Dear BR: It's spelled "mea culpa" in case you were wondering.

And as a followup to this earlier post by your humble scribe, we can pop back over to Blogging Tory "Alberta Tory," to see BR getting spanked soundly in his own comments section, as in:

BR, you couldn't have read the article, only the headline. This is not the reclamation of a mine pit, or an Insitu site, or a tailings pond. This is the reclamation of an overburden pile, the stuff that is most likely to reclaim.

and

No kidding, anon 8:48. Not to mention the fact that it used to be muskeg and now it's Syncrude's version of boreal forest with goddam bike paths going through it. To me "reclaimed" means "restored to original state." This is not "reclaimed," this is "improved from being a pile of dirt."

and

Yeah, let me re-iterate what Anonymous is saying, perhaps a little more clearly.

This was not a plot of land that they had mined in any way. It was a dirt dump. There is a serious difference between reclaiming the land under a pile of dirt, and reclaiming a massive strip mine.

It should also be noted that this is a postage stamp compared to the multiple football field-sized holes in the ground that the oil companies are claiming they can reclaim.

So now that BR has been paddled so thoroughly in public for his uninformed dumbassitude, it remains to be seen whether he takes any responsibility whatsoever and posts even the slightest hint of a correction. Or retraction. You know, something along the lines of, "You're right, this is obviously not as much of a success story as I thought it was."

So, let's take bets on BR's response from the following list of choices:

• More desperate defense of his original position, accompanied by shifting of goalposts.


• Quietly moving on.


• "Man, what a bunch of leftard, moonbat enviroterrorists, ha ha!!"

If history is any judge, I'm guessing that list is all-encompassing, wouldn't you say?