You are not logged in.


Welcome to the one and only Spiceislander Talkshop.

#1 Dec 12, 2016 1:06 am

The Frenchman

Gripe to Represent us in Tokyo

When the next Summer Olympic is held in Tokyo, Japan in 2020, you can bet that this Talkshop would be sending one of its more prolific athlete Gripe, to represent us. By then, he would have mastered the nuances in the Hop, Skip and Jump event while following the techniques laid out  by no other than our esteemed legal luminary, A.L. Bristol. And with the guidance of Corporal Naught in all three segments of the event, you can bet he would attain nothing short of another Gold Medal for Grenada, our Talkshop in particular.

This Monsieur from the French Quarters has noted with observation and documentation, Gripe's training regimen which could catapult him above all other competitors as no other has. His segue between opinions (a "simi-dimi in our French parlance) has earned him the flexibility to maneuver the intricacies between all three segments of the event while maintaining the cadence necessary to complete the final conclusion on the jump.

First, "The Hop"

When on November 22, 2016, "the Corporal" "paleyed" that the constitutional referendum should received a big "NO" from the Grenadian people, Gripe "HOPPED" on to the idea and supported him wholeheartedly, saying, " CN, I agree with you...." I reached that conclusion based on the flaws highlighted in Attorney Bristol's "training material" to the Supervisor of Elections. He then went on to praise Corporal for attaching it as evidence of his descenting on the "nay" side of the ammendment hence retaining the "yea" side of that possi in England.

Now, "The Skip"

And when on December 8, this Monsieur staged my defense of the ammendment without which would be a continuation of an infringement on our autonomy, Gripe seemed to have gotten the gripe; skipped over his support of the Corporal and gave full support to four of the seven ammendments while partially supporting a fifth. How did his position make such a leap from the hop to the skip is beyond me but Corporal remained quiet while Gripe continue to state his gut feelings, summarizing what he had eaten during those days that bought on this malady.

And now "The Jump"

Never have I seen a position take such a leap to take on the connotation of what we in the French Quarters refer to in our lexicon as "a two-tongued Bobby". I have seen Slice in action on many occasions but his turnaround is usually 100%. In the case of Gripe, his negative 100% support for the ammendment's defeat had turned into a 64% favorable; a 164% jump. These kind of statistical shift in opinion is usually associated with Defense Lawyers who had not been paid by their client.

And inasmuch as the good Brother Gripe had not given us any inkling of being a Jurist Practitioner of any kind, I can only wander how confused he would have been in that voting booth, trying to apply this formulary calculus to his line of reasoning.

The Monsieur from the French Quarters would be going to Tokyo to route for the Brother.


#2 Dec 12, 2016 8:16 am


Re: Gripe to Represent us in Tokyo

"I have seen Slice in action on many occasions but his turnaround is usually 100%. In the case of Gripe, his negative 100% support for the ammendment's defeat had turned into a 64% favorable; a 164% jump. These kind of statistical shift in opinion is usually associated with Defense Lawyers who had not been paid by their client."

So you saying Gripe is CN and also Jam up.  That kinda explain my thoughts. I was very impressed, with Gripe knowledge on the topic and also the details   on this topic.  I stayed the course, and  are 100% behind the Referendum.  If I could of voted I would have voted yes on all seven.  My only problem, was how the damn thing was presented.  It was too damn Political.

If Gripe is CN or Jamup, ah wonder why he was not 100% behind the thing?  Did he oppose some of it because the NDC says so?


#3 Dec 12, 2016 1:40 pm


Re: Gripe to Represent us in Tokyo

Frenchman, your critique of my arguments on the Referendum has in its very bowels the reasons for my positions. I direct your attention to the following:

First, on "The Hop" argument: One can surely find the basis for my position and that it was limited to accepting Mr. Bristol's arguments. His arguments were complete and convincing. On your comment about CN's posting, I did not so much as endorse it but told him that I had provided the link before he did so that it was not necessary for him to have posted it if he had read my initial post on the subject. 

Second, on "The Skip": If you would admit it, my comments in that response was to take direct aim at your statement that the entire Referendum should have been accepted. Seeing that flawed argument from you which clashed with Mr. Bristol's position (which dealt with procedural deficiencies), I felt a compulsion to go a bit deeply into the nuggets of the Referendum. 

So, the difference between "The Hop" and "The Skip" is, in a nutshell, procedure versus the finite details of the Referendum! 

Third, "The Jump" is a combination of the two approaches discussed above. Interestingly, your position that the ability to "Jump" is a trait shown by unpaid defense lawyers tells me that you are not aware that lawyers and people in general have to be able to address issues based on the context in which arguments are phrased. Perspectives matter; perspectives determine conclusions! 

Fourth, my arguments in this thread demonstrate what it takes to survive in this world: one has to be be able to assess information as they are presented to you. One needs to compartmentalize information and act -- make decisions -- on what is before you. But, if arguments change, it may be necessary to form other opinions. My response to the Bristol arguments and then to your arguments proves that fact!

Fifth, Frenchman, I hope that you will not tell me that people need to be static, one-dimensional, and unable to reevaluate circumstances based on changing facts, matrices, and other variables that are necessary to decision making.  If anything, consider my assessments in this thread as indicative that life for all of us -- lawyers or not (I make no admission here) -- requires that we be intensely analytical! Also, a lawyer, paid or unpaid, that does not have an open mind about the facts of his/her client's case is leading his client blindly!

Sixth, it is good to be predictable and stay the course and many people like that way of thinking. But, I am not convinced that it is always helpful to be predictable. That is not a good approach to life when changes occur around us every moment.

Seventh, why haven't you, in all this discourse: 

1. REVISED your position that the entire Referendum issues should have been voted "Yes" even though you appear, by implication, to agree with me that a blanket "Yes" made no sense once the issues are carefully analyzed? 

2. Admitted that you were WRONG in your opening salvo that Grenadians' "No" votes mean that Grenadians have voted to sacrifice their autonomy by continuing to worship the Queen? Rather, the fact is that most of the Referendum issues dealt with LOCAL, Grenadian, internal matters that have nothing to do with sacrificing Grenada's autonomy! Your opening salvo, then, and its conclusion, were overblown and inaccurate when the facts of the Referendum issues are fully considered.  

Eighth, if you wish to know, I will not consider you to have flipped or flopped were you to make the admissions that I noted.

Last edited by gripe (Dec 12, 2016 1:42 pm)


Board footer

Powered by FluxBB