There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By Shea (anonymous) | Posted February 17, 2013 at 15:34:20 in reply to Comment 86413
Shawn's comments here, and the astute--I think-- comments in #86407,"yes Ryan, & Burak column (anonymous)", are not mutually exclusive. Au contraire. Since what Shawn writes at the start of his comment about the Spec's purpose is accurate, or even true, therefore citizen readers can/should/must demand better. The Spec's print-any-comment letters, whether their 'facts' are demonstrable or not, has led in the Spec to ad hominem attacks and letters that impute motives to writers separate from arguments over the issue at hand. A House of Commons speaker (in the 1990s, I believe) told MPs not to do it. (Shawn or Shea is writing or saying this or that because EVERYONE knows that he probably is part of SOME group that THINKS this or that awful thing. Well, I may be, but it's separate from the argument at hand.)
A good/better newspaper would make it incumbent on a letter writer to give at least an example from that newspaper's articles or letters, which the new writer is responding to. When a reader says in annoyance to the letter on the page, "For example??", the example should BE there for the reader to go to. Even the Spec gives previous "Re" references in its "regular" curated letters. It's not good enough; not useful; not appropriate, to run "curated" letters that are no better than quick after-articles posted comments: Everybody knows (let's say) that the meteor or demon-comet that exploded over Russia this week is god's warning to evil-born humans. Everybody "knows" but with no evidence IN THE LETTER that this is "true"--and no copyright apology to Spec here (from so-called Letter, Thurs., Feb.14)--"Why does it seem that with every major development issue, the same few people get involved? This was the case with the board of education decision, the stadium debacle and, rewinding a few years, the Red Hill construction delay. The same activists seem to move from issue to issue, rallying troops along the way, rarely compromising on their position and when the debate is over, they move on to the next big thing. ..."
A letter should draw on what's actually been in the Spec or elsewhere to support that sort of thing. Go ahead. Either the writer can, or cannot. //
Permalink | Context