It's Good to Be Back!

When  I first went off for vacation, I reluctantly removed the pre-screening of the comments section in the belief that it wouldn't be fair to readers to keep their missives in limbo for hours and hours or sometimes even a few days.
I say 'reluctantly' because it left the door open to abuse. On the positive side, it allowed comments to be published almost immediately.

Surprisingly, only one comment warranted being yanked!

And so I've decided to keep things as they are, with comments published without pre-moderation. The benefit of having your stuff published immediately seems to be worth the gamble.
That being said, I'll still read the comments and keep an eye out for abuse.
If you spot something that clearly deserves to be withdrawn, please send me an email (anglomontreal@gmail.com).
Don't complain about abuse in the comment section. It just clutters things up.

____________________________________

I have decided to continue posting on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
The burden of posting each day was a bit too much and I'm much more comfortable with three posts a week, which will hopefully allow me to concentrate on quality.

Each Friday, I will attempt to deliver a compendium of stories that will give readers an extended weekend read.
I've renamed this post as "Weekend Report" which will replace the traditional (and popular) "French versus English." The name change reflects that other stories, not necessarily about language will be included. It will include anything that I believe is of interest and will allow me to offer a much meatier post.

____________________________________

A note on Anonymous Surfing.

Believe it or not, access to this blog continues to be blocked by certain organizations, including the BELL CENTRE.
I guess free speech only counts for vigile.net which is not blocked. ...Humm
At any rate, there is a simple work around.... anonymous web surfing.

Anonymous surfing may help you avoid being blocked by hiding your IP address, which identifies from whence you came.

Simply go to one of the sites below and paste in the web address of the blocked page you want to access in the box provided. It's painless and free.

http://hidemyass.com/
http://anonymouse.org/anonwww.html
http://www.megaproxy.com/freesurf/
http://www.ninjacloak.com/ 

Better still here's a website with a gazillion anon proxies....

It also works for sites like Facebook or YouTube which are sometimes blocked by employers at the office.
Here's a video explaining all this on YouTube


As you know, the Quebec government has in the past forbidden certain companies from offering an English-only website to Quebec customers. Quebec based customers are steered away based on their IP address.
This was the case with Urban Outfitters which offers all North American customers the same English website and which was the subject of a post of mine.
I tried the urbanoutfitters.com website this morning and it is no longer blocked, but it is little comfort to Quebec customers as the company will not ship into Quebec because of language issues.

Some newspapers have gone to a pay model which blocks content based on your IP address as well. The Montreal Gazette has adopted such a model which is exceedingly frustrating because indexed stories on search engines don't have a note attached indicating that the story may be blocked. (le Devoir does do so.) This is because the newspaper does allow some limited free content based on usage, so you may or may not be blocked.
That being said it is extremely annoying to be blocked from a story after starting to read. It is a bit ratty of the newspaper to do so.
Now as a Gazette print subscriber I am entitled to the online content, but after filling out the necessary online forms, I remain firmly blocked. The password and user name the newspaper sent me, just doesn't work!

Out of desperation I used an anonymous web proxy and it worked just fine.

I suggest that if you can afford to pay for the content, please do so....but.

I'm glad to see readers adopting an online personna so that readers can track who is saying what and can reply to a name instead of 'Anonymous@12:21'
Here's a blog piece that I wrote as a  reminder on how to create a pseudonym.

____________________________________

A note about my post about Jack Layton.

It seems that many readers were offended by my post accusing Jack of misleading Canadians as to when he first learned about his new cancer.
I guess that I remain in a minority in believing that hiding a major illness from constituents is unethical.

Fair enough.

Readers are entitled to their opinion as I am to mine. Some questioned whether I was alienating regular readers by taking such an (as it turns out) unpopular position.

All I can say is that I'd be offended if regular readers agree with all that I say. There's nothing wrong with disagreement among friends and those readers who disagreed with my position are entitled to express their position as forcefully as they want in the comments section.
It goes to Jack's popularity that so many rose to his defence.

But readers, let us be honest.
Do you come here to hear your own views parroted and to get a rehash of the same safe tripe printed in the mainstream media?

The most useful element of the blogesphere is that opinions which are not politically correct can be aired.
Readers come here for something they don't get in the mainstream press.  As such, they should be prepared to suffer the slings and arrows of a politically incorrect opinion that they sometimes disagree with.

At any rate, all I said online is what many Canadians whispered around the water cooler or in private.
And I'll tell you something else;
The article generated a lot of hits outside regular readers. I get to see, via tracking software, what type of keywords led readers to land on the article.
The vast majority were lines like these;'

• What kind of cancer does Jack Layton have?
• How long does Jack Layton have to live?
• How long has he had this cancer?
• Is he telling the truth?

I think many people share my view that we aren't getting the real story. Perhaps it isn't polite to ask, but politeness should not be in a journalists repertoire.

I still remained surprised that so many people objected to a straight piece which asked a pertinent, albeit uncomfortable question. Jack Layton is not a sacred cow, he remains a politician, not a saint, and like all politicans he has a propensity to lie. It's the nature of the beast.

Jack Layton looked and sounded shockingly bad and has been sick a lot, longer than he admitted. He most likely lied when he said that he only found out about the new cancer the week before.
It is not a credible version of the truth.

By the way, for all the readers who are outraged that I dared question the integrity of Mr. Layton, it seems that voices are now being raised in the mainstream press, perhaps emboldened by bloggers like myself who jumped on the inconsistencies in Layton's story. Globe and Mail

Ultimately the truth will come out and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that my version of the truth will be vindicated.
If I am wrong I PROMISE TO APOLOGIZE.
If I am right, I hope all the commenters who blasted me will have the honour to do the same.