Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


A retraction is issued.

In case you were asleep all day and all night, there’s been a major kerfuffle online about some comments Jason made where he reported rumours that certain people felt Olivia Chow hadnt exactly won fair and square. He has now apologized and admitted he was wrong for saying what he did, even if it wasn’t a direct accusation. Good on you Jason.

I’m still troubled by his assertion though that one of the reasons the Liberal Party supported Bill C-31 is that many believed the rumours he reported to be true. I have enough problems with that Bill already which I talked briefly about – I’d find it unacceptable if the Liberal Party had decided to support it on account of an unconfirmed unproven rumour as Jason claims.. and I’d hope the Senate (which has apparently stalled the bill while it examines it) would do some major overhauls to it to prevent voter suppression.


18 comments to A retraction is issued.

  • Scott,

    I’m not saying anything in order to upset you, I am merely pointing out the obvious to people. You will see who supports you by the number who remain.

    I am staying in the PB for now. Given the way the PB is organized, I can’t imagine how else it would be resolved.

  • “You’re still obsessed over the blog breakdown of political affiliates I gave, merely because I didn’t list in a separate column the 2 or 3 Blogging Tory sites and the 1 or 2 Progressive Canadian Party sites separate from the “non-partisan or unaffiliated” affiliates??”

    The answer is NO. All I’m saying is that whatever the numbers are, that doesn’t proof anything. Many bloggers agree with me that there ProgBlog has a Liberal bias. Like it or hate it, no numbers will take that away soon.

    But since you’re asking (and since THIS post IS still open for debate):

    I do think it is immature of you to –
    – close the membership breakdown post for further debate
    – publish the number of members for each party; you have them but you refuse to report them (liberal pride?), so much for transparancy!
    – apologize on my blog, yet, if you’re seeking a public relations victory out of this Erik.. its yours.” .

    But am I surpirsed? Not a bit. For some people matturity does NOT come with age, and is a real apology not part of their vocabulary. That’s what I’ve learned that from a couple of liberals in the last few days…

  • I’m repeating my comment here that I said when JimBobby came to talk to me about this at my own blog:

    I haven’t “accepted Cherniak’s apology” at all, whether conditionally or unconditionally. All I did was tell him that I was impressed he was able to admit he was wrong in so many words. That was the truth. It’s hard to admit you were wrong, and it impresses me when people do it, especially in public.

    Cherniak doesn’t owe me anything, so it’s not up to me to demand more than he’s given. I will say, though, that if I were Olivia Chow or part of her 2006 campaign team, I don’t think I’d be terribly satisfied with things as they stand.

  • I stand corrected on the “pivotal role” thing. I came late to that particular party and only started payin’ attention when the boogs started talkin’ about KinsellerFeller’s NatPost piece.

    O’ course, yer own boog’s fer yer own opinions. Yer comments section is fer hashin’ out them opinions with yer loyal readers, right? If yer only interested in gettin’ comments that agree with yer opinion, let me know an’ I’ll steer clear.

    My goose-gander thing above did tie you to yer role at PB and if this was the wrong place to question the seeming double-standard that so many others are talkin’ about, I’m sorry. (That’s an example of a weasel apology — “If… then.”)

    Like so many other boogers, Scotty, I appreciate the work you fellers an’ gals do fer PB an’ fer the Canajun boogeysphere. If I’m bein’ critical, it’s only on accounta I don’t like dirty tricks an’ slimy tactics an’ that’s what I seen in JC’s boog.


  • You might want to talk to Idealistic Pragmatist or James Bow then Jimbobby. They accepted his apology without condition, and thats my personal view as well, but it doesn’t reflect what the rest of the mods at Prog Blog think of it (none have really commented on it yet at our forums) – or official Prog Blog policy. That’s why I have my own site Jimbobby, so I can make pronouncements or opinions without having everyone think Prog Blog must also endorse what I am saying. Apparently though, that still isnt the case with some.

    And to yet again explode another conspiracy myth on here that some of you seem to hold on to, Jason had no “pivotal role” in our decision on Robert. Robert’s comments were brought to our attention a day before Jason was even aware of them, and we already had one moderator calling for tough action (and it wasn’t the Liberal-affiliated moderators doing the calling at that point). Our decision was based on what the moderators felt was the right decision – Jason had nothing to do with that. I realize Jason didnt help matters or the perception of that by crowing to the high heavens about it… but the reality is none of us were pressured by a Jason Cherniak-Warren Kinsella tag-team to do the action we did on Robert… despite what some on here seem to think.

  • “And thats disappointing coming from you if you’re insinuating you believe that to be true Jimbobby, particularly since I know the man behind the mask.”

    I’m only callin’ it like I see it, Scott. What I see in your OP is a full acceptance of Jason’s “apology” and a pat on the back to him from you. “Good on you Jason.” Not too many bloggers are seein’ a real apology there. In light of Jason’s pivotal role in the ouster of RM, your quick acceptance Jason’s explanation raises questions. From the outset, the false rumours were couched in legaleese and weasel words. The so-called apology, too.

    I ask you to take a closer look and reconsider your “Good on you Jason.” I see little good done with the non-apology and lame excuses. He’s only scaled back the extent to which he alleges voter fraud. He still alleges fraud.

    When I see slander and abuse in the Canajun boogeysphere, I saddle up an’ do what I can t’ tell wrong-doers they’re doin’ wrong. I did so on yer behalf a few weeks back when some Weiner was slanderin’ yer ass. I’ll do it again when I see some booger usin’ his or her boog t’ tell vicious lies or to propagate false criminal accusations.


  • Give me a break Erik. You’re still obsessed over the blog breakdown of political affiliates I gave, merely because I didn’t list in a separate column the 2 or 3 Blogging Tory sites and the 1 or 2 Progressive Canadian Party sites separate from the “non-partisan or unaffiliated” affiliates?? You’re really grasping at straws. The facts of the matter (and you seem to not be able to accept this) is that 77% of the affiliates are not Liblogs or Liberal bloggers as far as I can tell, and 6 out of the 8 people who make moderator or admin. decisions are not Liberals either.

    I invite you to go tell our Green, feminists, NDP leaning, and unaffiliated partisan that they’re “Liberal-biased” and see if the reaction they give you is more restrained then mine.

    As for “everyone agrees” we have double standards, I don’t see that at all. We have 364 affiliates at Prog Blog.. I see you loudly crying about it.. but hardly anyone else.

    I have nothing to apologize for Erik, and neither does Progressive Bloggers as a site or the individual moderators for any liberal bias.. because there isn’t one.

    So if you’re expecting one.. you arent getting one. I dont apologize or admit to things that arent true, and are figments of someone’s wild imagination.

  • Scott, I’m sorry to have caused this trouble for you.

  • “If people want to continue to think there is an “LPC bias” at our site, that’s their right, but that’s simply an incorrect statement.”

    Scott, saying it’s incorrect does not make it incorrect.

    I think everyone can agree on the double standards at ProgBlog. You did try to proof, with a (flawed) number game, that ProgBlog does NOT have a liberal bias, as if numbers would debunk any liberal bias among the ProgBlog moderators.

    Although the “I was wrong” was at best a poor apology, I’ll have to respect Jason at least for something; he admits he has a clear liberal bias (“The truth is that if the rumour were about a Liberal, I would have done more research and figured out that it was bogus before posting it.”)

    It’s about time you did the same.

  • If people want to continue to think there is an “LPC bias” at our site, that’s their right, but that’s simply an incorrect statement. And thats disappointing coming from you if you’re insinuating you believe that to be true Jimbobby, particularly since I know the man behind the mask.

    There are 6 people out of 8 (including Wayne) who aren’t Liberals, involved in the decisions at Prog Blog. I will not go thru the breakdown of who is seen as supporting what. It should be easy for you all to figure out by looking at the names of the moderators at the site. As for JC, we havent even made a decision yet on what (if any) action was to be taken. And that’s all I’m going to say on the matter for now.

  • Whooee! I’m with the others, Scotty. That ain’t an apology. I think it was just last week you were sayin’ there’s no LPC bias here. It’s sure lookin’ like what’s good fer the goose ain’t what yer dishin’ out fer the gander. Like April sez, he don’t even back off that there was a crime committed. It’s like sayin’ he don’t beat his wife anymore — except on weekends.

    Bein’ outrageous is a way t’ draw attention t’ yer boog. Ain’t nothin’ wrong with that, sez I. Bein’ outrageous by propagatin’ false rumours of criminal activity where names are named an’ political careers are at stake goes a long way over the line. He’s used enough legaleeze weasel words that Olivia would have a hard time with a lawsuit. That’s no accident. This is a dirty-trick-polyticks-at-its-worst smear — well-planned and still being executed. The assertion that “… do believe that some people cheated in the riding…” negates any feeble attempt at an apology.


  • I will not get drawn into a debate over what was discussed on internal private moderator discussion re: JC, since they aren’t complete and not all moderators have even gotten the chance to participate yet, but people are free to to do whatever they want, Mike.

    There is nothing keeping anyone locked in at Prog Blog, and if they think we’re doing such a horrible job there, then by all means start something up as an alternative. I’d wish them well with no malice.

  • One of the things that anarchism has taught me – indeed one of its appeals – is that if you do not like a voluntary organization, withdraw, secede and create your own alternative voluntary organization.

    If the Prog Blog moderators are unwilling to apply the same standards to JC as they did to RM, one simply has to create an alternative aggregator for progressive bloggers and let them compete for members in the market place of ideas. Considering the quality of marketing the name Jason Cherniak is for progressive causes, I’d say the new aggregator would attract a lot of members.

    Just sayin’.

  • Robert didn’t repeat his initial statement in his apology and yet his was not accepted.

    In this so called apology Jason continues to say he believes there was fraud only on a lesser scale than originally reported.

    What the hell kind of apology is that?

  • Scott when is an apology not an apology, when it is qualified.

  • In response to Audacious the answer is no. As I blogged.

  • are there retractions on the individual posts: Find the middle ground or The Rumour?
    did he send an apology to Olivia and the NDP?

  • “He has now apologized and admitted he was wrong”

    Good for you Jason. ProgBlog moderators can at least go to sleep and pretend they got an apology “in time”, before they would have to purge another member for a year.

    Liberal bias? I don’t see any.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.