the hangdawg is the moral equivalent of a LLLieberal politician…he’ll say or do anything and espouse any cause no matter how disgusting illogical or offensive to common sense simply to keep himself in office..

and don’t dare gainsay me..i truly know whereof i speak….they are amoral whores and contemptible specimens of humanity that basically….rather than lead simply follow the mood of their electorate in order to keep office…some of course are ‘big idea” robert conquest types that are quite marxistly mad….by the sounds hangdawg makes i’d at a guess reckon him a 50/50 opportunist/ dialectician.
basically these types aren’t too bright ….they only think they are cause they find they can manipulate the ’schmoos who pay the dues’ so easily……and the livin’ is easy of course.

basically they’re assholes….as anyone who’s heard the hangdawg’s perplexingly windy explifications on whatever topic he’s splitting hairs and offering you change for a farthing about.

just imagine that gasbag banning ME for making him look bad…and then calling me a burbling drunk !!!

“Only a handful of left-wing radicals — including Jack Layton, whose letter of support was read out by Mr. Joseph at yesterday’s press conference — are defending the CIC-Maclean’s fight as a natural, acceptable event in a mature democratic civilization. It can only be a matter of time before they get together and form some George Galloway-style group called Leftists Against Press Freedom (they can call themselves the LAPF-Dogs). “

They already had their offer considered, and thoroughly rejected. As was the RIGHT of the publisher.

Case closed.

well, you idiotarian..they’re being so illogical and stubborn (hoping the typical rollover and lick yer nuts canadian thing happens that it’s obvious THAT”S their hope and desire..)that eventually a panel of freaks and commies and and sexual whatevers will validate their OWN freakishness by endorsing THEIR sense of victimhood…

hangdawg ?…these people hate you and hold your belief system in contempt….and you can’t see that ?

you really are the thickest plank i’ve yet met from the soi disant llliberal blogosphere.

do you know ANYTHING at all of human nature ?

i think you’re operating under the ‘rules’ of the OLD paradigm….you obviously haven’t been paying attention……haven’t you been persuaded yet that THIS ‘process’ is a frivolous crock ?

no. i don’t suppose you have…and in that ignorance you will continue ’til you quit your misguided collectivist ways.

I’m not sure why I bother but…

Where in any of what you quoted do you see that Whyte said a “right to a response” was on the table? I see that the Sharia Creeps “asked” for an opportunity and Whyte said Macleans would “consider a reasonable request.”

No, they never had any “right to a response” and their imagined “right” was not on Macleans table.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around why anyone thinks they have the “right” to reply in a privately owned magazine or newspaper. I’ve written literally dozens of letters to the editor (mostly to my local paper). Many get printed, some do not. It’s their right to print them or not. It’s not my right to have my voice heard in their paper.

The student lawyers in question came to us five months after the story ran. They asked for an opportunity to respond. We said that we had already run many responses to the article in our letters section, but that we would consider a reasonable request.