Well, no it isn’t. It includes maps, historical documents and press releases, as well as a main page providing a succinct description of what ails the park.
And it does so in both official languages.
A few overly zealous editors at Wikipedia decided to remove what I had written because it got too hot for them to handle. The truth hurts and they just couldn’t take it… Besides, they’d corrupted the message with their attempts at providing an ostsensibly “neutral point of view.” An attitude which has kept Gatineau Park in an administrative quagmire for decades.
The message here is pure, undiluted GPPC vintage. We call em like we see em and take no prisoners.
Your attempt at minimizing the importance of this site doesn’t deter us from our goal.
And what have you done to protect the park lately?
This wasn’t the only Wiki site deleted; Both the ‘New Woodlands Preservation League’ and the ‘Gatineau Park Protection Committee’ pages also got axed, but for additional reasons. Here’s a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Woodlands_Preservation_League
“As can best be discerned, the organization is informal in nature, is not registered or incorporated, has no headquarters, publications or website and has only two members.”
That’s great that you’ve now started a GPPC website, but tell us someday, Mr. Murray, does the GPPC have any substance beyond swiped wiki pages and a few maps? Does it have any power, influence or resources or is it just as wiki suggests, a soapbox?
NOTE: I have no involvement with the NCC and do not reside in or near Gatineau Park.
You bring very little substance to your attempt to discredit the GPPC. Obviously, you haven’t read our home page, or consulted our documents.
So let me try to answer your young conservative-type arguments:
1. We didn’t swipe anything from Wikipedia: as writer of the GPPC main page (and most of the material on the former Wikipedia page) I own the copyright. Prove me wrong if you can.
2. As for substance and resources: they are mainly intellectual.
By consulting our documents page, you will find:
- our brief on Bill C-37 (much of which was adopted and used by three federal parties); our brief on Bill S-210 (an identical version of which we submitted to the NCC mandate review panel—and which panel chair Gilles Paquet qualified as “the best brief” submitted to his panel);
- our brief to the NCC Board on Roderick Percy Sparks (which resulted in the NCC correcting the park’s official history in 2005);
– our motion to intervene before the Quebec Administrative Tribunal—which resulted in the Quebec Department of Justice withdrawing its appeal, and secured federal ownership over 61.5 sq. Km of Gatineau Park land.
As well, if you bother to read our media page, you will find a very serious treatment of the Gatineau Park issue available nowhere else. And dans les deux langues officielles s’il-vous-plait…
Qui dit mieux? Really?
And I extend and offer to you and the entire world to prove any of what we say to be unfounded.
Finally, below, please find our mission statement which offers a pretty good summary of our accomplishments, substance, influence, etc.
“The Gatineau Park Protection Committee (GPPC) is a standing committee of the New Woodlands Preservation League and insists that the public interest prevail over all other factors in park management, and that its history be presented fairly and truthfully.
“Through its various campaigns, the Committee has convinced the National Capital Commission (NCC) to review its historical interpretation of Gatineau Park and recognize its true origins. We have also managed to get parliamentarians from both federal houses to table seven bills to set the park’s boundaries, provide it with effective land management and guarantee its long-term protection.
“As well, the GPPC has managed to pressure the NCC, with help from Senators Spivak and Banks, to produce the first-ever technical description of Gatineau Park’s boundaries. The government has included those boundaries in its current Gatineau Park legislation, Bill C-37.
“In 2008, the GPPC led the charge in persuading the NCC to stop a 20-house subdivision on Carman Road inside Gatineau Park and in convincing the federal government to adopt Order-in-Council PC 2008-1604, which allows the NCC to acquire all park inholdings.
“On March 20, 2009, we intervened before Quebec’s Administrative Tribunal, managing to secure rightful federal ownership of a 61.5 square kilometre patch of land in Gatineau Park. As a result of our intervention, the Quebec Department of Justice withdrew its appeal – thereby putting to rest the issue of so-called Quebec lands in the Lac La Pêche sector of Gatineau Park.
“Our mission also seeks to ensure that laws and regulations related to Gatineau Park are rigorously interpreted and enforced by the various levels of government within their respective jurisdictions.
Forgive me, Mr. Murray, if I remain skeptical of any individual or group who self-proclaims themselves as protectors of the park.
Furthermore, the delicate politics of Gatineau park use, management and protection must be handled carefully and with total neutrality; any lack of such only results in further polarization of the park’s real protectors, namely its residents, users and its stewart, the NCC.
Pete – if that is your real name – even the NCC agrees that private property must be eliminated in the park. It is only a matter of time. The fact is Gatineau Park was supposed to be a national park, and it is only due to the “politics” played by the residents (and the NCC being scarred off) that the park does not have greater protection.
This is a public park, and the temporary residents will eventually be vacated. Until then, it is a privilege for them to live in this public space. It belongs to all the people of Canada, Pete. It is only legislative protection that will provide – force – the required stewardship. Thanks for your interest.
Mr. Brown, you are uninformed and betray a self interest.
Suggesting that the GPPC has no validity because it has a small following is irrelevant. The facts and media record speak for itself. Mr. Murray and the GPPC have done an outstanding job exposing the NCC’s wrongdoings and the contradictions in its mandate.
How can a land development corporation be entrusted with preserving and enhancing a national gem like Gatineau Park? Hacking off 8 square kilometers of park land is unacceptable. How can you defend this? Does this enhance the environment?
How can you defend the fact that Meech Lake residents lobbied the Municiplaity of Chelsea to put up a road block at Meech Lake? What about the public interest?
The GPPC has never infringed upon any copyrights, get your facts straight. It is the source of factual information on most matters relating to Gatineau Park.
Why have Gatineau Park residents who have clearly broken environmental laws not been taken to task? Stewards of the land?
Exposing such things makes some people uncomfortable because the truth upsets the apple cart of decorum and fraud which you obviously support.
You should take an introductory course in philosophy (at the high school level) and learn how to reason and think clearly.
Because it has been said : When reason is against a man, a man will be against reason.” And you obviously are.
Gentlemen. Please refrain from comments of a personal nature. I would like GuideGatineau to enable airing of different opinions but I do not want it to become a forum for invective.
The point is that since you offer this space up to the public, you will encounter this type of debate. You will notice though that it was not we – the Gatineau Park Protection Committee – who began this dialogue, but rather someone who commented on your posting who took the liberty right off the bat to discredit the Committee. As Bruce notes above, all of our work is based on research obtained often at great pains over the course of several years, through Access to Information requests, digging through the National Archives, questions on the Order Paper of both Houses of Parliament and submissions to various public bodies.
Until you decide to close debate on these pages, we must and will respond to those who provide misinformation or mischaracterize and misrepresent our findings and our position. We have proven that the NCC has misled the public on many fronts and part of our mission is to expose this to the public.
We have established our own website because the cowards at Wikipedia proclaimed our page on the Politics of Gatineau Park to express a point of view. With the exhaustive series of footnotes we provide on our website, our information is factual. It is open, and it is transparent. No Access to Information request needed.
Until now, the body of evidence has been burried in archives and in data bases. Until now this has not been shared with the public. What we ask of the public is whether they can countenance continually being lied to and misled by the NCC, as well as private property interests in the park, when the evidence is right before them.
Thanks for the mediation Charles. In case the 2 above posters haven’t made their relation to the GPPC entirely clear, they are:
-Mr Andrew Mcdermott, Co-chair of GPPC,
-Bruce Holland, President of GPPC,
Together with Mr Murray, Co-chair of GPPC, they make up GPPC. Welcome gentlemen, it is a great pleasure to have GPPC as my audience.
Please, Mr. Holland, President of GPPC, review your accusations as I have never claimed that the GPPC was in copyright violation; It was the wiki page that was claimed in violation(see link), I never claimed that GPPC wrote the page, Mr Murray did. One might then infer that the GPPC was in violation, but I never made that claim. Also, high schools do not offer a Philosophy course in my district, perhaps they do in Dallas, Texas?
Seriously now, this talk of evicting/expropriating Gatineau Park residents to enable a National Park has me concerned. Wasn’t it the early residents who defined the park’s culture and history? Where would we have a picnic, if not for King? Where would we ski, if not for Clifford? Where would we sunbathe nude, if not for Wilson? Where would we pray, if not for the Capucin?
Look, I’m all for the park being set for public good, but the park stands the best chance when all three groups(Users, Residents, NCC) work together to define its culture, history and bounderies for future generations.
If the GPPC ever shifts its focus from evicting park residents and exposing NCC follies to real colaboration, verified by a 3rd party, they may quickly find me as a supportive member.
Speak to park residents about this, and you’ll discover a person in an advanced state of denial. Some of them even engage in psychological projection, claiming park defenders are the property speculators …
Unfortunately, the only collaboration the NCC has offered in this regard over the last 20 years is with park residents: 119 new houses (which it has a mandate to acquire for the most part); the desecration of the Meech shoreline by park residents, closing of the Booth Picnic grounds, etc.
Look at the facts and beyond your unfounded assumptions…
Please, Mr. Murray, review your claim that I should “get my facts straight”. Aside from introducing the GPPC and correcting Mr Holland’s claim, the only other fact that I present in my last post is one I firmly stand behind:
–”THE PARK STAND THE BEST CHANCE WHEN ALL THREE GROUPS(USERS, RESIDENTS, NCC) WORK TOGETHER TO DEFINE ITS CULTURE, HISTORY AND BOUNDERIES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.”–
So, please, GPPC, identify exactly what facts are incorrect rather than the usual, “get your facts straight”, then quickly move to point out NCC’s faults.
None of this criticism distracts me off topic; Can anyone beyond the GPPC legitimize this self proclaimed, ‘Protection Committee’?
To your last point, see above. As for private land in the park, see below.
Privately owned lands are a serious and growing threat to Gatineau Park.
Like the worm in an apple, they often have a devastating effect upon the natural integrity of the park, partly as a result of their strategic location: they tend to cluster around the prime scenic attractions of the park, or along natural access routes, where they are seen by millions of visitors.
The Izaak Walton League once described private inholdings in national parks as “festering sores in an otherwise unspoiled area belonging to the whole public.”
According to former National Parks Service Director George Hartzog, there are three “overriding reasons why private inholdings are incompatible with the basic purpose and function of a National Park and should, therefore, be eliminated.”
“First, the wide variety of adverse uses that take place on these private parcels of property are destructive of park values-scenery, wildlife, forest and flowers — in short, the very features that made the area worthy of being a National Park in the first place.”
Second, says Hartzog, inholdings are undesirable because have a bad impact on the park visitor. “They spoil his view of the natural scene and demean his aesthetic experience with intrusions of a blatantly commercial nature. They deny him access to choice areas of the park, and block the development of new public facilities for his enjoyment and protection.”
Finally: “A third urgent reason for eliminating private inholdings from the parks is that money and manpower, needed for the basic job of protecting and preserving the parks and serving the visitors, must be diverted to deal with the administrative problems created by the adverse uses of the property.”
“And the situation can only get worse with time because the cost of acquiring these properties continues to escalate as the demand for desirable recreational land grows ever more fierce.”
Mr. Brown, you are either a very confused individual, or a hypocrite:
On February 7th, above, you accused the GPPC of conflict of interest: “The politics of gatineau park wiki page was deleted because it had serious ‘conflict of interest’, ‘point of view’ and ‘copyright’ infringments.” It’s not someone else talking — it’s you making the accusationé
Then, on February 11th, you tried to weasel out of your own claim, spuriously saying:
“I have never claimed that the GPPC was in copyright violation; It was the wiki page that was claimed in violation (…) One might then infer that the GPPC was in violation, but I never made that claim.”
You didn’t say someone said the GPPC was in conflict. You said it was axed from Wikipedia for being in conflict of interest.
Please, Mr. Murray, refrain from comments of a personal nature.
When I explained why the “Politics of Gatineau Park” wiki page got axed I also provided a link right next to that statement, like a source.
Also, your second quote above transforms “(see link)” to “(…)”. Not sure why you omitted that?
Anyone interested in the reasons why the wiki page got deleted can revisit the link I provided above here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_of_Gatineau_Park
Somehow I doubt it is as Mr. Murray describes above “A few overly zealous editors at Wikipedia decided to remove what I had written because it got too hot for them to handle. The truth hurts and they just couldn’t take it…”, let the reader decide…
Thank for providing another link to the GPPC webpage. I have already skimmed thru it, and find it lacks in describing the motive behind the GPPC’s behaviour. I have learned far more about the GPPC’s possible motives here, in this discourse.
None of this criticism distracts me off topic; Again, can anyone beyond the GPPC legitimize this self proclaimed, ‘Protection Committee’?
February 7th, 2010 - 15:12
It should be pointed out that this new site is really just a reposting of a deleted Wikipedia page, “Politics of Gatineau Park”.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stoneacres
2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Politics_of_Gatineau_Park
3. http://wikibin.org/articles/politics-of-gatineau-park.html
February 7th, 2010 - 23:29
Well, no it isn’t. It includes maps, historical documents and press releases, as well as a main page providing a succinct description of what ails the park.
And it does so in both official languages.
A few overly zealous editors at Wikipedia decided to remove what I had written because it got too hot for them to handle. The truth hurts and they just couldn’t take it… Besides, they’d corrupted the message with their attempts at providing an ostsensibly “neutral point of view.” An attitude which has kept Gatineau Park in an administrative quagmire for decades.
The message here is pure, undiluted GPPC vintage. We call em like we see em and take no prisoners.
Your attempt at minimizing the importance of this site doesn’t deter us from our goal.
And what have you done to protect the park lately?
February 9th, 2010 - 11:04
The politics of gatineau park wiki page was deleted because it had serious ‘conflict of interest’, ‘point of view’ and ‘copyright’ infringments.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_of_Gatineau_Park
This wasn’t the only Wiki site deleted; Both the ‘New Woodlands Preservation League’ and the ‘Gatineau Park Protection Committee’ pages also got axed, but for additional reasons. Here’s a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Woodlands_Preservation_League
“As can best be discerned, the organization is informal in nature, is not registered or incorporated, has no headquarters, publications or website and has only two members.”
That’s great that you’ve now started a GPPC website, but tell us someday, Mr. Murray, does the GPPC have any substance beyond swiped wiki pages and a few maps? Does it have any power, influence or resources or is it just as wiki suggests, a soapbox?
NOTE: I have no involvement with the NCC and do not reside in or near Gatineau Park.
February 9th, 2010 - 13:05
You bring very little substance to your attempt to discredit the GPPC. Obviously, you haven’t read our home page, or consulted our documents.
So let me try to answer your young conservative-type arguments:
1. We didn’t swipe anything from Wikipedia: as writer of the GPPC main page (and most of the material on the former Wikipedia page) I own the copyright. Prove me wrong if you can.
2. As for substance and resources: they are mainly intellectual.
By consulting our documents page, you will find:
- our brief on Bill C-37 (much of which was adopted and used by three federal parties); our brief on Bill S-210 (an identical version of which we submitted to the NCC mandate review panel—and which panel chair Gilles Paquet qualified as “the best brief” submitted to his panel);
- our brief to the NCC Board on Roderick Percy Sparks (which resulted in the NCC correcting the park’s official history in 2005);
– our motion to intervene before the Quebec Administrative Tribunal—which resulted in the Quebec Department of Justice withdrawing its appeal, and secured federal ownership over 61.5 sq. Km of Gatineau Park land.
As well, if you bother to read our media page, you will find a very serious treatment of the Gatineau Park issue available nowhere else. And dans les deux langues officielles s’il-vous-plait…
Qui dit mieux? Really?
And I extend and offer to you and the entire world to prove any of what we say to be unfounded.
Finally, below, please find our mission statement which offers a pretty good summary of our accomplishments, substance, influence, etc.
“The Gatineau Park Protection Committee (GPPC) is a standing committee of the New Woodlands Preservation League and insists that the public interest prevail over all other factors in park management, and that its history be presented fairly and truthfully.
“Through its various campaigns, the Committee has convinced the National Capital Commission (NCC) to review its historical interpretation of Gatineau Park and recognize its true origins. We have also managed to get parliamentarians from both federal houses to table seven bills to set the park’s boundaries, provide it with effective land management and guarantee its long-term protection.
“As well, the GPPC has managed to pressure the NCC, with help from Senators Spivak and Banks, to produce the first-ever technical description of Gatineau Park’s boundaries. The government has included those boundaries in its current Gatineau Park legislation, Bill C-37.
“In 2008, the GPPC led the charge in persuading the NCC to stop a 20-house subdivision on Carman Road inside Gatineau Park and in convincing the federal government to adopt Order-in-Council PC 2008-1604, which allows the NCC to acquire all park inholdings.
“On March 20, 2009, we intervened before Quebec’s Administrative Tribunal, managing to secure rightful federal ownership of a 61.5 square kilometre patch of land in Gatineau Park. As a result of our intervention, the Quebec Department of Justice withdrew its appeal – thereby putting to rest the issue of so-called Quebec lands in the Lac La Pêche sector of Gatineau Park.
“Our mission also seeks to ensure that laws and regulations related to Gatineau Park are rigorously interpreted and enforced by the various levels of government within their respective jurisdictions.
February 10th, 2010 - 09:41
Forgive me, Mr. Murray, if I remain skeptical of any individual or group who self-proclaims themselves as protectors of the park.
Furthermore, the delicate politics of Gatineau park use, management and protection must be handled carefully and with total neutrality; any lack of such only results in further polarization of the park’s real protectors, namely its residents, users and its stewart, the NCC.
February 10th, 2010 - 11:58
Pete – if that is your real name – even the NCC agrees that private property must be eliminated in the park. It is only a matter of time. The fact is Gatineau Park was supposed to be a national park, and it is only due to the “politics” played by the residents (and the NCC being scarred off) that the park does not have greater protection.
This is a public park, and the temporary residents will eventually be vacated. Until then, it is a privilege for them to live in this public space. It belongs to all the people of Canada, Pete. It is only legislative protection that will provide – force – the required stewardship. Thanks for your interest.
February 10th, 2010 - 12:58
Mr. Brown, you are uninformed and betray a self interest.
Suggesting that the GPPC has no validity because it has a small following is irrelevant. The facts and media record speak for itself. Mr. Murray and the GPPC have done an outstanding job exposing the NCC’s wrongdoings and the contradictions in its mandate.
How can a land development corporation be entrusted with preserving and enhancing a national gem like Gatineau Park? Hacking off 8 square kilometers of park land is unacceptable. How can you defend this? Does this enhance the environment?
How can you defend the fact that Meech Lake residents lobbied the Municiplaity of Chelsea to put up a road block at Meech Lake? What about the public interest?
The GPPC has never infringed upon any copyrights, get your facts straight. It is the source of factual information on most matters relating to Gatineau Park.
Why have Gatineau Park residents who have clearly broken environmental laws not been taken to task? Stewards of the land?
Exposing such things makes some people uncomfortable because the truth upsets the apple cart of decorum and fraud which you obviously support.
You should take an introductory course in philosophy (at the high school level) and learn how to reason and think clearly.
Because it has been said : When reason is against a man, a man will be against reason.” And you obviously are.
February 10th, 2010 - 14:44
Gentlemen. Please refrain from comments of a personal nature. I would like GuideGatineau to enable airing of different opinions but I do not want it to become a forum for invective.
February 11th, 2010 - 09:14
Thanks Charles.
The point is that since you offer this space up to the public, you will encounter this type of debate. You will notice though that it was not we – the Gatineau Park Protection Committee – who began this dialogue, but rather someone who commented on your posting who took the liberty right off the bat to discredit the Committee. As Bruce notes above, all of our work is based on research obtained often at great pains over the course of several years, through Access to Information requests, digging through the National Archives, questions on the Order Paper of both Houses of Parliament and submissions to various public bodies.
Until you decide to close debate on these pages, we must and will respond to those who provide misinformation or mischaracterize and misrepresent our findings and our position. We have proven that the NCC has misled the public on many fronts and part of our mission is to expose this to the public.
We have established our own website because the cowards at Wikipedia proclaimed our page on the Politics of Gatineau Park to express a point of view. With the exhaustive series of footnotes we provide on our website, our information is factual. It is open, and it is transparent. No Access to Information request needed.
Until now, the body of evidence has been burried in archives and in data bases. Until now this has not been shared with the public. What we ask of the public is whether they can countenance continually being lied to and misled by the NCC, as well as private property interests in the park, when the evidence is right before them.
February 11th, 2010 - 10:42
Thanks for the mediation Charles. In case the 2 above posters haven’t made their relation to the GPPC entirely clear, they are:
-Mr Andrew Mcdermott, Co-chair of GPPC,
-Bruce Holland, President of GPPC,
Together with Mr Murray, Co-chair of GPPC, they make up GPPC. Welcome gentlemen, it is a great pleasure to have GPPC as my audience.
Please, Mr. Holland, President of GPPC, review your accusations as I have never claimed that the GPPC was in copyright violation; It was the wiki page that was claimed in violation(see link), I never claimed that GPPC wrote the page, Mr Murray did. One might then infer that the GPPC was in violation, but I never made that claim. Also, high schools do not offer a Philosophy course in my district, perhaps they do in Dallas, Texas?
Seriously now, this talk of evicting/expropriating Gatineau Park residents to enable a National Park has me concerned. Wasn’t it the early residents who defined the park’s culture and history? Where would we have a picnic, if not for King? Where would we ski, if not for Clifford? Where would we sunbathe nude, if not for Wilson? Where would we pray, if not for the Capucin?
Look, I’m all for the park being set for public good, but the park stands the best chance when all three groups(Users, Residents, NCC) work together to define its culture, history and bounderies for future generations.
If the GPPC ever shifts its focus from evicting park residents and exposing NCC follies to real colaboration, verified by a 3rd party, they may quickly find me as a supportive member.
February 11th, 2010 - 12:21
Mr. Brown, you should get your facts right: we aren’t the only ones saying park residents must be evicted: the NCC does.
As evidence, we urge you to consult the following:
- Gatineau Park Master Plan, National Capital Commission, Ottawa, 1980, p. 35;
- NCC Task Force Report on Gatineau Park Property Acquisition, 1989.
- Gatineau Park: a Master Plan for the ’90s and Beyond, National Capital Commission, Ottawa, 1990, p. 29;
- Gatineau Park Master Plan, National Capital Commission. May 2005. p. 52, http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/data/2/rec_docs/1768_Master_Plan_e.pdf
Speak to park residents about this, and you’ll discover a person in an advanced state of denial. Some of them even engage in psychological projection, claiming park defenders are the property speculators …
Unfortunately, the only collaboration the NCC has offered in this regard over the last 20 years is with park residents: 119 new houses (which it has a mandate to acquire for the most part); the desecration of the Meech shoreline by park residents, closing of the Booth Picnic grounds, etc.
Look at the facts and beyond your unfounded assumptions…
February 12th, 2010 - 09:59
Please, Mr. Murray, review your claim that I should “get my facts straight”. Aside from introducing the GPPC and correcting Mr Holland’s claim, the only other fact that I present in my last post is one I firmly stand behind:
–”THE PARK STAND THE BEST CHANCE WHEN ALL THREE GROUPS(USERS, RESIDENTS, NCC) WORK TOGETHER TO DEFINE ITS CULTURE, HISTORY AND BOUNDERIES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.”–
So, please, GPPC, identify exactly what facts are incorrect rather than the usual, “get your facts straight”, then quickly move to point out NCC’s faults.
None of this criticism distracts me off topic; Can anyone beyond the GPPC legitimize this self proclaimed, ‘Protection Committee’?
February 12th, 2010 - 19:09
To your last point, see above. As for private land in the park, see below.
Privately owned lands are a serious and growing threat to Gatineau Park.
Like the worm in an apple, they often have a devastating effect upon the natural integrity of the park, partly as a result of their strategic location: they tend to cluster around the prime scenic attractions of the park, or along natural access routes, where they are seen by millions of visitors.
The Izaak Walton League once described private inholdings in national parks as “festering sores in an otherwise unspoiled area belonging to the whole public.”
According to former National Parks Service Director George Hartzog, there are three “overriding reasons why private inholdings are incompatible with the basic purpose and function of a National Park and should, therefore, be eliminated.”
“First, the wide variety of adverse uses that take place on these private parcels of property are destructive of park values-scenery, wildlife, forest and flowers — in short, the very features that made the area worthy of being a National Park in the first place.”
Second, says Hartzog, inholdings are undesirable because have a bad impact on the park visitor. “They spoil his view of the natural scene and demean his aesthetic experience with intrusions of a blatantly commercial nature. They deny him access to choice areas of the park, and block the development of new public facilities for his enjoyment and protection.”
Finally: “A third urgent reason for eliminating private inholdings from the parks is that money and manpower, needed for the basic job of protecting and preserving the parks and serving the visitors, must be diverted to deal with the administrative problems created by the adverse uses of the property.”
“And the situation can only get worse with time because the cost of acquiring these properties continues to escalate as the demand for desirable recreational land grows ever more fierce.”
Quod est demonstratum.
February 13th, 2010 - 12:41
The Hartzog arguement has been tried before on wikipedia, anyone interested can review the effort here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gatineau_Park
Anyone interested in the politics of the Park might consult the recent exchange between Mr. Milling, Wakefield Mill Innkeeper, and Mr. Murray,
Here, http://lowdownonline.com/2010/01/gatineau-park-not-a-public-space/
Here, http://lowdownonline.com/2010/02/jp-murray-get-off-your-attacking-high-horse/
And here, http://lowdownonline.com/2010/02/gatineau-park-deserves-better/
February 14th, 2010 - 21:19
Mr. Brown, you are either a very confused individual, or a hypocrite:
On February 7th, above, you accused the GPPC of conflict of interest: “The politics of gatineau park wiki page was deleted because it had serious ‘conflict of interest’, ‘point of view’ and ‘copyright’ infringments.” It’s not someone else talking — it’s you making the accusationé
Then, on February 11th, you tried to weasel out of your own claim, spuriously saying:
“I have never claimed that the GPPC was in copyright violation; It was the wiki page that was claimed in violation (…) One might then infer that the GPPC was in violation, but I never made that claim.”
You didn’t say someone said the GPPC was in conflict. You said it was axed from Wikipedia for being in conflict of interest.
Why don’t you try to educate your opinions, by consulting the articles and documents on our web site at: http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html
http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html
February 17th, 2010 - 16:37
Please, Mr. Murray, refrain from comments of a personal nature.
When I explained why the “Politics of Gatineau Park” wiki page got axed I also provided a link right next to that statement, like a source.
Also, your second quote above transforms “(see link)” to “(…)”. Not sure why you omitted that?
Anyone interested in the reasons why the wiki page got deleted can revisit the link I provided above here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_of_Gatineau_Park
Somehow I doubt it is as Mr. Murray describes above “A few overly zealous editors at Wikipedia decided to remove what I had written because it got too hot for them to handle. The truth hurts and they just couldn’t take it…”, let the reader decide…
Thank for providing another link to the GPPC webpage. I have already skimmed thru it, and find it lacks in describing the motive behind the GPPC’s behaviour. I have learned far more about the GPPC’s possible motives here, in this discourse.
None of this criticism distracts me off topic; Again, can anyone beyond the GPPC legitimize this self proclaimed, ‘Protection Committee’?
February 17th, 2010 - 20:52
You argue like a child.
Let history and the record tell the tail and judge the miscreants
Nous nous inscrivons dans un courant historique : et vous?