MUFC said:
Before this thread is closed I want to make sure that dpenabill is feeling happy by saying once again that he was right.
It seems that this is very important for him.
So once again dpenabill was right and I was wrong.
dpenabill is that enough for your ego?
If it's enough this thread is closed.
You miss the point.
Indeed, I made no reference at all to anything I had posted about the effective date of Bill C-24.
Indeed, I was
comparing YOUR post today:
MUFC said:
By the way I'm feeling a little bit sorry for all those PR who trusted on the consistent information from the call centre clerks that for long time ago the confirmed date was June 19th.
For the very same reason I was trying to give to the people warning that the actual date will be completely different.
with several of
YOUR previous posts, such as
MUFC said:
. . . Don't worry there will be a final notice before the actual cut off date. It will not happen suddenly and I'm sure that the actual cut off date will NOT be in June.
But the point of this was
not to point out the error or even the hypocrisy (expressing sympathy for those who were relying on having until June 19th to get an application submitted under the old requirements when you had repeatedly assured that it was certain, there was
"NO danger" of the date being before July 1st).
It was to point out the difference between making definitive assertions (which so often turn out to be wrong) and offering information based on reliable sources, or offering analysis which readers can weigh for themselves.
It was to highlight the danger of conveying unfounded certainty when real people, with real lives, were looking for real information.
It was to emphasize the difference between asserting something as certain when there is no knowledge-base for any such certainty.
You made definitive assertions and cited your experience as authority, as reason to trust your certain conclusions. I hope few relied upon those unfounded assertions.
Sure, sometimes my posts slip into those waters as well. Especially when it is in response to a question which has, at least in similar form, been asked and answered many times, and for which there is widely accepted and well-founded conventional wisdom, a consensus. But I usually try to avoid this, trying to distinguish what is information based on reliable if not authoritative sources (often cited and linked) versus what is my own analysis and inferences, trying to always couch the latter in language that clearly and reasonably discloses not just the strength of those inferences (that, after all, being a matter of opinion), but being clear as to what is known and what is inferred and what is extrapolated and what is guessed . . . each of these warranting distinction.
I have emphasized before this was not about anyone winning or losing. The office pool was more or less for fun, not a real bet.
In contrast all along there were many people following this who were faced with making real decisions, whose lives were actually affected. They deserved both some seriousness and some judiciousness. The latter seems to be particularly lacking in most Internet venues so perhaps I am a fool for advocating against reckless pronouncements couched in (too often false) certitude. But it was obvious, there were many coming to this site hoping to get a clue, hoping to get some sense of what was coming, when things were happening, at least in terms as best we could know.
As is often the case, especially these days with CIC, the main thing we did know was how much we did not know. Getting that message out, however, was often overshadowed and undermined by the posts saying this or that was certain . . . including posts asserting there was "no danger" until July.
To be clear, while things are in a different phase now, there are many aspects about how the implementation of the new requirements will affect people. For example, while the CIC Program Delivery Instructions carefully distinguish between calculating
residency for applications made before June 10, versus calculating
physical presence for applications made after June 11, the way in which the calculating of residency is framed in the PDIs all but excludes any of the qualitative residency tests . . . indeed, if someone has come across a PDI describing a qualitative test for residency, or the
Koo criteria, please let me know. The applicable law still allows for the use of a qualitative test in assessing residency for pre-June-10 applications, but so far I have seen no hint of it in CIC's current approach to assessing residency.
And of course there is the impending reality about how the
intent requirement will actually be applied.
A lot of issues about the
effective implementation of Bill C-24 remain open questions.
And this forum continues to deal with the contrasts between bombastic but unfounded assertions and informed, well-reasoned observations and forecasts.
There is still much which remains to be seen about how the new law unfolds and is applied, let alone whether or not, or to what extent, it will have an impact on applications already in process by June 10.
