🚀 go-pugleaf

johnf@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: Steve Juneau (sjuneau@bnr.ca) wrote:
: : johnf@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:

: : 	Did they lied more or less that the other side?

: Since I was using the point to demonstrate a reason why the arguments 
: were not necessarily based on fact, the extent to which either side lied 
: is irrelevant to my point.  The fact is, if one side is lying to prove 
: it's position, the last thing they want is facts that could expose them 
: as liers to get in the way.

: : : lied to the voters of Quebec, provided a very vaguely worded question for 

: : 	A lot of people say that the Oui people were brain washed,
: : 	are non educated, or other things like that and those same
: : 	people say that the question was vaguely worded.

: Perhaps the words 'vaguely worded' are not the best way to explain what I 
: percieve.  Now I've only seen the question in English translation.  And 
: what I saw in the question had some very nasty implications.  As I 
: understand the question, it went something along the lines of "Do you 
: support separatism *if a deal cannot be negotiated with the rest of 
: Canada.*" (my emphasis).  Answer this question.  What are the 
: implications if one of the parties, read Quebec, were negotiating in bad 
: faith with the negotiators having no intention of ever actually reaching 
: an agreement?  In the scenario, the question, by implication, becomes "Do 
: you support separatism?"  Why?  Because in the bad faith negotiation 
: scenario no deal will ever be reached.  I believe this is the card the PQ 
: had up its sleeve.  And I'm not sure that implication was ever explained 
: to Quebecers.  There is the 'vagueness' to the question.  If both parties 
: were to negotiate in good faith, then the question stands as read.  If 
: the PQ entered into negotiations in bad faith, then the question 
: Quebecers were voting on was not the one on the ballot.


: : : the folks to vote on, and allegedly tried to rig the balloting process in 
: : 	That's not proven yet.

: allege - verb, transitive.  affirm, especially without proof.  Hence 
: Alleged, Allegedly.

: As you can see by my wording, I didn't say it was proven.  If it is 
: proven, then I can quite happily drop the word allegedly from the above 
: sentence.

	D�sol�, mais ma langue naturelle n'�tant pas l'englais je n'avais
	pas fait la diff�rence.

	sj

: --
: John Fleming                         email: johnf@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: Edmonton, AB, T5J 3S2

:      -The world was all before them, where to chose
:       Thir place of rest, and Providence thir guide:
:       They hand in hand with wand'ring steps and slow,
:       Through *Eden* took thir solitary way.

:                          John Milton (Paradise Lost, Book XII)