ass, I asked her "If this is a police state, why are you still standing here ?" Her answer-- "Because I have tenure !"

There you go. Completely oblivious.
 
papers.  She and her fellow professors would get together over wine and cheese and compare notes over how many times they each had caught CSIS spying on them.

Sounds pretty bourgeois to me. Why should so called 'comrades' like her and her friends be able to sit around such an eloquent meal and engage in useless banter, while the rest of us have to work all hours of the day?  >:(

Oh yeah, that freedom thingy... my bad ;)
 
I agree!  Rick Mercer deserves The Order of Canada and the chance to be our next Prime Minister !!!!!
 
Kozak  thanks for the trip down memory lane. I was at MUN during the whole cruise protest amusement and I’m sure the lady in question was front and centre spewing righteous indignation, most of it directed at the table of us short haired types sipping coffee in the Thompson Student Centre. I’m sure she tenure too.

Hmm I wonder how many blue cars were in the parking lot back then?  8)
 
MODERATOR WARNING!!

I have been approached by the originator of this thread and she is concerned that the professer has reported that she is getting hate e-mails, phone calls, etc..

I do not think that they would be originating from this forum, but in the off chance that some would, DON'T.
She has a right to be contested intelligently and above board just like those who would support the mission.
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
MODERATOR WARNING!!

I have been approached by the originator of this thread and she is concerned that the professer has reported that she is getting hate e-mails, phone calls, etc..

I do not think that they would be originating from this forum, but in the off chance that some would, DON'T.
She has a right to be contested intelligently and above board just like those who would support the mission.

Holy smoke!  I sometimes forget that the world (including Canada) is populated with its' fair share of idiots.

I agree with Bruce that the originator(s) of such garbage probably aren't from this board.

I hope the idiots engaging in such despicable and cowardly behaviour are caught and dealt with summarily.


Roy Harding
 
Roy Harding said:
Holy smoke!  I sometimes forget that the world (including Canada) is populated with its' fair share of idiots.

I'd hardly call it a fair share.
 
I got her email address and I wrote her and told her what I thought. I wasn't rude in the least.
I told her I thought her article was done in very poor taste, it was heartless and while I could see her point on the coverage being over the top at times, her delievery completly ruined ANY point she had. Her tone was callous.

I suggest anyone who didn't like the article to email her and tell her.  Don't be rude abusive or "hatefull" but tell her how her article made you feel and how she came across.
Maybe she didn't mean the things she said, maybe she did and she's just trying to back track now "Well what i really ment".
I know how the tone of the article made me feel.
She has the right to post her opinion in an article like that, I (and you) have the right to tell her how that article made you feel and what you thought of it.

I guarentee she won't make light of a Canadian soldier loosing their legs again in any case. She didn't mean it? Well great, appologize for it and own up to it. Don't try and backtrack.

I've been on these boards a while. Like I said in my email to her, I've often tried to make a point and have had my words twisted around or people in my opinion "just not get my point".  I've championed a few people caught in the very same situation. I've often called on 'army guys' to relax and calm down when a frenzie over something like this starts so I think I'm speaking from a good position.
The more I read her article, and the rebuttle to Rick's letter to her, the less sympathy I have for her.

Sorry, She tried to make a point and cater to a specific audience. Thats fine freedom of speech.
She did so however by tarnishing the sacrifice of people who give her that very freedom and thats not on.

IF you're reading this Miss, like I said in my email, I'm sorry you're christmas sucked. Instead of spending next christmas watching the news getting angery over what you see I strongly suggest you go and spend time with your family, you never know what you have until you loose it.
 
No I won't be sending her an email. To me the premise is false. She is a highly qualified PhD academic which in my mind means she should be quite conversant with the habit as a professor of taking the time to inform herself on matters on which she comments. Her article made it quit clear she hadn't made this effort. I went to university in the 80's and 90's and I have taken courses from this type. They speak from a strong bias that sees their world from a certain perspective.

To me it has been a continuing source of amazement that such highly educated people are so uninformed on areas "outside there lane" and yet in cases like this feel no restraint in commenting.
 
In regards to who Rick is Honorary of it is 423 Sea King Squardron
 
"the tone of his letter was very
injurious to me personally; it is essentially an angry and patronizing
personal assault which has disturbed me and people close to me a great
deal."

(rant on) Actually what this really means is that she thought she was being oh so clever and witty in her original column. She was under the impression that "thinking" people and "progressives" (God I hate when lefties label people who don't agree with them as un-progressives) were all singing from the same song sheet. That a high profile member of the entertainment community would disagree and actually be a "military hugger" is particularly galling to her.
As a PhD she probably thinks that she is quite superior to the rest of us (that was actually fairly evident in the tone of her article...especially more intelligent than all of us military...poor sods all!) That her witty little ditty was torn apart by someone way more articulate, who actually knows what's going on is a very humbling thing for her....and oh so public is her humiliation.
A good dose of humble pie is good for these tenured folks who are unanswerable to anyone else but themselves. (rant off) ;D
 
The person in question is indicitive of the sexist, racist and elitist attitude of the left (not all left, but I would say the systemic left).  They need to nanny us because people are inherently stupid and they (the left) need to regulate every aspect of our lives because we don't have the where with all to do so (see: smoking bans, "sin" taxes, employment equity and so forth).
To wit, "they" would ban a Christmas Tree in public because it's offensive.  Naturally, Menorahs and other public displays of faith aren't challenged, because "the little people" have to be pampered "for fear of reprisal".  And to assume that Jews or Moslems are offended by Christmas trees is to consider them narrow minded and hateful.  If it's Chanukah, I say "Happy Chanukah" to my Jewish friends.  If it's Christmas, my Moslem friends say "Merry Christmas" to me.
So, since no apology is given for the murderous tactics of the Taliban (et al), it's because of a deep-seeded assumption that "they don't know any better" because they see them as nothing more than animals.  After all, we are "poor sods" who ought to know better, but "they" aren't even deserving of mention for acts such as walking into a crowd of children and detonating bombs.
That is why the Left will never get my vote: their system is racist, elitist and sexist. 
 
Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
The person in question is indicitive of the sexist, racist and elitist attitude of the left (not all left, but I would say the systemic left).  They need to nanny us because people are inherently stupid and they (the left) need to regulate every aspect of our lives because we don't have the where with all to do so (see: smoking bans, "sin" taxes, employment equity and so forth).
To wit, "they" would ban a Christmas Tree in public because it's offensive.  Naturally, Menorahs and other public displays of faith aren't challenged, because "the little people" have to be pampered "for fear of reprisal".  And to assume that Jews or Moslems are offended by Christmas trees is to consider them narrow minded and hateful.  If it's Chanukah, I say "Happy Chanukah" to my Jewish friends.  If it's Christmas, my Moslem friends say "Merry Christmas" to me.
So, since no apology is given for the murderous tactics of the Taliban (et al), it's because of a deep-seeded assumption that "they don't know any better" because they see them as nothing more than animals.  After all, we are "poor sods" who ought to know better, but "they" aren't even deserving of mention for acts such as walking into a crowd of children and detonating bombs.
That is why the Left will never get my vote: their system is racist, elitist and sexist. 

Wow.

That may be the most succinct sum-up of my own feelings that I've ever read.

Roy
 
Baden Guy:

She is a highly qualified PhD academic which in my mind means she should be quite conversant with the habit as a professor of taking the time to inform herself on matters on which she comments. Her article made it quit clear she hadn't made this effort.

I would be willing to bet $10,000 that the Golfperson has heard of the Battle of Stalingrad, but not of Kursk.  If one said "Unternehmens Zitadelle" (OK, "Operation Citadel") to her I am certain one would draw a complete blank.  "Conversant"?  No, just not educated.  And by her own choice.

Mark
Ottawa
 
I have the Glantz and House, Battle of Kursk in my library, perhaps I can donate it to her?
 
Back
Top