[nfitz]

Oh dear nfitz, are you making things up again?

Um no. I've never made up anything here. Check the agenda ... It's item EX16.8 - app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2012.EX16.8. It's been brought by the Executive Committee, chaired by Rob Ford, which passed the item unanimously. Stintz will offer an amendment to this, if the reports are to be believed.

I really don't see the need for such posts. I fail to see why you react like this when you think someone is wrong ... once again, it only makes you look foolish.

 

[typezed]

As nfitz states, it was already on the agenda for the upcoming week, proposed by the Executive. And it was looking surprisingly undramatic, as the news earlier this week was that Ford and Stintz had reached a compromise about the makeup of the new board, so that the motion would be easily adopted and changes would take place over the upcoming months. It even looked like the Ford 5 would remain unchallenged for now. But Ford didn't stick to the compromise. He was working to undermine the direction of council right away - making a big deal of meeting with developers while the TTC meeting was taking place, having his brother propose stupider and stupider ideas for funding subways - so the compromise has failed and the fun is back on, hopefully Ford's influence on transit will be stripped from him.

Perhaps if Matlow has turned off his Twitter for awhile, he's learning that it is sometimes advantageous to hold his cards to his chest. Especially when the stakes are high and the alliances can be fragile. My view is that the other, quieter Josh has been more influential in the movement of council and the rise of the centrist coalition, which may be why he was initially proposed for the new slate of Commission members.

 

[Northern Magus]

wtf? It's the mayor's agenda item and Stintz will amend it, exactly like nfitz said. (I'd say he's hoist on his own petard, but the petard would probably break.)

I've found that ntitz has a fascinating and persistent history of intellectual dishonesty. I've also seen in him an unfortunate willingness to lie when challenged on his chronic mischaracterizations and misrepresentations.

Also, in all honesty, I think you've misstated his remarks.

He disputed that the meeting was "special", at least in one sense of the word, while implying that Ford was driving the agenda. His statement that "all that is planned is an amendment...." is clearly inaccurate and misleading since far more is being planned, as the excerpt from the Globe reveals.

None of this is a surprise to me, but factual accuracy is a necessary foundation to any civic discussion. Even when Mayor Robbie is indeed being hoist on his own petard.

 

[k10ery]

I've found that ntitz has a fascinating and persistent history of intellectual dishonesty. I've also seen in him an unfortunate willingness to lie when challenged on his chronic mischaracterizations and misrepresentations.

I think nfitz is just a good arguer.

 

[Northern Magus]

once again, it only makes you look foolish.

You mean like this?

 

[Northern Magus]

I think nfitz is just a good arguer.

I sure don't: sophistry is false argument.

Once upon a time I thought his posts were somewhat cogent, until he tried spinning a yarn about how $25 million pedestrian bridges were, in his view, grossly overpriced, and he thought they should cost less than half of that. He then weakly tried to rely, by way of example, on a bridge built a decade ago in another country at a much different currency exchange rate. When i42 subsequently posted about two other Canadian bridges costing the same, he then (in high dudgeon) tried to insist that his declarative sentences were merely questions, and proceeded to (rather disappointingly) try equivocating and splitting hairs.

I have little respect for those who flee legitimate arguments by way of dishonesty.

Since then, I have seen him banned for referring to someone as "an asshole" after chronicly bleating in protest whenever he feels someone is rude to him. I have seen him falsely assert that a certain group of migrant workers was mistreated/exploited while building the Canada Line in Vancouver ... when in fact no one from that group was employed in building it. And I've even seen him try to assert that published defamation is "slander" while pontificating about the quasi-legal requirements for satisfying the Ontario Press Council's standards.

In my experience with him, things like these appear to happen all too often.

A good arguer is intellectually honest, consistent, and well informed. A good arguer is factually accurate and cogent.

I've sure found him to be none of these: sophistry doesn't cut it.

 

[jeff316]

I sure don't: sophistry is false argument.

Once upon a time I thought his posts were somewhat cogent, until he tried spinning a yarn about how $25 million pedestrian bridges were, in his view, grossly overpriced, and he thought they should cost less than half of that. He then weakly tried to rely, by way of example, on a bridge built a decade ago in another country at a much different currency exchange rate. When i42 subsequently posted about two other Canadian bridges costing the same, he then (in high dudgeon) tried to insist that his declarative sentences were merely questions, and proceeded to (rather disappointingly) try equivocating and splitting hairs.

I have little respect for those who flee legitimate arguments by way of dishonesty.

Since then, I have seen him banned for referring to someone as "an asshole" after chronicly bleating in protest whenever he feels someone is rude to him. I have seen him falsely assert that a certain group of migrant workers was mistreated/exploited while building the Canada Line in Vancouver ... when in fact no one from that group was employed in building it. And I've even seen him try to assert that published defamation is "slander" while pontificating about the quasi-legal requirements for satisfying the Ontario Press Council's standards.

In my experience with him, things like these appear to happen all too often.

A good arguer is intellectually honest, consistent, and well informed. A good arguer is factually accurate and cogent.

I've sure found him to be none of these: sophistry doesn't cut it.

Sometimes the best way to deal with being wrong is to just admit it and move on.

 

[nfitz]

He disputed that the meeting was "special".

What's the issue here? The meeting isn't special, it appeared in 2012 calendar approved by council on October 24, 2011.

There are two types of council meetings, scheduled and special. This can be seen by looking at the list of meetings where you can see that the March 5th/6th meeting is categorized as "Scheduled" while the January 17th, February 8th, February 15th, and March 21st meetings are all categorized as "Special".

How is anything I stated about this correct? I simply said it was a scheduled meeting rather than a special meeting. And that the agenda item came to council through the Executive Committee. This was all after Palma stated that "that there will be a special council meeting called next week". - which wasn't factually correct.

... factual accuracy is a necessary foundation to any civic discussion.

I agree. However I don't see anything factually wrong. I'm not sure why you believe this is a special meeting when the agenda clearly says otherwise. Or even why such a trivial matter would drive you to such an obscene personal attack!

 

[EnviroTO]

A good arguer is intellectually honest, consistent, and well informed. A good arguer is factually accurate and cogent.

I'm not sure why you are upset in this thread. If it is about his opinion on the price of pedestrian bridges then you are clearly posting in the wrong thread, and even in your comment you mention "in his view" they are overpriced indicating it was clear it was an opinion. Opinions and statements of facts are different things.

In this thread it seems the issue is about an upcoming meeting, not sure why it is a sensitive point. The mayor had already put the topic on the agenda of the regularly occurring meeting and at that time it seemed like what was going to happen is that Ford nation councillors would stay and more citizens would be added to the board.

 

[jje1000]

Anyhow, going back to the council meeting on the 5th, what might be somethings Ford will do to sway things his way?

Out of the blue- might we see some misleading calls made to pro-LRT councillors that will prevent them from coming? Kouvalis's firm is already connected to the current robocall brouhaha going on in Ottawa.

 

[Neil]

Anyhow, going back to the council meeting on the 5th, what might be somethings Ford will do to sway things his way?

Free labels for life? Pull the fire alarm? Fake heart attack? Real heart attack...

Seriously, I think he's toast. Stintz has built some solid support here, and has taken the high road for the most part, trying to compromise long after most people would have extended the middle finger. And what Councillor would sanely team up with the Doug and Mammo clown show?

 

[jje1000]

Free labels for life? Pull the fire alarm? Fake heart attack? Real heart attack...

Seriously, I think he's toast. Stintz has built some solid support here, and has taken the high road for the most part, trying to compromise long after most people would have extended the middle finger. And what Councillor would sanely team up with the Doug and Mammo clown show?

I have no doubt about it, but considering that Kouvalis is back in Toronto and has just nuked a compromise deal between Stintz and Rob, I have to question what dirty tricks he has up his sleeve.

 

[adma]

Remember, too, my theorem of the *real* reasoning behind why a lot of the "pro-Ford wets" have strategically stuck by Ford: "anarchy is worse". (Until it proves to be not that bad, after all--or else, the Fords prove to be the architects of their own negative anarchy. That is, *they're* the anarchy that's worse, not that which bids to overrule them.)

Anyway, if Matlow's not destined for the TTC Board, I wonder if there's conflict-of-interestty reasoning there, i.e. Yonge + Davisville being in the centre of his own ward...

 

[Palma]

WEll hopefully, these councillors are smart enough not to fall for any tricks or listen to any fake calls that might come their way. They all know Kouvalis is back. Plus that panel needs to report back so if the panel suggest LRT I cannot see how they will go against that just as if they support subways then they will go that route. You can;t use stats to say that Eglinton can only support LRT but then go against those same studies if they say for example that Sheppard can only support an LRT or the opposite. But regarding the motion to dissolve the TTC commission and bring forth a new slate of councillors that will be interesting and hopefully no one will even listen to Kouvalis. I am surprise though that we have not been hearing from Mike Del Grande and Doug Haliday. In the past I always heard them it seemed every week. I think I just heard Haliday this week regarding the contract for inside worker and i was surprised and almost did not recognize his voice because it had been awhile.

 

[k10ery]

I have no doubt about it, but considering that Kouvalis is back in Toronto and has just nuked a compromise deal between Stintz and Rob, I have to question what dirty tricks he has up his sleeve.

Speaking of Kouvalis, you have to laugh at the not-so-subtle sexism of how the Ford cabal started attacking Stintz yesterday. "She's changed her mind again ... She's just upset because she didn't get her way." That ridiculous "strategy" seems to have Kouvalis's fingerprints on it, don't you think?