View Single Post
  #28  
Old 09-11-2017, 06:16 AM
pipco pipco is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgib01 View Post
Well, I have had time to have a good read of all three of the Wolf articles written by Mr. Miskorsy. Frankly, they come off as less investigative journalism than they do as op-ed pieces. I'm not sure which was his intent. The first one was actually a fairly sound read, and started to show some interesting connections, albeit difficult ones to make firm conclusions from. Then the second article is premised with "The research is never-ending and the dots are near impossible to connect." Alrm bells... an interesting caveat to start of things off with.

By the third one, the assertions and connections have gone completely off the rails in my opinion. It is intimated that if a group opposes _his_ agenda, then they clearly have no place at the political/public/consultation tables in our province. He uses a pretty broad and non-discriminate brush to conclude that the "green agenda" in Alberta is led by groups who wants to exclude all human activity from protected areas, and states "These are groups that can not be allowed to make or participate in the decision making." Which groups are those? The articles paint issue with many groups from UNESCO (and anyone that would waste their time to support their vision), to the Alberta Conservation Association and even Mountain Equipment Co-op. Are these the groups he's referring to that shouldn't be allowed to participate in the discussion? Perhaps he might believe I shouldn't be allowed to put my forth opinion either, as I filled out the survey to state my support for many of the elements of the plan for protection of the Castle... ergo I supported something that Y2Y supports... ergo I must support everything Y2Y has ever stated, and ultimately Dave Foreman and eco-terrorism. As mentioned by another poster above, false equivalence seems to be the flavour of the day.
Apparently, I'm also a supporter of alleged "eco-terrorists".

The term does have a catchy, fear mongering, right wing, extremist sort of tone that is catchy in headlines and a great way to pigeon hole environmental groups. The ones not doing things the "Right" way.

I can respectfully disagree with anyone against Y2Y.
Reply With Quote