CBC’s nepotism and arrogance

[mentalfloss]

Those question marks pose a serious problem for you don't they?

Here...

The Question Mark

That should help you out.

Maybe you'll be able to have a cohesive conversation without getting so confused if you deal with your comprehension issues, and avoid obfuscating of course.

Stop being a douche and I might take you seriously.

 

[Tonington]

So what's your opinion on the CBC refusing to disclose how our funds are being allocated?

Oh they disclose how the funds are allocated, every year in the CBC/Radio-Canada Annual report. But, it's taxpayer money so we ought to have access to anything that doesn't infringe on the privacy of CBC employees.

 

[CDNBear]

Stop being a douche and I might take you seriously.

I don't really care how you take me. I don't attack the narrow minded ideologues of the net to make friends, it just turned out to be a byproduct.

When you mentioned meeting in the middle, I gave you a chance. You proved clearly, that your offer was disingenuous.

You post thread after thread about Conservative wrong doing, and you think you're doing the public good. Loc posts three threads about the CBC and you call it hate.

I can't think of a better example of hypocrisy.

If you don't like having your ass handed to you, start using that intellect you have, and be reasonable for a change.

 

[mentalfloss]

I don't really care how you take me. I don't attack the narrow minded ideologues of the net to make friends, it just turned out to be a byproduct.

When you mentioned meeting in the middle, I gave you a chance. You proved clearly, that your offer was disingenuous.

You post thread after thread about Conservative wrong doing, and you think you're doing the public good. Loc posts three threads about the CBC and you call it hate.

I can't think of a better example of hypocrisy.

I hope you realize that an entire government is actually more complicated than a TV network station.

And I do make neutral threads about conservatives as well.

 

[CDNBear]

Oh they disclose how the funds are allocated, every year in the CBC/Radio-Canada Annual report. But, it's taxpayer money so we ought to have access to anything that doesn't infringe on the privacy of CBC employees.

Hubert himself stated they were withholding information on creative activity and programming. He made no mention of employee privacy.

And even then, they work for us, barring their names, employee absenteeism is very much a matter for public scrutiny, when we are the employers.

I can't believe you would defend this, especially after the conversations we've had about the BS the conservatives have been pulling in regards to the FoI act.

I hope you realize that an entire government is actually more complicated than a TV network station.

Speaking of obfuscation. Way to actually address the content of the post.

And I do make neutral threads about conservatives as well.

Ya that makes your hypocrisy all better now.

 

[mentalfloss]

Speaking of obfuscation. Way to actually address the content of the post.



Ya that makes your hypocrisy all better now.

Would it make it any better if I edit my posts to completely change the nature of the content like you do?

 

[CDNBear]

Would it make it any better if I edit my posts to completely change the nature of the content like you do?

Your continued obfuscation aside. I didn't change my post to mislead or deceitfully change the context?

Nope.

Shall I pull up one of your posts, where you chastised me for my post, because you edited the context of your post?

Only one have us has been deceitful with our editing.

I can't wait until I get accused of obfuscating this string.

 

[mentalfloss]

Your continued obfuscation aside. I didn't change my post to mislead or deceitfully change the context?

You made an edit that completely changed the nature of the post to be the opposite of what was said previously. And considering the context of the dialogue at that time, it was extremely deceitful.

If I edited a post and simply "changed the context", it is not completely reversing the content itself.

 

[CDNBear]

You made an edit that completely changed the nature of the post to be the opposite of what was said previously. And considering the context of the dialogue at that time, it was extremely deceitful.

According to you. I could have denied it. But i wasn't being deceitful. Unlike yourself.

If I edited a post and simply "changed the context", it is not completely reversing the content itself.

No, but chastising me as if I had ignored the content and context is.

But please keep going.

It will make the finally all the more pleasurable, when I expose more of your hypocrisy.

 

[Tonington]

I can't believe you would defend this, especially after the conversations we've had about the BS the conservatives have been pulling in regards to the FoI act.

But, it's taxpayer money so we ought to have access to anything that doesn't infringe on the privacy of CBC employees.

Uhh, ready, fire, aim tonight apparently....:roll:

If this looks to you like defending CBC in withholding information, then you should log off your computer and go get some fresh air.

 

[CDNBear]

Uhh, ready, fire, aim tonight apparently....:roll:

If this looks to you like defending CBC in withholding information, then you should log off your computer and go get some fresh air.

Sorry bud. My bad. I misread your post.

 

[mentalfloss]

According to you. I could have denied it. But i wasn't being deceitful. Unlike yourself.

No, but chastising me as if I had ignored the content and context is.

But please keep going.

It will make the finally all the more pleasurable, when I expose more of your hypocrisy.

Go ahead and do it then.

Does that mean tomorrow it will actually expose your hypocrisy?

 

[gerryh]

Uhh, ready, fire, aim tonight apparently....:roll:

If this looks to you like defending CBC in withholding information, then you should log off your computer and go get some fresh air.

roflmao..... Ton - 1

 

[CDNBear]

Go ahead and do it then.

Done...

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/s...1281-not-all-jews-zionists-4.html#post1464189

Does that mean tomorrow it will actually expose your hypocrisy?

You really look silly and desperate now.

roflmao..... Ton - 1

That's it, rub it in.

at least I can feel good in the fact that I can admit my errors, unlike some people eh Gh.

 

[mentalfloss]

Done...

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/s...1281-not-all-jews-zionists-4.html#post1464189

I was just adding to the post. Like I said it wasn't a change in content.

You completely reversed the content of your post from "apology accepted - and I'm truly grateful (btw)" to "you're a deceptive s h i t head".

Nevermind the fact that you're now cutting and pasting quotes from different convos out of context.

Now go eat some humble pie.

 

[CDNBear]

I was just adding to the post. Like I said it wasn't a change in content.

You completely reversed the content of your post from "apology accepted - and I'm truly grateful (btw)" to "you're a deceptive s h i t head".

Nevermind the fact that you're now cutting and pasting quotes from different convos out of context.

Now go eat some humble pie.

keep diverting, keep projecting, your desperation is hilarious.

Oh, and I never said I was truly grateful. I said I appreciated that.

But than after you went on else where, I realized you were being deceitful. I missed your careful wording at first, and corrected my mistake.

But please keep going, the fodder you're creating, will give me months of pleasurable posts, exposing your hypocrisies and pathetic desperation.

 

[Locutus]

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Canada (Information Commissioner): Information Commissioner, CBC, and the right to know

July 21st, 2011
by Ajit Singh
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (“CBC”) is under fire from Canadian Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault (“Information Commissioner”) for recent decisions refusing disclosure requests. While it is usually parliamentarians and public servants who are the subject of Ms. Legault’s criticism, it is now CBC who has been put in the hot seat by Ms. Legault.
CBC vs. Information Commissioner: Part I
At the heart of this standoff between the Information Commissioner and CBC is a 2010 decision at the Federal Court. In Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Canada (Information Commissioner), at issue was the authority of the Information Commissioner to order the CBC to produce records under the Access to Information Act (“Act”).
Previously, CBC was subject to information requests until 2007 when the Act was amended to include the following exclusion under s. 68.1:

This Act does not apply to any information that is under the control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that relates to its journalistic, creative or programming activities, other than information that relates to its general administration.




more...


The Court » Blog Archive » Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Canada (Information Commissioner): Information Commissioner, CBC, and the right to know​

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Canada (Information Commissioner), 2010 FC 954 (CanLII)



CanLII - 2010 FC 954 (CanLII)

 

[Tonington]

Appealing decisions to higher courts isn't really the same thing as ignoring court orders.

 

[CDNBear]

Appealing decisions to higher courts isn't really the same thing as ignoring court orders.

Agreed, but it's still slimy.

 

[Nuggler]

But it's ok for steve and his lackys to blow millions and refuse to give any details,right ?

Those are bum buddies. And it's billions.

They did tell us they were going to change the appearance of Canukistan. So far, so good.


PS the cbc ain't going away any time soon. My prediction is that is may become a shape shifter, moving a bit towards centre. Which would be ok by me. But the intelligence of the shape shifter, they don't appear to have.