Yes, there really isn’t much discussion on a lot of your threads, is there? I’ve noticed that. Well, try taking my advice, and setting out an argument in terms that don’t sound like a drunk trying to pick a fight. That might work.

“So what do you think I should do about your disruptive behavior in future posts?”

Gosh, just follow my advice. Act like your interested in a discussion instead of a brawl. That way you’ll get more folks discussing, and fewer folks pointing out…well, you get my drift, I’m sure.

You appear to be the only person who thinks that this post constitutes provocation, or hyperbolic assertion or whatever. Despite this, you’ve gone on and on and ruined the post with your personal, insulting, off-topic comments. Unfortunately, our site seems to be plagued with adolescent graffiti artists like yourself. So what do you think I should do about your disruptive behavior in future posts?

Not the ones whose only point is to pick a fight, no. Which means most of them, I suppose.

“But until then, please yourself.”

I will, thanks. I guess that this means I won’t be seeing you comment on any of my future posts? Rest assured, I’ll cry myself to sleep tonight.

I hope everyone else actually got the point of the anecdote? That it wasn’t about Aaron and the French? Good. I thought most of you would.

As for how you run the site…good heavens, run it any way you please. I’m just a commenter, it’s your blog. It would be a more interesting place if you weren’t so addicted to shallow, drive-by provocation, but each blogger establishes his own tone, and that’s your chosen voice. If you ever want to see how real dialogue can be fostered, pay a bit of attention to Greg and Marsilio. But until then, please yourself.

“Aaron, I learned a few years ago that when a stranger sits down across from you in the legion, glares at you balefully, and says…”So waddya think about them fuckin’ Frenchmen, eh?”"

Fuckin’ Frenchmen? Speaking of hyperbolic assertions. That’s a little funny, since I’m generally a defender of the French Fact in Canada. I guess that you wouldn’t know that, having arrived here all of two whole days ago. Of course, that hasn’t stopped you from waxing eloquent on how we should be running this site, now has it?

Unfortunately, we’ve had more than enough ill-informed yet nevertheless pompous commenters here in the past. There really isn’t a need for one more.

I’m VERY interested in Canada’s cultural evolution and its attendant growning pains. But you know, when I read a phrase like “soak up every aspect of every immigrant that arrives here”, then I’m right back in the legion. I KNOW whoever frames the issue that way isn’t really interested in talking about it.

So excuse, me, I think I have to piss, and I see some friends over there at that other table.

For someone who cares so passionately about “real discussion,” Dalton, you seem to be more interested here in nit-picking over my interpretation of BTE’s comment than in the broader issues raised. Of course, BTE’s comment had nothing to do with the post, other than providing a rough approximation of the multicultural view described in the post. If I had wanted to insult or misrepresented his views, there are better ways to do so.

So, in the interest of being constructive (your silly insults notwithstanding), if I were to delete the reference to the BTE comment, would that satisfy your deep yearning for “real discussion” free of “hyperbolic assertion”?

(Humour) Ah. Marsilio, that was a very interesting exchange yesterday, but it pains me to see you too falling victim to Talk Radio Syndrome, no doubt contracted from Aaron. (It’s famously contagious). One of the symptoms is indifference to the substance of a discussion, and the sad belief that value is a function of the number of responses in a thread. (Humour ends.)

“Multicultural sponge” is a fine image. But STE did not suggest that should “soak up EVERY aspect of EVERY immigrant that arrives here.” (My emphases). And therein lies the silly hyperbole.

Quebec has a different legal and political inheritance (French civil and criminal law) than does English Canada (the English common law tradition). Despite the HLA Hart inspired modifications in Canada that began under Pierre Trudeau, its certainly telling that Quebec has never gone along willingly, whatever you may think of the rest of their separatist leanings.

Your free to challenge that of course, but nitpicking over his choice of metaphor seems to defeat the purpose of your complaint. How many responses are there now to this thread?

Here’s what STE said: “immigrants and expected to do their part to fit in (i.e. learn one of the two official languages, upgrade their skills to find jobs, participate in the political process once they become citizens), but at the same time, Canadians are also expected to adapt to the arrival of new people…As Canadian faces change, so will this country’s political ideas, and ultimately what it means to be Canadian.”

Here’s how Aaron summarized that fairly innocuous observation: “…the view that Canada is a multicultural sponge meant to soak up every aspect of every immigrant that arrives here.”

You don’t see that as a ridiculous exaggeration of STE’s point? Oh, okay. As I said, I commend your loyalty to your blogmates.

Perhaps you should take your own advice:

your habit of starting threadsmaking comments with no intent other than primitive provocation is a bore.

I would hate to be accused of boring you. Apparently you don’t feel the same about me, given these comments.

I’ll start you off. A two founding nations conception of Canada, based on bilingualism and bi-culturalism, is perfectly consistent with a conception of Canada that mixes hundreds of other immigrant languages and cultures into our little “stew.” Take it away, Dalt!

There are a whole bunch of questions waiting for your input in Marsilio’s thread. If you want to engage in real discussion, join in over there.

Greg recently closed down a thread because of exchange between writers had become pointlessly acrimonious.

May I suggest that when a post starts with an absurdly hyperbolic assertion like this, it really has nowhere to go at all?