Cheers

The irony and hypocrisy in your post will keep me smiling until 2009. You twist and transform lawiscool’s post into something sadistic and full of ill-will meanwhile you are in support of Steyn’s racial slander - oh my.
Your writing skills are obviously above average - in style only. Your ability to grasp content and argumentation are at the level of a 5th grader.

It you look at the announcements of judicial appointments you’ll find that a QC is always mentioned if it has been awarded.

Holmwood, “Or does s/he not grasp the distinction between capitalizing the term and refraining from caps?”

My working supposition with lawiscool is that English cannot possibly be their first language. No harm in that; but it is a distinct disadvantage in a slanging match with Mark Steyn.

I agree with you completely that lawiscool rushes to invective rather quickly. And have a nasty tendency to generalize beyond what the facts will support. The CPC has no position that I am aware of on the Steyn matter. And as am not a Conservative my views cannot represent the CPC’s.

I’ve seen no indication of where the CPC stands on this issue.

Or does s/he not grasp the distinction between capitalizing the term and refraining from caps?

I wonder if LawIsCool’s vicious remarks about “Conservatives” needing a scapegoat — a term potentially rich with anti-Semetic and dark religious undertones — is potentially subjecting “Conservative” to hate and violence?

It certainly seems plausible. If I didn’t happen to know a few Conservatives — I myself am not one — I might be inclined to assume they were a hateful and evil people against whom action had to be taken on the basis of LawIsCool’s remarks.

Clearly, to LawIsCool, Conservatives are a vicious lot that brutalize and persecute others.

LawIsCool, in a single post, has demonstrated what appears to this untutored eye to be quite nasty hate speech against a minority group of Canadians, protected under the Charter of Rights.

It would seem appropriate to examine legal and quasi-legal (e.g. HRC tribunal) options.

I wonder if someone other than LawIsCool will start playing at this game?

In previously making apparently false accusations against Steyn of being a spammer (and Steyn supporters), LawIsCool appears to be quite adept at hurling hateful accusations and speech at minority groups.

(What could be more hateful in this enlightened age than being called a spammer?)

That’d be another complaint.

What a fun game this is.

And just think: LawIsCool’s freedom is not at stake.

Yet.

All the QC means is that they are old. Not even necessarily a good lawyer even, but old, and at one time, politically connected in order to obtain the appointment.

Anything else is just legal marketing to increase your billable hours.

We stated from the outset that this case was related to Daniel Simard, nobody else.

Just seems like Conservatives need more scapegoats so they broaden the net, thereby diminishing any sympathies they may otherwise have had.

Just a “subtle” difference.

http://kralizec.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/america-alone-welfare-and-warfare-cont/

“Law Is Cool” (sic) is an association, some of the members of which want to have it both ways: We’re indistinguishable, and you had better keep us distinct. Some of us just want to discuss the issues “sensibly,” and some of us just want MacLean’s publishers to fork over to Mohamed El-Masry the magazine they spent their lives building up. So “amuse” us, while we “monitor” and “document” you.

Alan, remember the lovely “dictated but not read” cut lines on those letters?

And a happy new year to you both!