Sorry, but that's definitely Steve. Nobody else sniffs "parts" like that. 
Again, blur the lines.Convenient to skip past the foreign ownership thingy isn't it? Like it or not, we're supporting foreign owned companies failures with Canadian tax dollars. Do you buffoons like paying taxes so Norwegian companies that foul our waters can stay afloat?
Let's be real here.
Steve is geographically unable to be anywhere near your unwashed nether regions; that snuffling you feel is either your dog or a figment of your imagination used to take a personal shot at him, which conveniently obviates the need for you to actually respond to what he said.
There are five forms of defense used when someone is trying to avoid actually dealing with the facts presented to them.
One is as you demonstrated when you took the shot at Steve. It's called shooting the messenger and is intended to upset them enough to blur their focus on the subject and allow you to escape questions you can't answer. It appears to be by far your favourite. Another is to personally attack the original source of the facts, usually undertaken when you can't actually discredit the facts.
A third is to evade the facts entirely, as you are doing when you represent the funds paid to the farms as compensation for an order to destroy their crop as a guaranteed income program or a subsidy and as you also are doing with respect to the use of UI as a subsidy to the fishing industry, something you, as a Maritimer with family you claim was involved in the industry, can't help be aware of.
Related to that is the fourth, the diversion of the discussion away from a legitimate point someone makes, often carried out by proffering opinion pieces written by authors who share both your opinion and your disregard for the real facts. It's also often attempted by moving the goalposts; ignoring a valid rebuttal of your point by altering your complaint to focus on some other aspect.
Finally, there is the construction of straw men, the creation of false scenarios you think you can easily muster a convincing argument against. In some cases, you might actually be able to do that, but it is meaningless because those scenarios aren't actually reflections of reality. Examples would be the idea that we are subsidizing incomes of foreign companies or that fish farms are recipients of untold government largesse are all nicely attackable constructs but in reality are grossly oversimplified, twist too many facts and overlook too many relevant details to be even an inaccurate representation of reality.
I ran across a post on another forum tonight where someone was able to use all five techniques in the short space of about ten lines, as impressive a performance as I've ever run across. I can respect that just for the simple fact it was so well executed even if I can see at the same time that it was solely intended to avoid dealing with the reality of the actual facts. I can't say I'm much interested in having a discussion with someone who needs multiple posts to accomplish only one or two of the techniques of evasion and especially when they don't do it very well. The discussion goes nowhere but downhill. That may be your intention in the first place; I've not actually seen you do anything else here. If that is indeed the case let me point out to you that if you really feel the need to have a pissing contest, "Bawb" and "shoeswap" are just dribbles getting your shoes wet.
No need to reply, these are just observations and not an invitation to discuss anything.
Author
Topic: More Money Down The Drain (Read 16193 times)