Replies

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.

No I was not playing a game. And, I was certainly not attempting to intellectualize this matter by detailing around an obscurity to the point that the substance is effectively avoided. I assumed the "editor" of the editorial page is a substantive voice. You will note he is identified on the commentary as the "editor" and not as merely a member of the editorial board as you suggest. If you would rather that I use the term commentary rather than opinion, fine, it makes no change in the substance of my point.
If you review my post #72 you will see I provided a clear and reasonable avenue for your objection. I said, "I can only wonder. Are you being snowed by Harper? Or, are you trying to snow me? Or, is this paper trying to snow everyone?"
The substantive conclusion of this commentary was that gay marriage regulations were probably not going to be reversed in Canada and that over time the odds of reversal decrease rather than increase. Is that the point you don't want to concede or discuss?