If you’re arriving late at the whole Neil Hedley / Justin Trudeau party, let me offer this link to yesterday’s blog post to bring you up to speed (it’ll open in a new window). It’ll detail the brief debate I had yesterday with Justin about the credibility of an ad on Craigslist looking for “right wing” writers to make up fake facts and post all over the internet.
All set? Good. End result, Justin and I shook virtual hands and all’s good, no permanent damage. Just two guys having a fun political debate. Or, as the CBC’s Ian Capstick put it this morning on Twitter…
And I agree with Ian – I think the whole thing had run its course, and everybody walked away happy. But wait! Did you see the “Comments” section on the aforementioned blog post? Then you would have seen this, from a well-spoken fellow named Kenneth:
You’re crowing as if you’ve won the argument with Mr. Trudeau. But you haven’t proven that the Craig’s list ad was a hoax. You’ve merely argued well a less damning explanation. As to the actual truth of the matter the jury is still out. But let us keep in mind what Warren Buffet said: there is a class war between the rich and the poor and the rich are winning.
I’ll save you from having to go back to read my response, and simply include it here:
Kenneth -
Congratulations for evidently having read at least some of what I wrote. I’m not sure where the “crowing” is (maybe you have access to parts of the blog that I don’t…), but you have – I think unwittingly – served to illustrate the point of the entire post.
If I were to produce a picture showing Jack Layton in a compromising position with a goat, there would be a flurry of activity delivered at blinding speed to try and determine the source of the photo, the credibility of the source, and the veracity of the photo.
Here, we have an ad (which takes much less creative ability than Photoshopping Jack Layton with a goat), published by an anonymous source, rife with spelling errors and usage issues, submitted to a website universally regarded as even less credible than PerezHilton.com, and there are those to whom a simple fact-check seems unnecessary.
Interesting, isn’t it, how the level of proof required is somewhat pliable when it comes to political discourse (depending on the objectivity of the participants).
If I have anything to “crow” about, it’s that Justin Trudeau seemed to at least mitigate his hard-line stance that all Conservatives who use social media are insincere “trolls”. At least, in my mind. I wonder if you’re willing to do the same.
All this talk of crows and goats should serve as a reminder, politics can be a zoo sometimes. Thanks for the comment.
Quick edit to add: Since CraigsList has removed the ad, I wonder if anyone has any proof that the ad ever existed at all? Maybe when the Layton/goat people were done, they Photoshopped a bogus Craigslist ad and screenshot.
Editor’s Note: For those who need to have their hands held through these sorts of things, obviously the reference to Mr. Layton was used as an extreme example of something ridiculous and impossible that would most certainly be called into question. Now, if you needed to see that disclaimer, you’re in more desperate need of help than I am qualified to provide. And you’re right – I have no idea if Kenneth is a friend of Justin’s or not. I have as much proof of that as anyone has that the Craigslist ad was true… or false.
Not realizing the debate’s proceeded to the next level, I posted the following comment on your previous blog,
“Thank you Neil for considering my comment.
As I said in my first comment, the jury’s still out.
Your statement “I found it alarming that someone with Justin’s political clout could be duped by something that was to me, a bigger fake than the lake at the G8.” You take it for granted that Justin has, in fact, been duped. Has he ? Or has he, in fact, nailed it ? “Bigger fake” is your inference; not as yet verified. Your tone, IMHO, is decidedly ‘case closed.’
Later in your blog, true, you shift ground and nuance somewhat: “But come on, Justin, all I did was – gasp! – question the authenticity of a “document” on the internet, found on a website that has even less credibility than Wikipedia.” Earlier, you weren’t merely “questioning the authenticity,” you were, quite boldly, demonstrating belief in your “bigger fake” inference.
Consequently, I am, as yet, unwilling to withdraw “crowing.”
Regarding your generous reply: “If I have anything to “crow” about, it’s that Justin Trudeau seemed to at least mitigate his hard-line stance that all Conservatives who use social media are insincere “trolls”. At least, in my mind. I wonder if you’re willing to do the same.”
It never crossed my own mind to think “all Conservatives who use social media are insincere “trolls.” Let’s just see if JT, himself, did indeed say or even imply that.
Of his 4 tweets on the matter, the only direct reference to Conservatives appears first, March 28 : ‘’And I thought the Con trolls hated me on principle, but turns out it’s just a well-paid job (listing source as journalist Susan Delacourt).” If “troll” refers to all who use social media, then you and I are trolls. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I assumed that a troll was a particular kind of user of scocial media. If this is the case, your conversion of “Con trolls” into “all Conservatives,” is a misrepresentation of Mr. Trudeau’s statement.
PS: Thanks for crediting me with being well spoken. I work at it. Thanks for treating me as a worthy opponent. And, no Mr. Trudeau and I have never met. Since three days only, and for the first time in my life, I’ve joined the Liberal party; and then joined twitter to watch the election action. Following Justin Trudeau is just one of several perspectives. In tweeting, I’m trying to advance the cause of the option that, imho, is the best for Canada. But you’ve got yourself a catchy title and that’s fine by me. Cheers.