[spatso]

"In your desperation to make whatever point, you tried to slip one by & got caught."

I am not sure I understand the editorial point your making. Are you saying, when the editor of the editorial page writes on the editorial page it is not editorial commentary. Please explain.

As I said before, you said that you believed that the chances of reversing the gay marriage regulation would get better in the future. The commentary, on the other hand, clearly states the opposite opinion.

[GMMAC]

You're playing a semantics game as an "editorial" & a "commentary" are, by definition, two very different things.

An editorial, in the vast majority of cases & certainly within the CanWest chain which includes the Citizen, is unsigned because it represents the collective and/or the official position of the Editorial Board and/or the owners of the particular publication in which it appears.

A commentary (AKA an "opinion piece") is just that: comment from and/or the opinion of the individual who signs their name to it; irrespective of what title they may hold with the publication in which it appears.

I made this distinction above with respect to my friend Lorne Gunter who is both a columnist with and a member of the Editorial Board of the National Post. In short, Lorne signs in his first capacity & doesn't when called upon to serve in his second.

Whether you should put more weight in the author of the commentary's opinion or in mine might well logically be determined by which of us plainly wants to see the radical homosexual agenda rolled back & which of us doesn't.

One, like all self-serving advice on this topic from the left, essentially tells the Prime Minister that the battle is over & to give up. the other says we can still win but precise timing is of the utmost importance.