As for me, my IM interview might have been conducted too late to make the piece. Although, if that was the case, Emerald could have told me. I guess I could ask him what happened. But the gist of what I was saying was that the rules were too strict for my liking, and that the CBC has no right to tell me what I can and cannot write about in my free time.

I came right out and said that I would defy the Guidelines, CBC management be damned.

Seems to me that this would have made an interesting counterpoint to the other opinions expressed in the article.

I don’t get the RRJ. I know they are students, but that publication is not very good at all. Worst still, it’s all we have in this country. And every time I complain on my blog I get all kinds of apologies from them. They make me feel like a petty cad.

I did 1 more interview with the RRJ, for the print magazine, on “the future of the CBC.” It will be on sale in March or something like that. I’ll give them one more chance. If the article is crap I’m going to give them both barrels.

I was also a little surprised not to see Ouimet in the item directly, given that she was the prime instigator of the Manifesto. Still, I thought the article was well-balanced: Justin Beach’s comments were pretty pointed, and Emerald included a lot of the criticisms that been raised.

Emerald’s a good interviewer, and a good writer: it took some not-insignificant talent on her part both to keep me on topic and to derive something coherent from my rambling answers.

As for having time to post… well, I’m impressed that you (Joe) find as much as you do. I’ve been averaging about three posts a month recently, and I find it hard to reach even that. However, we both pale in comparison to one of my co-workers (who also only ever posts from home, and who contributes to a second blog to boot).

Like Ouimet says the evidence thus far has made it quite clear that ya’ll (CBC blogging types) are not idiots and the whole business of these ‘guidelines’ is about corporate buttock shielding. I grind my teeth every time I think about the paranoia involved in these kinds of decisions, particularly when they end up impinging on the voices of people who clearly have a deep respect and affection for the institute that by all appearances is scared silly of their hobby.

Ouimet, I was quite surprised that you weren’t included in the interview. A serious omission, I would say.

And the fact that we agree on the most important parts proves, to me, that we aren’t idiots.

I always like to hear what you have to say, Joe, but I’m surprised that the RRJ didn’t run any of what I said. It was on the other side of the fence, all right.

however, personal expression should
not be limited to and if you have
nothing nice to say, don’t say or
else keep it private where only
certain people can read it or
private for yourself.