Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
I guess this love-in will just continue without any valid criticisms/questioning allowed and yes his comment and it's usage in this situation are valid.
|
No, it isn't. That's the point. Criticism of his diction is
not valid. It's a meaningless quibble about unimportant nonsense.
The appropriate response, if you want to make any response at all, is "While I understand what you're getting at there Naheed, I find your particular wording rather unfortunate as it might be considered offensive despite the fact that everyone is aware you didn't intend it that way". To which I suspect the Mayor would reply something like, "Fair point, I'll retract the wording, but the sentiment stands - your questions are loaded and intellectually dishonest, intended to stir up controversy rather than discuss real issues facing Calgarians". Finished, done, end of "controversy", moving on.
VALID questions - like the underlying issue as to whether there's anything offside about relationships with Pembina - are worthy of discussion (at least potentially, if there's anything to them that can't be dismissed in thirty seconds). But at this point I'm not even clear as to the particulars of what Ezra was even driving at. Who is this group, what did the Mayor allegedly do to favour them, why is that a bad thing, and what information do we need to confirm or disconfirm the implied allegation being made? Christ, you could do this with BULLET points.
Instead we get 5 pages of wasted time and energy talking about common rhetorical responses to loaded questions. This does a disservice to anyone who actually cares about what's going on at city hall.