As per the prior pet peeve thread below, and as defined by the term pet peeve below, and given you did not respond to my last pet peeve post; please advise of your intention to respond in this here new thread "Canada in 1776".
Should it be your intention not to respond again, despite my merited, on point, congruent responses, I would consider any further input addressing your inflammatory and specious allegations as per your below pet peeve posting, and as per your newer inflammatory and specious allegationsin in this here new thread "Canada in 1776", to be time better spent elsewhere.
Chumly, you have provided the evidence of your own bigotry with your statements about les habitants and about the "multi-culturalism" in Canada.
Set, it's seems clear that you have quite misunderstood and wish to label me a bigot.
You wish to defend your position not by quoting me in full context, in my phrasing, and wording, and in the spirit of this thread and then by placing specified comments and arguments as to how you came to your conclusion that I am bigoted, so that we can see exactly what you think I meant by my text, but by referring me to your prior post of which I read with some interest a few times.
Again it is quite plain that your prior post in question shows you misunderstood my post by some margin.
Until and or unless you quote me and place specified comments and arguments after each quote, as to how you came to your conclusion that I am bigoted it will be rather impossible for me to see exactly what you think I meant by my text.
a) My reference to multiculturalism was as to government interventionism and the implications theretofore as per PC and not as to the spirit or intent of multiculturalism as a realty or idealization or goal.
As to les habitants I did not use that phrase although may well have alluded to such, so I again request that you quote me in full context, in my phrasing, and wording, and in the spirit of this thread and then by placing specified comments and arguments as to how you came to your conclusion that I am bigoted so that we can see exactly what you think I meant by my text.
I have to get back to work, I'll check in later.
I may, another day, if i have the time. However, you should note that you are already changing the terms, as for example with your reference to government intervention. As for referring to les habitants, you apparently understood the reference, so whether or not you had used it was not relevant. Maybe later, i'll respond, but don't bet on it. If you can't see, i see no profit to either of us getting in a pissing match over the details or remarks about cultural drivel.
In fact I did not "apparently understood the reference" (sic) as per "les habitants". I have never used that phrase before at any time nor am I sure what your definition of it might be. All I did say was that "I may well have alluded to such". My reason for saying this is that you have concluded that I alluded to "les habitants". I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. No more, no less.
As such I make four points:
a) You appear to be reading into my text things which are not there.
b) I am not "changing my terms" as per so-called "government intervention". As such I will quote me
Why should that be presumed to be validation for the government's nosey interventionism vis-a-vis the Official Languages Act and the Multiculturalism Act?
c) I remind you of the tittle and hence apropos context of this thread "Name your political correctness peeve".
d) Perhaps before jumping in with both feet you might wish to see if there is water in the pool.
Pet Peeve: a pet peeve is a minor annoyance that can instill extreme frustration in an individual. Typically each person has several pet peeves that aggravate him more than the average person. Another person may not react as negatively or at all to the same circumstance.
The term originated from the word 'peeve.' A 'peeve,' meaning something that is particularly irritating or annoying, is a relatively recent word. Its first printed usage was in 1911. The term is a back formation from a 14th-century word: 'peevish,' meaning ornery or ill-tempered.
The phrase 'pet peeve,' a uniquely personal irritant, first appeared in print in 1919.
Pet peeves are typically of common occurrences and a person may encounter his pet peeve very often. An example of this would be someone not using his turn signal while driving; while some drivers feel frustrated when another driver does not use his turn signal, other drivers do not care very much. Many pet peeves associated with driving can result in road rage, where the person who feels peeved seeks some sort of retribution for the action.
Often a pet peeve will seem illogical to others. For example a supervisor may have a pet peeve about people leaving the lid on the copier up and react angrily. That same supervisor may witness employees coming into work late, and not feel any annoyance whatsoever.