JCT: Initial impressions about

http://guelphmercury.blogs.com/guelphvotes/2008/08/debate-reality.html
August 26, 2008

Jct: Matt Shurrie wrote:

MS: Debate - Reality TV
Posted by Matt Shurrie
Rogers Television captured quite a moment during tonight's
Guelph Chamber of Commerce-sponsored debate when independent
candidate John Turmel disrupted the proceedings from the
outset.
Perhaps he was angry that none of the fringe party
candidates were included on the panel of byelection
candidates.
Whatever the case, Turmel did everything he could to disrupt
Guelph Chamber of Commerce president Lloyd Longfield's
introduction (who also served as the event's moderator).
Turmel paced in front of the room, waved his arms and
shouted at audience members.

Jct: It wasn't shouting, I had no mike. I even mentioned I
had to be stentorian. And yes, I'm sure I'm guilty of waving
my arms.

MS: At one point it looked as if Turmel pointed his finger
at Liberal candidate Frank Valeriote.

Jct: No, I criticized them all for not backing up my fight
to add an extra chair to the debate. Especially the Green.
What a disappointment now that they're in on Big Brother's
gravy train. I'd pointed out how candidates stood up, Big
Brother bowed down. Liberals Mac Harb and Lowell Green stood
up for my participation unlike this Liberal. Tories Bob
Mitchell and Graham Bird stood up for me unlike this Tory.
The NDP have never stood up for me, even participating alone
when the LIberal and Tory boycotted the CJOH debate and only
Evelyn Gigantes, with Bob Rae's approval, participated
alone. She won. But of course, the Green was most
hypocritical.

MS: The 20-minute episode was eventually interrupted when
four Guelph Police officers arrived - and we can only assume
escorted Turmel out of the room. We'll never know for sure
because that's when Rogers took a quick commercial break.

Jct: "The police have arrived, time for a break" said the
nose-for-news Rogers director. And of course, I heard that
the Rogers director decided no one should hear what was
going on and cut the audio. "Hey, we've got O.J. in a room
with a gun, quick, turn off the mike" said Nose-for-News

MS: For a moment it was some of the most real 'reality' TV
this region has ever seen.

Jct: Even with the audio censored by Rogers? I happen to
have some audio I'll be posting in case you want the whole
story Rogers didn't give you.
John Turmel
---

August 26, 2008

Jct: Ryan wrote:

R: My wife and I were watching in shock as the unknown man
paced in front, looking like he was yelling things, but we,
the tv viewers, couldn't hear a word.

Jct: The Nose-for-News director made the editorial decision
that the viewers didn't need to hear what was going on with
the picture. It would be neat to learn the rationale behind
that.

R: We just kept thinking, "That's the WRONG way to try to
get publicity for an election..."

Jct: I'd have been so much better off getting publicity by
not going.

R: We felt the moderator did a great job keeping his cool,
and delivering his speech.

Jct: Big Brother kept his cool doing the dirty deed. Seems
to have been appreciated.

R: Also, we've both now settled that we're voting Green.
Mike Nagy was amazing.

Jct: He could have been amazing if he'd backed up all the
candidates being allowed to participate like the party used
to. Even if amazing, a gutless hypocrite is the verdict.

R: His opening comments were the only ones that didn't sound
like some sort of attack ad. Enough negative politics...

Jct: Everybody's in favor of the environment. What did he
say that was different from the major party candidates who
are also in favor of a better environment. No gets to keep
the issue of "motherhood and apple pie" all to themselves.

R: I want someone who's willing to talk about issues, is
willing to put forth ideas for positive change,

Jct: And you've decided on that someone from your exposure
to four of the eight candidates on your political menu.
That's in depth research. A quality vote. Not.

R: and Mike Nagy looks like he'll be the guy to beat, if
others are as tired of the 'democratic process' of previous
years as we are.

Jct: He made a strategic mistake in not practising what they
used to preach. You don't recover from a strategic mistake.
For instance, a tactical mistake is using the wrong golf
club, you'll eventually get to the hole. A strategic mistake
is not aiming at the hole. Not practicing what he preached,
that's being a hypocrite. There's only one out and I'm not
going to tell him what it is.
John Turmel
---

August 27, 2008

Jct: Felix wrote:

F: Why didn't Mike Nagy support the other candidates' right
to be part of the "debate"? How many times have we heard the
Green Party complain when they are excluded from the
national TV debates?

Jct: I really punished him for that. Over and over I called
him a hypocrite for accepting the benefits he used to
complain they were giving only to the others.

F: I thought these were "all candidate" debates not
"selective candidate" debates.

Jct: They called it a "candidates" debate. Not "all-
candidates." It's presumed though it's false.

F: It looks like the democratic process of hearing
candidates is dictated by media's desire to fit the debates
into a two hour package.

Jct: That's the pretext. The real reason is so that viewers
do not see or hear anything they do not see or hear usually
on TV. The Big Four all year long, no independent thought,
and the Big Four during elections, no independent thought.
John Turmel
---

August 27, 2008

MichaelStevenDWizardWisniewski wrote:

MSW: And here is no better time to share MY "fringe"
candidate story.
When I ran in the '06 fed election, CJOY had attempted to
host an on-air debate with only 4 of the 6 candidates.
Myself being excluded. Anyone who knows me will tell you,
I'm not the type to just roll over and take that. Not
inviting certain candidates is wrong, just plain wrong,
period.
Anyway, my solution to this problem was actually found
amongst my competitors.

Jct: That's what I always do to. Often, having just just one
opponent speak up is enough to have the other sheople
candidates follow suit. Tory Bob Mitchell in Carleton did.

MSW: I asked all 4 invitees to withhold their presence until
invites were extended to all. This was an all-or-nothing
proposition. If only one invitee chose not to play ball, I'd
rescind my request. Reason being I didn't want 3 of the 4
invitees to do the right thing only to give the only
candidate remaining 2 hours on-air all to himself.

Jct: That's what I asked the other candidates. That's why
the director cut the audio feed, so no one could hear me
pleading to my opponents not to accept my being cheated.
Back in 1984, Lowell Green and Graham Bird walked off a CJOH
debate to which only half the six candidates had been
invited while Evelyn Gigantes of the NDP stayed alone to
then win the election. Cheating pays off.

MSW: So, I made my pitch to all the candidates and their
campaigns. Rod Finnie, and his Liberal team, were the first
ones to sign on. They agreed that that was wrong. Brent
Bouteilleur, the Green candidate, was an easy sell because
his leader is always, wrongfully, excluded from leaders'
debates. The turning point, though, was at the Mercury's
debate at the Centre Wellington Community Sportsplex
(Fergus). Noel Duignan, the NDP candidate, publicly
lambasted CJOY for their decision, for that I'll always be
greatful. Noel was on board. After the debate, I approached
Michael Chong's campaign manager, as their campaign would be
the only one I still needed. I asked if I could count on
their help. He said he would call the radio station in the
morning. I was in.

Jct: As I kept bemoaning out loud, when the candidates
insist, Big Brother backs down. But what would you have done
if one of the candidates had said they would not support
your right to participate (Bob Rae said minor candidates
should not be included) and were going on anyway?

MSW: In regards to John Turmel, the INDEPENDENT candidate
(Phil Bender is the Libertarian), I don't blame him in the
slightest. I'll tell you why, too. If my gambit with the
other candidates didn't work, I was going anyway.

Jct: Right, it's what I do too. Go and try to get in which
I've often done accomplished.

MSW: If I got hauled out by the cops, I'd have called the
Merc ahead of time. That'd be a cool cover photo, wouldn't
it? Me, proudly showing off my hands in cuffs for the
camera. I'd of done it, too. Thankfully, it never came to
that.

Jct: But what if you had a media whose job was to hush up
any protest by cutting the audio, maybe not showing a
picture. Any bets there were no pictures of me being taken
away! That's when the Rogers Nose-for-News went on break,
when the cops came in and things got most exciting.

MSW: So, I say good on John for not letting the debate's
host have an easy time excluding candidates that have a
right to attend.

Jct: Thank you. You still haven't had the chance to see me
in action in an ordinary event, you've only got the chance
to see me in extreme confrontation. The only thing you know
is that I'll protect rights. When the other candidates
refused to help me, I told them they shouldn't be in
federal politics which involves protection of rights, they
should stay in municipal politics where we know they might
be trusted to take care of our garbage even while we know
they can't be trusted to take care of our rights.

MSW: Anyone out there have a U-toob clip I might be able to
see? I could use a good laugh.

Jct: That's the crime. The Chamber of Commerce does the
dirty deed, exclusion, and Rogers covers it saying that
since they're not running it, they don't have to obey the
CRTC requirement that be fair. But then they compound the
crime by retelevising the inequitable broadcast over and
over. It's going to be shown several times yet though I
wonder if they censors are going to leave my protest in or
make it disappear.
John Turmel
---

August 27, 2008

Jct: Kevin Ames wrote:

KA: Where do you draw the line on participants at a debate?
I'd be interested in Mike's opinion.

Jct: MichaelStevenDWizardWisniewski
MSW: Everyone should have been invited last night

David Thompson noted:
DT: I understood it to be a private event, held by the
Chamber.
As such, they can invite anyone they want. I'm not taking a
side here, but the Chamber had the right to deny anyone the
right to speak. If it were at the invite of Elections
Canada, then all should have been on the invite list.

Jct: That's their rationale. If it were Rogers television,
they would have to treat all candidates equitably but they
get the Chamber to do the dirty deed and tape it saying it's
not their responsibility any more to make it fair.
My rationale is that I leave election meetings in private
alone. But if they want to broadcast an election meeting
that's open to the public to influence the election, then I
want in. The minute the Chamber invited Rogers to come and
compound their inequitableness, it's not private any more
and I'm showing up.

DT: Michael, there is no reason you can not rent a space for
your own debate, and send out invites to all candidates if
you feel so put out about it all.

Jct: Deprived "fairly" of major television exposure because
we little guys can put on their own show that won't be
covered. I wouldn't want this guy refereeing my fair game.
So, if it influences the electoral public, it should be
fair. That's my rule.

Jct: MichaelStevenDWizardWisniewski opined:

MSW: You do make an interesting point. One that's a little
tricky for me to argue, actually.

Jct: Yes it is tricky. That's why I just handled it for you.

MSW: The best I could probably say in response is that this
is one of those cases where just because someone has the
right to do something doesn't mean they should exercise it.
Just because it's your right, doesn't necessarily make it
right. If that makes any sense.

Jct: Maybe the chamber of commerce has the right to
unfairly influence the election but should not exercise that
right, or maybe they do not have the right to unfairly
influence the election and should be labelled cheats for
trying.
John Turmel
---

August 27, 2008

DC: ok john. you now have our attention. tell us. why should
we consider voting for you?

JCT: Sorry. The others get to have their words and actions
beamed to you but I have to type? If the media didn't do
their job of helping you choose from your political menu,
then you'll have to go looking for it. Besides there will be
more meetings, just none moderated by the Guelph CoC,
Chamber of Cheats.
John Turmel
---

August 27, 2008

Ryan continued:

R: John... all of the candidates got "good" publicity in the
local newspapers. I know my wife covered everyone, and spoke
to everyone who was present, including fringe candidates.

Jct: Getting treated fairly elsewhere does not mitigate not
being treated unfairly here.

R: Standing up front yelling like a maniac

Jct: Cheap shot since I've already explained that I
apologized for having to speak stentorially enough for all
to hear. But the cheap shot explains where Ryan's coming
from. Besides, how can he say I was yelling like a maniac
when he couldn't hear anything? It`s just a cheap shot out
of his desperation for being on the inequitable side of the
issue.

R: isn't going to get the right kind of attention.

Jct: I'm forced into a confrontation and then Ryan
criticizes me for being confrontational. Remember, Ryan's
the guy who thinks I'd have gotten better publicity if I'd
just stayed home.

R: Handing out pamphlets to people as they came in, doing an
interview for a local radio station about your views...
that's not crazy looking.

Jct: It's just very ineffectual as compared to my opponents
getting to speak on TV to thousands I won't get the chance
to address. Sure, passing out paper is "Not crazy-looking"
but it is ineffectual. Anyway, Ryan doesn't need the full
story, he only needs the video feed to come to the
conclusion that I was crazy-looking. If calling me names is
the best he's got...

R: I see someone getting hauled out of the debates by the
police, my first thought is not, "Wow, I should listen to
him/vote for him."

Jct: I couldn't have made Ryan`s point better. If the police
take a candidate away, then it's not something Ryan should
be interested in.
John Turmel
---

August 27, 2008
SB: John...after your "performance" at the debate last night
I was curious to learn more about you and your views. I
visited your website only to discover that it hasn't been
updated since seemingly 1999. Considering how easy it is to
update websites these days, doesn't this seem a bit a odd
that you criticize Rogers for not giving you a forum to
discuss your views yet your own website sits un-updated? You
criticize the Green Party for being hypocritical? Clean up
your own house before you decide to act like a maniac in
ours
Steve Buffalo

JCT: When you do it right the first time, you don't need to
keep doing it to get it right. I can understand your need
for continued upgrading but you just don't know much
about how engineers do things right once and for all. Yes
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/abprogs.htm has the same
great programs as I had my whole political career.
John Turmel
---

August 27, 2008
D1andOnlyMichaelStevenDWizardWisniewskiD1st wrote:

MSW: John, you remind of someone here in Centre Wellington.
Him and I actually agreed about inequities in an all-
candidates debate (Much like you and I). However, we took
VERY different approaches to raise our concerns. I went to
the office of the host in question and spoke with the
General Manager. I even bought us coffees. We a spirited,
yet civil, conversation on the issue. The other guy, on the
other hand, decided to call the GM at home, on Thanksgiving
Monday, DURING DINNER. Guess which guy you are John.

Jct: It had been reported that the minor candidates were
being excluded. Why would I have been more convincing than
the other excludees? I think it's a cheap shot since I saw
no other recourse. What would your other "guy" have done?
John Turmel
---

August 27, 2008
D C: I wrote: ok john. you now have our attention. tell us. why
should we consider voting for you? and JCT replied: Sorry.
The others get to have their words and actions beamed to you
but I have to type? If the media didn't do their job of
helping you choose from your political menu, then you'll
have to go looking for it."

DC: Sorry John, that's a very weak cop out. It's too much
work for you to type out your platform here? Come on, surely
you have a text file you can simply paste into this box.
You sure seem to have the time and energy to whine about how
unfair everything is for you and what losers the other
candidates are, but you don't have the decency to answer a
legitimate question when posed to you. Why on earth should
anyone have to "go looking" for information about you? Isn't
that your responsibility?
Raise the level of your discussion here John and people
might give you some of the attention you are demanding. What
are your qualifications to hold office? Do you have any
experience in public office? What is your profession,
education, background?
---

August 27, 2008
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/abprogs.htm
John Turmel
---

GuelphMercury.com
Police escort candidate from debate
August 26, 2008 Jessica Smith

GUELPH

JS: "I'm a candidate. I paid. You gotta listen."

Jct: Sure that sounds nervy but if I'm seated with the other
candidates, then "you gotta listen."

JS: That was John Turmel's message last night to an audience
gathered for the Guelph Chamber of Commerce federal
byelection debate at the River Run Centre. Turmel, an
independent candidate in the Sept. 8 Guelph byelection,
stood in front of the four seated candidates -- from the
Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic and Green parties --
and loudly protested not being invited to participate in the
debate.
After 25 minutes he was escorted out of the debate by Guelph
Police, who cautioned him about trespassing. At one point,
Turmel appeared surprised at how long it took them to
arrive. "For God's sake someone call the cops, this is
getting boring," Turmel said.

JCT: Sure, the trivial stuff. But the real issue, the
appeals to the other candidates who did nothing but sit
there and take being called gutless wimps didn't get
mentioned.

JS: Before he left, Turmel held up a book of press clippings
and proudly announced he was removed by police from four
debates in a Brantford election. This is his 67th time as a
candidate in a municipal, provincial or federal election in
Canada.

JCT: I also mentioned that out of 6 of 10 debates I had not
been invited to, the last two added a chair rather than have
to resort to calling the police to remove an insistent
candidate. So sometimes it pays off for them to know they'll
always have to use maximum force against maximum civil
disobedience. Sometimes they just give up and let everyone
get a shot at those votes.

JS: One member of the audience tried to have Turmel
democratically booted out before police arrived and asked
for a show of hands.

JCT: I love when they do this. I shout no one has to vote to
let me keep my right to play for these votes but then let
them get on with the official dirty deed.

JS: Three or four hands were raised on his behalf,

JCT: Imagine the courage it took to put up their hands on an
ethical issue and vote against an angry mob, I was stunned
at the half-dozen who did. But then again, I've always said
that if someone shouts "let him stay" before the boo-birds
shout "take him away," I often get to stay. I often have
allies in the audience ready to shout "play fair" before the
boo-birds but had to suffer the democratic process to take
away my democratic right.

JS: and a majority of the crowd voted for his removal.

JCT: Honestly, it wasn't a majority of the crowd. It was a
more-ority than I had received to be allowed to participate.
Yes there were many more who voted to have the candidate
removed but I wouldn't indict the whole crowd. I'd bet
pictures would show that at least half did not vote to have
me removed though they had not jumped on the chance to vote
to have me stay since it was the option presented first.
For example, had he asked how many people want the candidate
removed first, and a quarter of the crowd raise their hands,
then how many people would let all candidates speak, the
number would have been far higher. These are subtle
political tricks I love exposing when they're done to me. So
don't get the impression that the majority of Guelph voters
are in favor of not "all candidates" debates. But I'm sure
going to beat them up with Jessica's quote that the majority
voted to deny all candidates the chance to speak.

JS: He did not leave.

JCT: I did not leave after saying "Screw you to your
majority. No one votes away my rights." Yes, the mob had
democratically voted away my right and they thought their
democratic majority made anything they did okay. That's what
I like about a republic over a "democracy" where your rights
are as transient as majority rule. So I told them: Screw
you" and did not leave and poor Jessica had to drop some of
the color from her story and only report I "did not leave."

JS: Turmel took on the candidates, and the debate moderator
and president of the Chamber of Commerce, Lloyd Longfield,
calling everyone "commies" and "Big Brother" in turn.

JCT: Sure I called them names but I also indicted them of
wrongdoing. "Shame on you" was my most-often repeated quote
that must not make it through the media filter. After having
called shame onto them for so long, "screw you" wasn't found
to be very objectionable. Jessica may not even have noticed
it.

JS: At one point, Turmel drank Conservative party candidate
Gloria Kovach's glass of water, and her campaign manager,
John White, stood up and placed himself between Turmel and
Kovach, apparently for her protection.

JCT: It must have been a threatening sip!

JS: After one round of boos and groans from the audience he
yelled, "You think I like being here with you, the
majority?"

JCT: Though I did enjoy much being there for the brave
minority.

JS: The debate was covered live by Rogers Television and was
taped for a national broadcast by the Canadian Public
Affairs Channel (CPAC).

JCT: Macro-coverage of the undemocratic debate. I'd bet
they'll censor out the protest so most don't know there were
more than the 4 Parliamentary Parties.
Funny story. Back in 1997, find my 1997 blog, I was running
in the Ottawa West general election and it just so happened
that the CPAC decided to do a federal debate between the Big
Four Parties acknowledged by the media and chose Ottawa West
candidates to participate. I showed up, just like I did here
in Guelph, and I forget why though I'm sure it's in my
"longest political blog" but they added a chair and I got to
be the fifth candidate on the nationally-aired debate! Maybe
I'll post it. But in 1997, there were five answers for every
question while in 2008, there were only four.

JS: Rogers viewers could see Turmel pacing and gesturing
during Longfield's introduction to the debate,

JCT: Did they see the guy who tried to steal my briefcase? I
had placed my briefcase of quite historic documents, my UN
picture on the same page as Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, the
President of China, my daily journal, valuable stuff, down
in front of the candidates' table just behind where I was
standing. I noticed a guy go behind me to grab it and try to
take off. I grabbed it and we got into a tug of war right in
front of the candidates table. The handle broke. How could
the viewers have missed it?
Anyway, as he pulled, I suddenly pushed while swinging my
leg underneath to trip him and he went flying off when the
handle broke. I got the briefcase, he got the handle. Gee,
did the Rogers Nose-for-News manage to cut away to a
commercial during the tug of war? Actually, I come out of it
with a sprained shoulder and a busted briefcase. Who says
politics isn't a rough game.

JS: but he was not miked and his voice could not be heard on
the broadcast, even though it carried loud and clear to
members of the audience.

JCT: Stentorian is loud enough for all to hear clearly.
With the sound off, I'm told it looks like I was "yelling
like a maniac" though I was enjoying a situation I've been
in many times before and it got even better:

JS: Turmel was not the only candidate excluded from the
debate. Animal Alliance Environment Voters of Canada
candidate Karen Levenson and her party are going to lodge a
complaint against Rogers and the Chamber of Commerce with
Elections Canada on the grounds that the debate would be an
illegal contribution to the four parties invited to
participate, she said. "It's a question of democracy and
there wasn't democracy here," she said.

JCT: I was in for a wonderful surprise as Karen Levenson and
her party leader joined me in front of the other candidates
to add their voices to the protest against exclusion. Did
the viewers see the two ladies standing with me even if
the Rogers Nose-for-News didn't let anyone hear what they
had to say?
It gave me the chance to say that maybe I'd turned a lot of
people off and they didn't want to hear any more about me
but what was their reason for not wanting to hear anything
more from Ms. Levenson? I can understand your not minding
loud noisy me being cheated but what's your excuse for not
minding her being cheated. I called them cheats so many
times, I guess it escaped the reporter's attention.

JS: Libertarian candidate Phil Bender also feels his
exclusion from the debates was undemocratic, he said in a
call to the Mercury last week. Marijuana party candidate
Kornelis Klevering was also excluded.

The Mercury is holding a televised debate Sept. 3, to which
all of the candidates have been publicly invited.

Jct: They called to say they were going to use the Rogers
Rules, no buttons, no exhibits, no color. I was taken from a
Rogers debate by Brantford police for exhibiting my party
sticker! "Some candidates might have bigger buttons giving
them an advantage," said the Guelph Mercury organizer. I
can't show press clippings, Great Canadian Character
Anthology, exhibits of local currencies, the UN Millennium
Declaration with my UNILETS resolution, done boring and
grey, the Ted Rogers way. Just google for Fuhrer Philp to
read about my federal court application against being denied
equal time for exhibiting my party button.
So, shades of Fuhrer Philp making it boring and grey the Ted
Rogers way. Have party buttons ever been banned in Guelph
before? Or is this the first attempt to have electioneering
boring and grey done the Ted Rogers way? Are they ready to
use police again to prevent me from wearing my party button
or showing a press clipping. By the sounds of the Mercury
lady, it threatens to be boring and grey done the Ted Rogers
way. Unless I choose to disobey. What are they doing to do,
search me for an illegal sticker?

WHAT WAS DEBATED
The four mainstream candidates discuss the future of Canada
-- in one minute or less. See page A3.

Jct: What's really funny is that the crowd were not forced
to listen to a couple of hours of boring party points being
read by the candidates to every issue. Try this test. Upon
leaving a meeting, ask someone if they can remember two
things that a candidate said. Most people cannot. Why they
cannot is another chapter in political theory. I have no
doubt these four Parliamentary clones were no less boring
than the four parliamentary parties the voters are bored by
on TV every day.
As for the Greens, http://demanddemocraticdebates.ca/
demands participation for Elizabeth May as Green Mike Nagy
rejects participation for the Guelph independent.
---

August 29, 2008

DC: thanks for the website john. ok, seems your mission is
to disrupt and contest election results (holding the world
record) rather than actually offering yourself up as a
realistic candidate. gotcha. the world does need it's s-
disturbers. fair enough.

JCT: Cheap, cheap cheap shots. The one time my girlfriend
said "mission accomplished" was not for disrupting or
contesting my many many elections (holding the world
record)! The only time she said "mission accomplished" was
exactly one month after the June 18 1996 Ottawa Sun report
on the federal byelection in Hamilton against Sheila Copps
titled "Super Loser Fails Again" that the Hamilton Spectator
reported in a July 18 article titled "Creating work by
working together" that the Hamilton Self-Help Group were
starting up a Hamilton LETS. They took my Local Employment
Trading system as my offering myself up as a realistic
candidate. It's your unfounded and ignorant conclusion that
shit-disturbing is my only mission, fair enough, but the
families I've helped all over the world may not agree.

DC: but, it seems a bit odd that you would be running in
Guelph, though, seeing as your website says you live in
Brantford. or, does the Abolitionist Party routinely
parachute in star candidates?

JCT: Why not? You'd rather have someone to handle such an
esoteric topic as interest-free currency software other than
the engineer who engineered it?

DC: where will you run if a general election is held?

JCT: Probably where I live. But if I do well in Guelph, say
someone re-kick-starts up the old Guelph LETS, I just might
make the hour trip to run here again.

DC: i'd hate to think that the fine people of Guelph would
lose out on your wisdom if you decided to run in Brantford.
D C

Jct: For a guy who hasn't realized what I'm about despite
lots of evidence, it only proves the fact that someone
convinced against their will is someone unconvinced still.
DC is convinced I run in these elections promoting LETS to
disturb his already-overworked neurons.