Comments on: Canadian rude http://boingboing.net/2013/02/18/canadian-rude.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Thu, 23 May 2013 21:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Ryan Lenethen http://boingboing.net/2013/02/18/canadian-rude.html#comment-1659295 Ryan Lenethen Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:27:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=213729#comment-1659295 Christ what an... Christ what an…

]]> By: eerd http://boingboing.net/2013/02/18/canadian-rude.html#comment-1659275 eerd Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:53:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=213729#comment-1659275 Although no one really knows, the signs suggest Canada's big guys are unlikely to be bought outright by foreign state-owned companies. It's ok for US companies - ExxonMobil - to do that sort of thing, but not Asian companies. Just look at the delays and near misses from the CNOOC-Nexen and Petronas-Progress deals. Although no one really knows, the signs suggest Canada’s big guys are unlikely to be bought outright by foreign state-owned companies. It’s ok for US companies – ExxonMobil – to do that sort of thing, but not Asian companies.

Just look at the delays and near misses from the CNOOC-Nexen and Petronas-Progress deals.

]]> By: Cornan_KotW http://boingboing.net/2013/02/18/canadian-rude.html#comment-1658749 Cornan_KotW Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:41:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=213729#comment-1658749  Monty Python's Flying Circus!  Monty Python’s Flying Circus!

]]> By: joelogs http://boingboing.net/2013/02/18/canadian-rude.html#comment-1658714 joelogs Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:46:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=213729#comment-1658714 I think the word "Encana" was supposed to be in this sentence somewhere. That "its" is just hanging out all by itself. I think the word “Encana” was supposed to be in this sentence somewhere. That “its” is just hanging out all by itself.

]]> By: Daemonworks http://boingboing.net/2013/02/18/canadian-rude.html#comment-1658688 Daemonworks Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:10:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=213729#comment-1658688 Our government's quite willing to sell off everything we value to the highest bidder. Or the first bidder... Our government’s quite willing to sell off everything we value to the highest bidder. Or the first bidder…

]]> By: franko http://boingboing.net/2013/02/18/canadian-rude.html#comment-1658677 franko Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:51:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=213729#comment-1658677 all i can think of is this: http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=250 all i can think of is this: http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=250

]]> By: davegroff http://boingboing.net/2013/02/18/canadian-rude.html#comment-1658646 davegroff Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:09:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=213729#comment-1658646 More complete answer, for those unfamiliar with Canadian politics: "The answer would be no, given that Alberta's oil and gas industry will never tolerate more than token regulatory oversight from Ottawa, especially when our own boy is PM. Why even ask, you fucking eastern asshole." More complete answer, for those unfamiliar with Canadian politics: “The answer would be no, given that Alberta’s oil and gas industry will never tolerate more than token regulatory oversight from Ottawa, especially when our own boy is PM. Why even ask, you fucking eastern asshole.”

]]> By: Jeremy Hughes http://boingboing.net/2013/02/18/canadian-rude.html#comment-1658628 Jeremy Hughes Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:47:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=213729#comment-1658628 It's elliptical: "[If I were to deign to answer your question,] the answer would be no." It’s elliptical: “[If I were to deign to answer your question,] the answer would be no.”

]]> By: peregrinus http://boingboing.net/2013/02/18/canadian-rude.html#comment-1658608 peregrinus Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:21:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=213729#comment-1658608 Why did he respond in the conditional?  The syntax implies that the question was "were someone to query whether ..." This would be should be maybe fuffle kind of response is a creeping sickness on clarity.  The responder seems to feel, through some misty logic, that they are avoiding accountability for their response, whereby they would later reply to a challenge to that response that they responded in the conditional.  It's a bit of a mindfuck. So his answer should have been:  "My answer is no ...  Fucking asshole." Then I can start to make sense of it all. Why did he respond in the conditional?  The syntax implies that the question was “were someone to query whether …”

This would be should be maybe fuffle kind of response is a creeping sickness on clarity.  The responder seems to feel, through some misty logic, that they are avoiding accountability for their response, whereby they would later reply to a challenge to that response that they responded in the conditional.  It’s a bit of a mindfuck.

So his answer should have been:  ”My answer is no …  Fucking asshole.”

Then I can start to make sense of it all.

]]>