Friday, January 11, 2008

Failure To Proofread

Sometimes the era of digital information that we live in makes it all too easy to write something and not proofread it adequately - leaving others who come to read what we've written wondering what the point really was, or laughing at the non-sequiturs that we left out for their enjoyment. (I know I've done it enough times on this space!)

I decided this evening to go see what has been updated on Craig Chandler's website today - thinking that as a provincial election approaches, he'll be gearing up for something.

The changes aren't that dramatic as of today, but there's a couple of gems that come from a failure to "read carefully before posting".


...However, on December 1, 2007 Democracy was denied and Ed Stelmach revealed his true face of intolerance. Infact, Ed Stelmach was involved in influencing votes from the very beginning. See our Democracy denied section for the full detals.

We are writing this letter to introduce you to Craig Chandler and to show our deep respect and support for him.

Many feel quite strongly that Craig Chandler is the most qualified candidate for the position of MLA in Calgary Egmont and one that will unify the party.


I have no idea how Chandler thinks he's going "unify" any party when he's running as an independent candidate.

His behaviour since December 1 is hardly that of a man seeking to reconcile any differences - lashing out with lawsuits (or at least threats of), and generally appearing to try to "poison the well" for the PC's where Calgary Egmont is concerned. Real "unifying", that.

The rest is just a recycle of the "letter" that he was dropping in mailboxes throughout much of Calgary Egmont back in July last year.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Craig Chandler's latest rant is now being delivered with Vicki Engel's campaign material. How about that?

Grog said...

And I'll put even money that Ms. Engel's campaign material has the same linguistic style as Chandler's does (complete with the awful abuse of language)

Anonymous said...

Not only the same style but the same spelling mistakes - cut and pasted word for word.

Typical Chandler to make no sense - campaign for someone for one party to run against him as an independent.

Grog said...

So much for "Craig the Uniter", eh?

It's easy enough to make sense of it, but it's certainly not logical.

Craig B. Chandler said...

The great thing about blogs like this is you see what needs to be corrected on your website.

Thanks for pointing out the errors. I will notify my web guy to change it.

Craig Chandler

Anonymous said...

I even had a phone call from Vicki Engel yesterday and my call display read "Craig Chandler". I thought she said she was neutral?

Anonymous said...

I find it odd and very misleading for Vicki Engel to publish on her website that "we need a candidate without baggage to unite our constituency; I was not part of the internal conflict that went public in these past few weeks."
Now she is delivering her flyers with Craig Chandler's and her phone messages show up with Craig's name on the call display. What is going on here?

Anonymous said...

Sadly, Egmont is one of the safest seats in the city and even Chandler's flunkie will win it if she gets the nod.

Grog said...

Regarding "Egmont is a safe seat" for the PC's, I'm not at all convinced that is the case any more.

Although Herard was an adequate MLA, he was predictably silent on issues - he kept his seat by not making waves either in government or in the riding.

A more vocal - and effective - opposition than Alberta has seen in years, along with the utter fiasco this past fall surrounding Chandler's nomination has triggered a significant degree of re-evaluation in many voters minds.

No matter what side you land on philosophically, assuming anything is a foregone conclusion right now is foolish.

Don Middleton said...

In Alberta's political climate, there is no such thing as a "safe seat". This is not a bad thing. It ensures those of us who want to be your representatives in the Legislature are accountable and forces us to get out and meet the people whom we wish to represent.
The time leading up to the election, or nomination in my case, is a job interview. This is the opportunity for the constituents to ask the “tough” questions of the candidates. Constituents can then make their decision on who to vote for based on who they feel will be most effective in representing their interests. The only difficulty lies in trying to reach all the people who live in the riding in a very short time.

Anonymous said...

Amazing - it sounds like Chandler CAN learn. And it's a good thing that he's learning from this blog. He even took advice from someone else (a big step). However, there are a few more things he could keep in mind. Perhaps I will address him here as he seems to be a reader:

Dear Craig,

Can I give you some advice as well. Whenever you post a website make sure you proof read it yourself carefully and test all links. To aid in your communication strategy, could I suggest the following:

Pick up some reference materials on spelling, grammar and word usage. You seem to confuse words frequently, especially those which sound alike but are completely different from each other. Some examples from your recent writings include "It's" and "Its"; "Their" and "There"; "Insure" and "Ensure"; "Affect" and "Effect"; "Advise" and "Advice"; "Than" and "Then". It makes it almost painful to read - and I feel embarrassed for you.

Of course, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt (and wouldn't want you to sue me for making the wrong assumption) - so if you had someone else doing your writing for you, perhaps it might be an idea to ensure that they have credentials beyond a gold star on a spelling test early in elementary school.

Certainly it is your style to hire others to do work for you - reportedly you had hired individuals to door knock and telephone for you during your recent nomination campaign, so certainly it is possible that you didn't even do your own writing.

Regardless whether if you did the writing or paid someone part of that $127,000 nomination budget to do it for you, it is a good idea to carefully read over anything that you attach your name to.

Anonymous said...

It's a sad state of affairs when a political candidate can't even do a proper proofreading of the material he gets published and relies on a third party after the fact to point out the errors...

'The great thing about blogs like this is you see what needs to be corrected on your website.

Thanks for pointing out the errors. I will notify my web guy to change it.

Craig Chandler"

Doesn't make me too confident in voting for someone who grasp of written English is lacking. Reminds me of a supervisor at a previous job, who used the 'spellchecker' to correct his notices that were posted to the employees. We 'knuckle-draggers' had a good laugh that week.....

E.

Anonymous said...

And an even SADDER state of affairs, is that Chandler couldn't even be bothered to fix the errors after they were pointed out to him.

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.