... especially since Rebecca specifically bumped one of them this morning?
Why are both "questions for Brian Topp" threads closed?
Tue, 2012-02-21 16:44
#1
Why are both "questions for Brian Topp" threads closed?
Tue, 2012-02-21 16:45
#2
Anyway, out of fairness, I wanted to ask him the same question I'm asking other candidates:
Mr. Topp,
On April 27, 2010, the Speaker of the House held the Harper government in contempt of Parliament for refusing to hand over all the Afghan detainee documents.
As in the case of many other such scandalous actions, Harper emerged unscathed, and the issue disappeared from the radar.
What is at stake is Canada's possible complicity in torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Are you prepared to demand that all the documents be released to Parliament now - failing which, that you will publish them immediately when the NDP forms the government?
Tue, 2012-02-21 17:05
#3
I am also interested in your answer to this same question.
Tue, 2012-02-21 17:11
#4
I bumped the thread to remind people of the day and time that Brian Topp will be here to answer questions.
The threads were closed because at some point we had to take what we had and our editorial staff had to have time to cull the 6 advance questions we provide each candidate.
You will have an opportunity to ask other questions when Brian goes live tomorrow afternoon.
Tue, 2012-02-21 17:21
#5
Ok, thx.
Tue, 2012-02-21 18:24
#6
No prob.
Tue, 2012-02-21 18:29
#7
Just a question though. I read the Nathan Cullen thread after the fact and Catchfire seemed to be actively discouraging "new" questions. Which makes perfect sense to me from a trying to manage the conversation standpoint. So are you sure Unionist will get the chance? Maybe you could metaphorically slip his question onto the right desk to make sure it gets in?
Tue, 2012-02-21 18:38
#8
Here's what I can do.
I can put Unionist's question into the closed thread that has the date and time of his Q&A event, which will bump the thread and encourage readership. Brian Topp's people (and Brian himself) have been encouraged to look at not only the questions our editorial team have culled, but also at the threads those questions came from, to get a good idea of where babblers are at.
Beyond this, it's out of my hands.
Tue, 2012-02-21 18:47
#9
I might also add that, given that rabble's editorial team for these questions are across a couple of time zones in Canada and communicate in a virtual environment, and that Brian Topp and his assistants have gone to great lengths to secure space and technical support to make his presence here - at an extremely hectic point in his campaign - we're all working together to ensure that a diversity of issues are covered.
You'll be seeing much of the same process for the upcoming Paul Dewar and Peggy Nash events.
Tue, 2012-02-21 19:26
#10
Thanks Rebecca. I appreciate that such a process is no easy task. Just didn't want Unionist to be disappointed. Thanks for helping and explaining.
Tue, 2012-02-21 19:55
#11
Catchfire
To clarify, follow-up questions are actively encouraged: points of clarifications, yabbuts, etc. This is why new questions are discouraged, particularly at the beginning: you'll notice that interested parties just start to rifle off questions off the bat that start things off on a wild foot. It also gives babblers a chance to hold the interviewee to account for his or her answers.
But I also hope (and expect) Brian and the other candidates to address additional questions toward the end of the discussion. That's what we'll be encouraging them to do, at any rate.
All this to say that there was never any f'n way Unionist was getting a question in to an NDP leadership candidate past the rabble censors. I hope that's clear.
Tue, 2012-02-21 20:42
#12
Boom Boom
All this to say that there was never any f'n way Unionist was getting a question in to an NDP leadership candidate past the rabble censors. I hope that's clear.
It's clear that you're kidding, right? 
Tue, 2012-02-21 20:59
#13
lol
Tue, 2012-02-21 21:26
#14
I have another: Have you ever imagined a country without hypothesized situations?
And, if a cow laughs, does milk spew out of her nose?
Tue, 2012-02-21 22:27
#15
Moonificent.
Tue, 2012-02-21 22:31
#16
I had no idea my question would pose so many technical, geographic, and management challenges. Had I been aware, I obviously would never have opened this thread. Please feel free to delete it from the queue.
Tue, 2012-02-21 22:41
#17
Catchfire
If your question caused such alarm and chaos just from being posed, can you imagine what would happen if we actually let a candidate answer it?
Yet another reason why the staff and editorial board at rabble.ca has no choice but to craft breastplates of bureaucratic muddle and helms of burnished misdirection in order to protect democracy from the slings and arrows of outrageous Unionist.
Tue, 2012-02-21 22:51
#18
... and, by opposing, end him.
Tue, 2012-02-21 22:56
#19
you know I was just trying to be helpful, open, fair and democratic and make sure someone was able to get a question in that was important to him, but whatever.
Tue, 2012-02-21 22:59
#20
It's ok, BA, I appreciated your help, but I didn't appreciate some of the following comments about what an enormous favour this was given all the complexity. I did manage to get the same question into the Dewar and Nash threads (I think - maybe - hope I followed the rules properly), so hopefully I'll get some responses. And if Brian Topp wants to take up the challenge, I'm sure he can can answer it whether it's during the online portion or otherwise.
Tue, 2012-02-21 23:47
#21
Catchfire
but I didn't appreciate some of the following comments about what an enormous favour this was given all the complexity.
I don't see where you got this idea. I think Rebecca and I were answering your questions. Your question has been submitted. It was no big deal, nor was one made of it. I thought the situation was acceptably taken care of, hence my funny a couple posts back. I guess you don't agree. I'm sorry you took offence, U, but I admit I'm a bit bewildered by it.
Tue, 2012-02-21 23:56
#22
It's all cool, CF, and I did chuckle at your posts.