# CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi - fired



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

CBC says Jian left for personal issues to deal with personal matters..
now Jian instructs lawyers to sue CBC for $50 Million for wrongful dismissal.

Seems all this transpired after the Ottawa shooting, seems Jian expressed his personal views.

I hope CBC educates Jian..


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

looks like there was an investigation of some sort..
this is becoming interesting..


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

macintosh doctor said:


> oks like there was an investigation of some sort..
> this is becoming interesting..


He's posted his side of the story on his Facebook page.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ShawnKing said:


> He's posted his side of the story on his Facebook page.


I have usually liked listening to his show Q on CBC radio, especially his opening monologue when it dealt with social and political issues. While I don't subscribe to many of his sexual preferences, it is none of my business what he and another consenting adult do in the privacy of one's own home. I have also been a supporter of CBC in general, but not on this issue. We shall see how this plays out in the courts.


"Dear everyone,

I am writing today because I want you to be the first to know some news.

This has been the hardest time of my life. I am reeling from the loss of my father. I am in deep personal pain and worried about my mom. And now my world has been rocked by so much more. 


Today, I was fired from the CBC.

For almost 8 years I have been the host of a show I co-created on CBC called Q. It has been my pride and joy. My fantastic team on Q are super-talented and have helped build something beautiful. 

I have always operated on the principle of doing my best to maintain a dignity and a commitment to openness and truth, both on and off the air. I have conducted major interviews, supported Canadian talent, and spoken out loudly in my audio essays about ideas, issues, and my love for this country. All of that is available for anyone to hear or watch. I have known, of course, that not everyone always agrees with my opinions or my style, but I've never been anything but honest. I have doggedly defended the CBC and embraced public broadcasting. This is a brand I’ve been honoured to help grow.

All this has now changed.

Today I was fired from the company where I've been working for almost 14 years – stripped from my show, barred from the building and separated from my colleagues. I was given the choice to walk away quietly and to publicly suggest that this was my decision. But I am not going to do that. Because that would be untrue. Because I’ve been fired. And because I've done nothing wrong. 

I’ve been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.

As friends and family of mine, you are owed the truth.

I have commenced legal proceedings against the CBC, what’s important to me is that you know what happened and why.

Forgive me if what follows may be shocking to some. 

I have always been interested in a variety of activities in the bedroom but I only participate in sexual practices that are mutually agreed upon, consensual, and exciting for both partners.

About two years ago I started seeing a woman in her late 20s. Our relationship was affectionate, casual and passionate. We saw each other on and off over the period of a year and began engaging in adventurous forms of sex that included role-play, dominance and submission. We discussed our interests at length before engaging in rough sex (forms of BDSM). We talked about using safe words and regularly checked in with each other about our comfort levels. She encouraged our role-play and often was the initiator. We joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey or a story from Lynn Coady's Giller-Prize winning book last year. I don’t wish to get into any more detail because it is truly not anyone's business what two consenting adults do. I have never discussed my private life before. Sexual preferences are a human right.

Despite a strong connection between us it became clear to me that our on-and-off dating was unlikely to grow into a larger relationship and I ended things in the beginning of this year. She was upset by this and sent me messages indicating her disappointment that I would not commit to more, and her anger that I was seeing others. 

After this, in the early spring there began a campaign of harassment, vengeance and demonization against me that would lead to months of anxiety.

It came to light that a woman had begun anonymously reaching out to people that I had dated (via Facebook) to tell them she had been a victim of abusive relations with me. In other words, someone was reframing what had been an ongoing consensual relationship as something nefarious. I learned – through one of my friends who got in contact with this person – that someone had rifled through my phone on one occasion and taken down the names of any woman I had seemed to have been dating in recent years. This person had begun methodically contacting them to try to build a story against me. Increasingly, female friends and ex-girlfriends of mine told me about these attempts to smear me. 

Someone also began colluding with a freelance writer who was known not to be a fan of mine and, together, they set out to try to find corroborators to build a case to defame me. She found some sympathetic ears by painting herself as a victim and turned this into a campaign. The writer boldly started contacting my friends, acquaintances and even work colleagues – all of whom came to me to tell me this was happening and all of whom recognized it as a trumped up way to attack me and undermine my reputation. Everyone contacted would ask the same question, if I had engaged in non-consensual behavior why was the place to address this the media?

The writer tried to peddle the story and, at one point, a major Canadian media publication did due diligence but never printed a story. One assumes they recognized these attempts to recast my sexual behaviour were fabrications. Still, the spectre of mud being flung onto the Internet where online outrage can demonize someone before facts can refute false allegations has been what I've had to live with. 

And this leads us to today and this moment. I’ve lived with the threat that this stuff would be thrown out there to defame me. And I would sue. But it would do the reputational damage to me it was intended to do (the ex has even tried to contact me to say that she now wishes to refute any of these categorically untrue allegations). But with me bringing it to light, in the coming days you will prospectively hear about how I engage in all kinds of unsavoury aggressive acts in the bedroom. And the implication may be made that this happens non-consensually. And that will be a lie. But it will be salacious gossip in a world driven by a hunger for "scandal". And there will be those who choose to believe it and to hate me or to laugh at me. And there will be an attempt to pile on. And there will be the claim that there are a few women involved (those who colluded with my ex) in an attempt to show a "pattern of behaviour". And it will be based in lies but damage will be done. But I am telling you this story in the hopes that the truth will, finally, conquer all. 

I have been open with the CBC about this since these categorically untrue allegations ramped up. I have never believed it was anyone's business what I do in my private affairs but I wanted my bosses to be aware that this attempt to smear me was out there. CBC has been part of the team of friends and lawyers assembled to deal with this for months. On Thursday I voluntarily showed evidence that everything I have done has been consensual. I did this in good faith and because I know, as I have always known, that I have nothing to hide. This when the CBC decided to fire me. 

CBC execs confirmed that the information provided showed that there was consent. In fact, they later said to me and my team that there is no question in their minds that there has always been consent. They said they’re not concerned about the legal side. But then they said that this type of sexual behavior was unbecoming of a prominent host on the CBC. They said that I was being dismissed for "the risk of the perception that may come from a story that could come out." To recap, I am being fired in my prime from the show I love and built and threw myself into for years because of what I do in my private life.

Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. We all have our secret life. But that is my private life. That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life. 

And so, with no formal allegations, no formal complaints, no complaints, not one, to the HR department at the CBC (they told us they’d done a thorough check and were satisfied), and no charges, I have lost my job based on a campaign of vengeance. Two weeks after the death of my beautiful father I have been fired from the CBC because of what I do in my private life.

I have loved the CBC. The Q team are the best group of people in the land. My colleagues and producers and on-air talent at the CBC are unparalleled in being some of the best in the business. I have always tried to be a good soldier and do a good job for my country. I am still in shock. But I am telling this story to you so the truth is heard. And to bring an end to the nightmare."

Jian Ghomeshi

https://www.facebook.com/jianghomeshi/posts/10152357063881750?fref=nf


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I always liked that song, _The King of Spain._


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> I have usually liked listening to his show Q on CBC radio, especially his opening monologue when it dealt with social and political issues. While I don't subscribe to many of his sexual preferences, it is none of my business...


Then WTF would you cut and paste his Facebook post here? Seems odd. People are perfectly capable, if interested, to go to Facebook and see it for themselves. There was no need to repost it here without permission.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

ShawnKing said:


> Then WTF would you cut and paste his Facebook post here? Seems odd. People are perfectly capable, if interested, to go to Facebook and see it for themselves. There was no need to repost it here without permission.


Well said, SK, well said.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

ShawnKing said:


> Then WTF would you cut and paste his Facebook post here? Seems odd. People are perfectly capable, if interested, to go to Facebook and see it for themselves. There was no need to repost it here without permission.



Actually thanks. I dislike Facebook. Good work.

Canada's loss. 

Lots of talent. He'll have another life.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Methinks Jian sounds like a credible witness. He may not get his show back, but I think he's in for a damn big settlement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

I'd like to hear the other side of the story too. I have met him. I have an opinion of him based on that meeting.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

One down, coupla thousand to go...


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

FeXL said:


> One down, coupla thousand to go...



Certainly the way most people feel about Sona, Del Mastro, and eventually, PM hairpiece.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

I listen to Q every day. Without a doubt the best interviews I've ever heard. Insightful, well though, engaged questions and comments. None of that usual "your so great how do you do it....now promote your new crappy movie" crap.

And it never mattered who he interviewed, it always came out interesting. At least for me anyway 

Anyone who is interested should listen to his interview with Mandy Patinkin or Qunicy Jones.

I suspect though CBC did not take this action lightly. I also suspect Jian has a morality clause in his contract. But I guess since this is already so public, so early we will see.

Ed


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> I'd like to hear the other side of the story too. I have met him. I have an opinion of him based on that meeting.


Did he ravage you, Jimbo?


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

smashedbanana said:


> I suspect though CBC did not take this action lightly. I also suspect Jian has a morality clause in his contract. But I guess since this is already so public, so early we will see.
> 
> Ed


Bingo! ...



> Ghomeshi added that CBC executives told him "that this type of sexual behaviour was unbecoming of a prominent host on the CBC."


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

From his side of the story, it seems the ex girlfriend is a textbook borderline personality, this is really classic/typical behavior and i've had it done to me in the past. These people are _trouble_ and it is often very difficult to recognize the signs, as they are skilled at deception.

I wonder if this will finally bring to the attention of the masses the utter nonsense that is the liberal cultural marxist/feminist narrative. This is just like the Adria Richards and Pax Dickinson nonsense, woman makes an accusation, man is convicted immediately, the accusation itself being sufficient evidence.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

ShawnKing said:


> Then WTF would you cut and paste his Facebook post here? Seems odd. People are perfectly capable, if interested, to go to Facebook and see it for themselves. There was no need to repost it here without permission.


Facebook is not private and no one needs permission to post to anywhere else as you can tell it is all over the news. Just like if you post something on Twitter any news org and use it no need for permission.

Just like any other news story it is totally acceptable to post the story here so users of ehMac can read the story here without going to another site.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Certainly the way most people feel about Sona, Del Mastro, and eventually, PM hairpiece.


To be supplanted by whom? Shiny Pony?:love2:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Time to change your bong water. His, too, while you're up. Don't forget the potato chips...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

joker eh said:


> facebook is not private and no one needs permission to post to anywhere else as you can tell it is all over the news. Just like if you post something on twitter any news org and use it no need for permission.
> 
> Just like any other news story it is totally acceptable to post the story here so users of ehmac can read the story here without going to another site.


This.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ghomeshi loves CBC and Canada so much that he is suing the CBC for more than 5 per cent of its annual budget.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Ghomeshi loves CBC and Canada so much that he is suing the CBC for more than 5 per cent of its annual budget.


Maybe there is a "safe word" we could employ to stop this rape of the CBC and the Canadian taxpayers that will be footing the bill.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Ghomeshi loves CBC and Canada so much that he is suing the CBC for more than 5 per cent of its annual budget.


not to mention that is my money from my pockets.. he suing the tax payer in the same token. [ not good for his PR ]

He is being over dramatic.. very American of him, which I would suggest he finds a job in the US, they will happily take a sex crazed ego maniac .. :lmao:


----------



## minstrel (Sep 9, 2002)

If he violated the terms of his contract, his dismissal will be ruled as just, and the lawsuit will fail. If, however, he did not violate the terms of his contract, and the brass at CBC fired him unjustly, he should be compensated for lost income and damage to his reputation. I don't see that Ghomeshi is in the wrong for launching the lawsuit, if indeed he was injustly fired; I would expect that many others would do the same if dismissed without cause. The blame that such a settlement would come out of our pockets is surely at the feet of his employers at the CBC, if indeed a court finds his dismissal unjust.

Or am I misinterpreting the fundamentals of contract law?


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

Joker Eh said:


> no one needs permission to post to anywhere else as you can tell it is all over the news.


Ah - the good old "it's on the internet so it must be free" argument. Thanks.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

SINC said:


> This.


Except, it's not.

"Just like any other news story it is totally acceptable to post the story here."

That's not true at all and you know it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You are misinterpreting our distaste for public broadcasting. If the CBC were private, the costs would simply be passed on to advertisers. 



minstrel said:


> If he violated the terms of his contract, his dismissal will be ruled as just, and the lawsuit will fail. If, however, he did not violate the terms of his contract, and the brass at CBC fired him unjustly, he should be compensated for lost income and damage to his reputation. I don't see that Ghomeshi is in the wrong for launching the lawsuit, if indeed he was injustly fired; I would expect that many others would do the same if dismissed without cause. The blame that such a settlement would come out of our pockets is surely at the feet of his employers at the CBC, if indeed a court finds his dismissal unjust.
> 
> Or am I misinterpreting the fundamentals of contract law?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

ShawnKing said:


> Except, it's not.
> 
> "Just like any other news story it is totally acceptable to post the story here."
> 
> That's not true at all and you know it.


A lot of people don't understand how copyright works. Fair dealings allows for excerpts, links, quotes and clips, but not the whole work. Even mainstream media is guilty of violating this on an almost daily basis.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

ShawnKing said:


> Then WTF would you cut and paste his Facebook post here? Seems odd. People are perfectly capable, if interested, to go to Facebook and see it for themselves. There was no need to repost it here without permission.


I actually support it being posted here because it's providing 'evidence' if you will or, his side of the story. The previous posts' hint at reasons for his dismissal, but this was before he provided his side.

Plus, some folks are not on FB.
Also, I'm sure his post has been copied & pasted all over the interworld.

As for his dismissal, it certainly doesn't seem like his bedroom activity would be in his contract. I hope he wins his lawsuit.

To me, this is on the same level as firing someone for being homosexual or being a vegan or 'insert-whatever-you-like'. What someone does in the privacy of their own home is no business of any company. As long as the employee is doing their job, they shouldn't be fired because of what goes on in their home.

Now, if it turns out that he had an afterhours S&M romp in his CBC interviewing room, well, then I guess that could be cause for dismissal.

Probably someone got offended by his actions (or really jealous???) and decided to make it personal instead of thinking like a business owner.

Cheers,
Keebler


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

keebler27 said:


> I actually support it being posted here because it's providing 'evidence' if you will or, his side of the story. The previous posts' hint at reasons for his dismissal, but this was before he provided his side.
> 
> Plus, some folks are not on FB.
> Also, I'm sure his post has been copied & pasted all over the interworld.
> ...


No, he was fired because his narcissist on-again off-again f**k-buddy alleged that he abused her.

Will be interesting to what the other side of the story says.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

keebler27 said:


> I actually support it being posted here


Just because you support it doesn't mean it's OK. Sorry.



> Plus, some folks are not on FB.


Just because someone isn't on Facebook doesn't mean they can have Facebook's content. I'm not subscribed to the New York Times paywall. By your logic, it's OK for me to just take it by other means. That's silly.



> Also, I'm sure his post has been copied & pasted all over the interworld.


The good old "Well, everyone is doing it" argument.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

minstrel said:


> If he violated the terms of his contract, his dismissal will be ruled as just, and the lawsuit will fail. If, however, he did not violate the terms of his contract, and the brass at CBC fired him unjustly, he should be compensated for lost income and damage to his reputation. I don't see that Ghomeshi is in the wrong for launching the lawsuit, if indeed he was injustly fired; I would expect that many others would do the same if dismissed without cause. The blame that such a settlement would come out of our pockets is surely at the feet of his employers at the CBC, if indeed a court finds his dismissal unjust.
> 
> Or am I misinterpreting the fundamentals of contract law?



This. Wisdom! Let us be attentive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> You are misinterpreting our distaste for public broadcasting. If the CBC were private, the costs would simply be passed on to advertisers.



And then advertisers would have to increase the intensity and frequency of their ads to make up for lost revenue. Public or private, either way, the taxpayer pays, so how about stop whining about public institutions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would stop watching the network that increased advertising. With the CBC, I pay whether I watch or not.



fjnmusic said:


> And then advertisers would have to increase the intensity and frequency of their ads to make up for lost revenue. Public or private, either way, the taxpayer pays, so how about stop whining about public institutions.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

ShawnKing said:


> Just because you support it doesn't mean it's OK. Sorry.
> 
> In your opinion...
> 
> ...


No, what's silly is your comparison. You PAY for the NYT and copying content from that would be stealing....Facebook is free plus the incredibly important fact that Jian put it out in public to be read so what's the big deal really? 

In the context of this thread, it was shared so others could see his side of the story.

I know....you're probably going to say it was on his facebook profile page so not really public, but people just have to follow him to see it. 

The point I'm making is that he put it out there for people to see. The only error he had was omitting a sentence, "Please feel free to share it or at least run it by Shawn King to make sure it's ok."


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

keebler27 said:


> I know....you're probably going to say it was on his facebook profile page so not really public, but people just have to follow him to see it.


No - Facebook is as "public" as he wants to make it. I don't follow him on Facebook and I was able to read it. Just wanted to make that clarification.



> The point I'm making is that he put it out there for people to see.


Agreed - on his Facebook page. There was no need to post it *in its entirety* here. That is *my* point.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

ShawnKing said:


> No - Facebook is as "public" as he wants to make it. I don't follow him on Facebook and I was able to read it. Just wanted to make that clarification.
> 
> 
> Agreed - on his Facebook page. There was no need to post it *in its entirety* here. That is *my* point.


really don't understand the argument you're making. Who cares about it being posted? Without that, 1/2 of us would never have had the opportunity to read it.

Are you arguing in favor of some nonsense copyright law? And for what? Just because?


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

Macster Blaster said:


> really don't understand the argument you're making.


OK. Have a nice day.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

ShawnKing said:


> OK. Have a nice day.


on the same level as when a feminist in a debate argues "WOW JUST WOW WHY DO PPL LIKE THIS EXIST OMFG!!11 SERIOUSLY??!!" and expects it to do well


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Once you publish anything anywhere on the Internet, it is no longer private, even though you still technically own the "copyright." That's just the way it is. To post these days means to surrender your privacy. This goes for words, pictures, vids—whatever. Only post what you feel you are prepared to give away your "rights" to forever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Not at all. It depends on your resolve to pursue your copyright claim.



fjnmusic said:


> Once you publish anything anywhere on the Internet, it is no longer private, even though you still technically own the "copyright." That's just the way it is. To post these days means to surrender your privacy. This goes for words, pictures, vids—whatever. Only post what you feel you are prepared to give away your "rights" to forever.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

ShawnKing said:


> Ah - the good old "it's on the internet so it must be free" argument. Thanks.





ShawnKing said:


> Except, it's not.
> 
> "Just like any other news story it is totally acceptable to post the story here."
> 
> That's not true at all and you know it.


Well explain how it is not? I explained how it is and you see it everyday how it is done, now explain why not.

Anyways he can do what ever he wants in his spare time but the CBC is right in letting him go, because he is a RADIO and TV personality and his job and his employers revenue is dependant on advertisers. Hold on, even if yes they get tax money, they still depend on advertisers.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I always liked that song, _The King of Spain._


Me too. It was very well done. 

Moxy Früvous was a lot of fun.

Needless to say I didn't always agree with them but I always thought they were very clever and unique for their time.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ShawnKing said:


> Then WTF would you cut and paste his Facebook post here? Seems odd. People are perfectly capable, if interested, to go to Facebook and see it for themselves. *There was no need to repost it here without permission.*


What do you mean "without permission"?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Methinks Jian sounds like a credible witness. He may not get his show back, but I think he's in for a damn big settlement.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Is he any more a credible witness than his accusers? 

He will not ever work for the CBC again on that you can be rest assured.

Big settlement? Really? In Canada? Where is there any precedent for it?

If he gets a big payment you can't even imagine the political backlash.

It is the Canadian public that is going to pay for that... I don't think you quite understand.

It isn't like in the US where NBC or ABC is involved... any payout to JG is at the tax payer's expense and those people who disagree with the payout are not going to be silent... not in the least.

It seems he was not quite discreet enough when it came to his sexual proclivities and perhaps he may have even over stepped his or other people's bounds.

I can't imagine either the NDP or Liberals supporting him due to the feminist camp in both their parties... How could they and not be complete hypocrites?

He is doomed, right or wrong he is done like dinner.

At least that is how I see it unfolding...

Unless some other unequivocal evidence is revealed that may exonerate him.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Why do people here believe that any settlement would somehow be funded directly from the government programming subsidy?

An organization the size of CBC obviously has Employment liability insurance. And/or a restricted fund for legal issues. Not to mention their own legal department or at the very least in-house council.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

*Another point of view.....*

poor persecuted pervert? | Sex Geek


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> Why do people here believe that any settlement would somehow be funded directly from the government programming subsidy?
> 
> An organization the size of CBC obviously has Employment liability insurance. And/or a restricted fund for legal issues. Not to mention their own legal department or at the very least in-house council.


It all comes down to their is only one tax payer when it comes to public entities.

What don't you get about that simple fact? It isn't hard to figure out.

If a payout is to be paid to JG one way or the other it is on the pubic dime... that is a fact. No ifs, and or doubts. That is just the truth of the matter.

smashedbannaana clearly has no grasp on the finances of such matters if he thinks otherwise.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

screature said:


> It all comes down to their is only one tax payer when it comes to public entities.
> 
> What don't you get about that simple fact? It isn't hard to figure out.
> 
> ...


Wow what a condescending reply.

I guess you know it all then!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Not at all. It depends on your resolve to pursue your copyright claim.


Part of the user agreement with Facebook is that you agree to let them use your words and pictures in any manner they choose, particularly for advertising. That pretty much sums up ant one's copyright claim. I'm not saying I agree with it.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Seems to me that the CBC, like all employers in this country, have the right to dismiss a servant.

The employer has the right to dismiss for cause or dismiss with notice or in lieu of notice, a severance payment shall be made.

We are not privy to the details of any severance (agreement?) arrangement between JG and the CBC.

Seems JG has, by his actions, disagreed with any severance amount offered by the corporation, which is his right. JG outed himself, not the CBC.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

BBC News - #BBCTrending: Jian Ghomeshi saga sparks social outpouring



> Over the course of 24 hours, the court of public opinion stood behind Canada's beloved - and as of Sunday, former - radio host Jian Ghomeshi, and then turned on him almost as quickly.
> 
> It was the day Ghomeshi was sacked from the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC), the day he released a 1,590-word defence on Facebook and indicated he plans to sue the CBC for $50m Canadian ($45m; £27.5m), and finally, the day The Toronto Star released an investigation with allegations from several women who claim Ghomeshi violently attacked them during sex.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> JG outed himself, not the CBC.


Good point.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Not at all. It depends on your resolve to pursue your copyright claim.


 
I wouldn't say that. Considering that the internet is global, you have little chance in alot of countries to pursue your copyright claim. As well, by the time you pursue your copyright claim, it will be too late as the cat's out of the bag, and the harm's been done.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's right. Your rights have been violated, but you may regret the effort required to do something about it. I have had my work stolen, but recognized that the best I could hope to achieve is to have the offending company cease and desist. Not worth it.



Kosh said:


> I wouldn't say that. Considering that the internet is global, you have little chance in alot of countries to pursue your copyright claim. As well, by the time you pursue your copyright claim, it will be too late as the cat's out of the bag, and the harm's been done.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> Wow what a condescending reply.


You are right smashedbanana.

My post was condescending, not to mention just plain rude.

I humbly apologize.



smashedbanana said:


> I guess you know it all then!


No I don't (I wish I did  ), but I do believe that the main points of my post were/are correct:



> ...It all comes down to there is only one tax payer when it comes to public entities...


and:



> If a payout is to be paid to JG one way or the other it is on the pubic dime... that is a fact. No ifs, and or doubts. That is just the truth of the matter.


You posted/said/asked:



> Why do people here believe that any settlement would somehow be funded directly from the government programming subsidy?
> 
> An organization the size of CBC obviously has Employment liability insurance. And/or a restricted fund for legal issues. Not to mention their own legal department or at the very least in-house council.


My answer/response to you should have been what I said in my original post, minus my condescension and rudeness with a further point/comment:


It all comes down to there is only one tax payer when it comes to public entities.

If a payout is to be paid to JG one way or the other it is on the pubic dime... that is a fact. No ifs, and or doubts. That is just the truth of the matter. 

If JG is awarded $55M it is the Canadian public who will pay for that payout.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Deleted


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

smashedbanana said:


> Deleted



Cute ploy!! Make a post so the notification goes out to all subscribed and the 'delete' it so it's not on the general record....... :yawn:


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

screature said:


> You are right smashedbanana.
> 
> My post was condescending, not to mention just plain rude.
> 
> I humbly apologize.............


Gah even this post is condescending. Can't just apologize eh?

I obviously read your original post. I don't need it again with point form bullets and cliché'd "no and, ifs or buts" (or as you wrote it doubts?) Not sure you really read my post. Or more likely you just scanned it, and couldn't wait to flatten it.

This is not the first time or second time I've had to have my stuff critiqued by the almighty screature. Like it's your job here to judge the worthiness of a post. Considering how little I post that says more than anything about your behavior.

I will continue to post when I have something to contribute, but more than an apology I'd prefer you to just let my stuff stand. Anyone else is free to comment.

For everyone else: My point was simply that an insurance company will end up paying what will probably end up being a 2-$3 million settlement should Jian win. That's it, that's all. Continue hating CBC and it's public subsidy should you wish. 

Ed


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Good for you. Don't be bullied.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Good for you. Don't be bullied.


Quoth the bullier...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> Gah even this post is condescending. Can't just apologize eh?
> 
> I obviously read your original post. I don't need it again with point form bullets and cliché'd "no and, ifs or buts" (or as you wrote it doubts?) Not sure you really read my post. Or more likely you just scanned it, and couldn't wait to flatten it.
> 
> ...


Boy that was gracious of you. 

It is my right to disagree with you and so no I will not just let your statements stand when I believe them to be wrong.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Good for you. Don't be bullied.


:lmao:


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

screature said:


> :lmao:



😆😆😆😆


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> 😆😆😆😆


Tell me exactly why it is that you bother coming back here having been disgraced time and again?

Oh! I know because you Stink, and you just have to spread as much chite as you can... typical troll behaviour. Well done.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

😆😆😆😆😆😆


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Great article 
https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...J__EXEaCvx7BAAzhNt7sz6sGXXRzv_a7R8TZwXkmI&s=1


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

macintosh doctor said:


> Great article
> https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...J__EXEaCvx7BAAzhNt7sz6sGXXRzv_a7R8TZwXkmI&s=1


Bad link.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I just listened to the testimony of one of the women on the radio this evening. If what she is saying is true, Jian has a pretty tough case. Sounds like a pretty clear case of assault to me. Nobody likes having their hair pulled and their head pounded upon. At least, this one didn't.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

fjnmusic said:


> I just listened to the testimony of one of the women on the radio this evening. If what she is saying is true, Jian has a pretty tough case. Sounds like a pretty clear case of assault to me. Nobody likes having their hair pulled and their head pounded upon. At least, this one didn't.


Yes, so believable she didn't even go to the cops.

Just like the false rape allegation epidemic in us colleges.

And do you think -if its even true - she didn't know what she was getting into?

I like how none of his accusers are accountable for putting themselves in that situation, just victims, and based on the lack of a police report, liars, too


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macster Blaster said:


> Yes, so believable she didn't even go to the cops.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you listen to the interview with her on the radio? She sounded pretty believable to me, and it fits with what he was saying as well. Under Canadian law, a person cannot consent to acts thy will harm them. Or are you reacting more to the archetype, the typical way you perceive a case like this will play out? Not going to the police may weaken the case, but it does not make his actions disappear. And he doesn't seem to mind admitting he enjoys engaging in the "rough stuff." You really ought to listen to the interview before you make up your mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

At least one women has come out publicly.

Jian Ghomeshi choked me: Trailer Park Boys actress Lucy DeCoutere publicly accuses CBC host | National Post



> She alleges that Mr. Ghomeshi slapped and choked her without warning after taking her to his Riverdale home in 2003.
> 
> “He did not ask if I was into it. It was never a question,” Ms. DeCoutere told the Toronto Star.





> On Wednesday night, the Toronto Star also published the accounts of two additional unnamed women who alleged violent encounters with Mr. Ghomeshi, bringing the broadcaster’s *total number of accusers up to eight*. Ms. DeCoutere is the first woman to publicly identify herself.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

fjnmusic said:


> Did you listen to the interview with her on the radio? She sounded pretty believable to me, and it fits with what he was saying as well. Under Canadian law, a person cannot consent to acts thy will harm them. Or are you reacting more to the archetype, the typical way you perceive a case like this will play out? Not going to the police may weaken the case, but it does not make his actions disappear. And he doesn't seem to mind admitting he enjoys engaging in the "rough stuff." You really ought to listen to the interview before you make up your mind.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I may listen to it eventually.

Having dealt with borderline personalities, what we are seeing is entirely consistent with BPD response. The "pure evil" depiction is part of their theatre. They will say and do anything to 'get back' at the person that put one over on them. They'll try to get a person ****-canned, divorced or arrested. 

The key here is the lack of a police report. Considering how seriously the police take any woman's allegations of violence or physical abuse (to the point of absurdity) the lack of a report is extremely telling... it says the allegations are at worst bull****, or at best extremely overblown.

And all these 'anonymous' women coming forward, yeah ok. Maybe true, maybe attention whoring, maybe pathological sisterhood pack mentality, or maybe outright media fabrication to give the story legs.

All I'm saying is that there is a high likelihood his story (jilted ex girlfriend) is true, because his depiction and the woman's theatrical showboating are ENTIRELY consistent with BPD nonsense.

Don't listen to what they say, listen to what they do, or in this case, didn't do. They DID NOT escalate the situation with law enforcement when, based on their narrative, it was entirely warranted to do so. 

If it is true, and this guy really is the scumbag they allege he is.... they were attracted to his stardom and dark triad personality traits in the first place. Women are extremely good at reading this type of cue, and they prefer the biker meth dealer to the kind reliable accountant/engineer type. Well, punch a bear in the balls and you're going to get mauled. At the very least, these women deserve no sympathy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macster Blaster said:


> And all these 'anonymous' women coming forward, yeah ok. Maybe true, maybe attention whoring, maybe pathological sisterhood pack mentality, or maybe outright media fabrication to give the story legs.


I guess you missed this post, did you? A well known actress who stepped forward, revealed her identity and told a similar story?



rgray said:


> At least one women has come out publicly.
> 
> Jian Ghomeshi choked me: Trailer Park Boys actress Lucy DeCoutere publicly accuses CBC host | National Post


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The agency Ghomeshi hired to protect his reputation could very well have insisted that he craft that letter about engaging in "consensual rough stuff" simply to soften up the public for the flurry of subsequent complaints about violence.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macster Blaster said:


> I may listen to it eventually.
> 
> Having dealt with borderline personalities, what we are seeing is entirely consistent with BPD response. The "pure evil" depiction is part of their theatre. They will say and do anything to 'get back' at the person that put one over on them. They'll try to get a person ****-canned, divorced or arrested.
> 
> ...


This is misogyny. Pure and simple. And from a psychological (I have 40+ years experience) perspective your analysis of BDP is rudimentary at best and vile misleading misogyny at worst.

The fact that women tend not to file sexual abuse or sexual assault charges is an historic problem much researched without solution. It does not serve women in general well to not file complaints but it is understandable individually.

With 7 (at least) anonymous complainants and 1 (at least) self identified victim one has to consider "where there's smoke, there's fire". 

Gomeshi's description of the situation is not particularly credible and it is a gratuitous non sequitur that he includes in it the recent death of his father which is not only not germain but also is a blatant attempt to engender emotional support. Which is pretty pathetic when you think about it.

If JG feels that these women defamed him, he has the right to sue them. The fact that he does not weakens his case. But of course, their stories are not defamation if they are true.

The CBC is a big organisation. The decision to fire Gomeshi would not have been taken lightly. CBC desperately needs his ratings. I can't imagine that they don't have unreleased info that supports their decision.

My personal intuition is that JG's case is going to crumble and he will be forced to slither back under the stump from whence he came. Which is a shame, especially for him personally, because Q was a pretty good show and I think he was destined to be host of one of the big, if boring, talk shows. He has thrown all that away, now.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

Let's break down the salient points here:

In JG's favor:
*- No police reports ever filed. *I don't buy the excuse of women under-reporting due to some emotional factors in this particular case because...

*- The 'victim' instead ratted him out to his employer. * You were too emotionally terrified/humiliated to go to the cops who are there to help, yet you felt comfortable going to some random corporate dicks at the CBC who may have reacted in unpredictable ways?

*- Other reports are anonymous* Which could mean they are fabricated or extremely overblown.

*- He is suing the CBC. *Why would he sue and in such a public way if he had no case?

*- Full disclosure. *If he had something to hide, would he not have kept his mouth shut?


Against JG's story
*- So many people are (supposedly) speaking out against him. *One may be an outlier, but 7 or 8? Seems like something could be up.

*- Full disclosure. *Seems like a convenient way to 'get in front' of the issue before it blows up.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

In fact:-

*Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.*

Your cartoon illustration definition, is itself crudely misogynistic.



> How can you sue an anonymous accuser?


Gomeshi claims he knows the accuser. He does not deny it. It is his choice not to identify her. In his personal context she is *NOT* anonymous.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

rgray said:


> In fact:-
> 
> *Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.*
> 
> Your cartoon illustration definition, is itself crudely misogynistic.


We've all read that tripe before. It's 2014 and we've already hit peak feminism. You don't know anything about me, so maybe stop spouting first year liberal arts accusations in an attempt to discredit my logic, which is sound.



> Gomeshi claims he knows the accuser. It is his choice not to identify her.


That's suspect as well, but maybe a defamation suit is a no-win scenario. If he wins something in the CBC lawsuit, his reputation may be partially saved and there would be no need to drag himself through the courts in what would amount to a hearsay-based kobayashi maru.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macster Blaster said:


> We've all read that tripe before. It's 2014 and we've already hit peak feminism. You don't know anything about me, so maybe stop spouting first year liberal arts accusations in an attempt to discredit my logic, which is sound.


You just don't get it do you? And you don't appear to understand the definition of feminism at all because you demonstrated attitude to women sucks!!

BTW I have complained to admin about your post and the stupid cartoon definition.

You have problems.

Get help!!!!!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Jian Ghomeshi: 8 women accuse former CBC host of violence, sexual abuse or harassment

The details here are truly disturbing.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

rgray said:


> You just don't get it do you? And you don't appear to understand the definition of feminism at all because you demonstrated attitude to women sucks!!
> 
> BTW I have complained to admin about your post and the stupid cartoon definition.
> 
> ...


Another nonsensical post. And of course, we don't like what we read so why try to get those mean words taken down.

For someone with 40 years in the psych industry you demonstrate incredible fragility and lack of maturity.

Certainly hope you weren't counseling people with real problems.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

SINC said:


> Bad link.


Fixed
https://ricochet.media/en/142/what-bothers-me-about-the-ghomeshi-discussion


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macster Blaster said:


> I may listen to it eventually.
> 
> Having dealt with borderline personalities, what we are seeing is entirely consistent with BPD response. The "pure evil" depiction is part of their theatre. They will say and do anything to 'get back' at the person that put one over on them. They'll try to get a person ****-canned, divorced or arrested.
> 
> ...


You disgust me.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

screature said:


> Jian Ghomeshi: 8 women accuse former CBC host of violence, sexual abuse or harassment
> 
> The details here are truly disturbing.


Pretty messed up if true, the question is, why were these women having sex with him in the first place?

I can just imagine the social justice types short circuiting at the circular arguments.

Do they hate him because of his treatment of women or do they defend him because he's a visible minority?










Whatever happens is bound to be entertaining in a twisted, watching a trainwreck kind of way.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

screature said:


> You disgust me.


Agreed

Police don't always get involved.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

rgray said:


> You just don't get it do you? And you don't appear to understand the definition of feminism at all because you demonstrated attitude to women sucks!!
> 
> BTW I have complained to admin about your post and the stupid cartoon definition.
> 
> ...


Absolutely!

He has demonstrated it here before in his previous incarnation as MasterBlaster (no space). Check out some of his previous doozies...


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

screature said:


> Absolutely!
> 
> He has demonstrated it here before in his previous incarnation as MasterBlaster (no space). Check out some of his previous doozies...


LOL WUT? That's not even me.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macster Blaster said:


> Pretty messed up if true, the question is, why were these women having sex with him in the first place?


So now we've moved on to victim blaming.

In my arguably limited experience 'having sex' does not include getting beaten up. Apparently I differ from you and JG on that understanding.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

rgray said:


> So now we've moved on to victim blaming.
> 
> In my arguably limited experience 'having sex' does not include getting beaten up. Apparently I differ from you and JG on that understanding.


Another buzzword. Victim Blaming. Let's go for the trifecta, please use "slut shaming" in your next post.

"In my arguably limited experience 'having sex' does not include having it with a same sex partner." Does that help you understand why your statement is nonsensical? Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean other people don't enjoy it! 

For being such a fan of feminism you're awfully judgmental of other peoples' sexual practices. Some people actually enjoy pain. I don;t understand it or condone it, but it doesn't make it any less true.

There, I removed that mean little cartoon that so offended you.

Do you think now you and your liberal ilk can argue rationally now that your emotional trigger points have been suitably addressed?

Apologies for not putting trigger warnings at the beginning of my posts, i thought we were all grownups in here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Apologies are my trigger.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

And the beat goes on - <https://twitter.com/dreahouston/status/527832318791393280/photo/1>


----------



## MuffinCakes (Jul 8, 2014)

Macster Blaster said:


> LOL WUT? That's not even me.


rgray: we might want to add 'dissociative identity disorder' to the diagnosis.

Interesting case study though.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

The 'spin doctors' that have been advising JG, are no longer doing so according to CBC readio news..... The report does not say who left/got rid of whom.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macster Blaster said:


> LOL WUT? That's not even me.


Yeah right!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

rgray said:


> So now we've moved on to victim blaming.
> 
> In my arguably limited experience *'having sex' does not include getting beaten up. Apparently I differ from you and JG on that understanding*.


Indeed and so did many of his victims.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macster Blaster said:


> I may listen to it eventually.
> 
> Having dealt with borderline personalities, what we are seeing is entirely consistent with BPD response. The "pure evil" depiction is part of their theatre. They will say and do anything to 'get back' at the person that put one over on them. They'll try to get a person ****-canned, divorced or arrested.
> 
> ...


That's a lot of ex-girlfriends then. This one (the interview with Carol Off on As It Happens is online) certainly does not depict him as Pure evil and certainly does not seem to have an axe to grind. However she and her husband to switch radio stations when his voice comes on. She seems to be truly puzzled by the the intent behind his sudden aggressive actions, which seems to be a common theme. Methinks that where's there's smoke, there's probably fire.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MuffinCakes said:


> rgray: we might want to add 'dissociative identity disorder' to the diagnosis.
> 
> Interesting case study though.


The thing that creeps me out almost the most is the whole turning the teddy bear around so as to not see what is going on... 

Truly disturbing.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Jian Ghomeshi: 8 women accuse former CBC host of violence, sexual abuse or harassment
> 
> The details here are truly disturbing.


If these allegations are true, the man is a whack job and should be in prison for assault. What a waste of talent.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

fjnmusic said:


> That's a lot of ex-girlfriends then. This one (the interview with Carol Off on As It Happens is online) certainly does not depict him as Pure evil and certainly does not seem to have an axe to grind. However she and her husband to switch radio stations when his voice comes on. She seems to be truly puzzled by the the intent behind his sudden aggressive actions, which seems to be a common theme. Methinks that where's there's smoke, there's probably fire.


The sheer number of reports coming out could speak volumes. I do wonder whether there will be criminal charges at some point. This is the main reason why I think there is something suspect WITH the reports themselves. No matter what, we will be entertained.

I am microwaving some popcorn now, waiting to see the SJWs argue amongst themselves. But of course women are higher than "brown ehnic-looking people" on the victim hierarchy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macster Blaster said:


> The sheer number of reports coming out could speak volumes. I do wonder whether there will be criminal charges at some point. This is the main reason why I think there is something suspect WITH the reports themselves. No matter what, we will be entertained.
> 
> I am microwaving some popcorn now, waiting to see the SJWs argue amongst themselves. *But of course women are higher than "brown ehnic-looking people" on the victim hierarchy.*


It seems you might have a psychological/psychiatric problem that maybe you should seek help for. I am serious.

Perhaps you have been hurt emotionally in the past by a woman but I very much doubt you have been hurt physically, due to your penchant for weight lifting.

Time for a reality check on your part.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> If these allegations are true, the man is a whack job and should be in prison for assault. What a waste of talent.


My first reaction was disappointment, quickly followed by outrage.

He was definitely good at his job at the CBC.

I think that is why the CBC extended him the benefit of doubt for as long as they did but eventually they had to dissociate themselves from him and fire him.

IMO the CBC, for once, did the correct and proper thing by firing him.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

screature said:


> It seems you might have a psychological/psychiatric problem that maybe you should seek help for. I am serious.
> 
> Perhaps you have been hurt emotionally in the past by a woman but I very much doubt you have been hurt physically due to your penchant for weight lifting.
> 
> Time for a reality check on your part.


I've done therapy. Waste of time. Therapy for the average man is an attempt to convince him that being a man is somehow wrong. It's nonsense. We deal with our problems other ways.

Ask any man if he's been hurt by a woman and he'll say yes. It's part of growing up. Scar tissue grows in the heart and it's what you need to deal with the world. Every time you hear a woman complain that a man is emotionally distant or uncommunicative, it's because there's no emotion to communicate. We're empty. We love out friends, we love our kids, we love our toys, and eventually we end up caring about the women in our lives. But never on the level women expect.

In the end, women in the present pay for the sins of women in the past. Hence the complaining. Yes we're distant. Their sisters made us this way. Deal with it.

I'm not being self-pitying, just stating a fact. It would be self-pity if I cared. But I don't. Neither do 9/10 men out there.


You need to look at yourself a second here also. Things I say make you uncomfortable, and you assume that there must be something wrong with me. 

What if i"m right and the pretty little lies Peter Mansbridge tells us are wrong?

Why are you comfortable with society the way it is? It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society. 

I'm the closest thing to pure vulcan logic you will ever see. We're about 3% of the population. We say things people don't like because they're true, and to hell with how they sound or how people feel about them. As far as your typical INTP is concerned, when it comes to society, the inmates are running the asylum, and irrational emotion rules the day.

Oh.. and how do you know I lift weights? Are you still convinced that other poster and I are the same user? I just like Macs and enjoyed Mad Max III. Hence, Macster Blaster.

Please compare me to Hitler now so this thread achieves Godwinhood.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macster Blaster said:


> I've done therapy. Waste of time. Therapy for the average man is an attempt to convince him that being a man is somehow wrong. It's nonsense. We deal with our problems other ways.
> 
> Ask any man if he's been hurt by a woman and he'll say yes. It's part of growing up. Scar tissue grows in the heart and it's what you need to deal with the world. Every time you hear a woman complain that a man is emotionally distant or uncommunicative, it's because there's no emotion to communicate. We're empty. We love out friends, we love our kids, we love our toys, and eventually we end up caring about the women in our lives. But never on the level women expect.
> 
> ...


Once again you disgust me... 

I know who you are despite your thinly veiled attempts to hide your original identity here... they are quite comical actually if it wasn't for the seriousness of the issue at hand.

Why don't you go back and crawl under the rock from which you came... 

The rest of civil society would be better off not hearing your words of hate.  tptptptp


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

screature said:


> Once again you disgust me...
> 
> I know who you are despite your thinly veiled attempts to hide your original identity here... they are quite comical actually if it wasn't for the seriousness of the issue at hand.
> 
> ...


Diagnosis: paranoid schizophrenic. You need lots of pills to get better.

"You disgust me"

WOW JUST WOW, to paraphrase the internet feminist

Here I am spilling truth and you reject it outright. Must be a mental disorder to be a liberal. Something about an underdeveloped amygdala.

You've just revealed yourself to be a fragile, broken human being. Unlike the rest of us broken human beings, you're in denial.

Pathetic.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macster Blaster said:


> Diagnosis: paranoid schizophrenic. You need lots of pills to get better.
> 
> "You disgust me"
> 
> ...


Maybe you should try weening yourself off of the internet porn sites and try to live in the real world of sexual relationships for a while...

That would be a start in your rehabilitation.

You may also need some medication to get on the path to recovery... but I am not a doctor as you profess to be...

So who knows, maybe all you need is a good "three punches to the head" to set you straight, but somehow I doubt it would solve the issues that you clearly have.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macster Blaster said:


> I've done therapy. Waste of time. Therapy for the average man is an attempt to convince him that being a man is somehow wrong. It's nonsense. We deal with our problems other ways.
> 
> Ask any man if he's been hurt by a woman and he'll say yes. It's part of growing up. Scar tissue grows in the heart and it's what you need to deal with the world. Every time you hear a woman complain that a man is emotionally distant or uncommunicative, it's because there's no emotion to communicate. We're empty. We love out friends, we love our kids, we love our toys, and eventually we end up caring about the women in our lives. But never on the level women expect.
> 
> ...


I'm surprised your "vulcan logic" can't see just how exceedingly pathetic this loathsome diatribe is........


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

some personal thoughts about Jian Ghomeshi, #jianghomeshi, and presumptions of innocence | not that kind of doctor


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

rgray said:


> I'm surprised your "vulcan logic" can't see just how exceedingly pathetic this loathsome diatribe is........


:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When you lose Navigator...

Navigator and rock-it promotions drop Jian Ghomeshi as a client | Toronto Star


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

As this story snowballs, it's becoming clearer that CBC radio--and the CBC--are covering their own asses regarding failure to act earlier.

Jian Ghomeshi story shouldn't have gotten this ugly: DiManno | Toronto Star



> And still the CBC, a network funded by taxpayer dollars, cowers behind privacy manifestos and human relations policy rather than answering urgent questions about what they knew — or had damn good reason to suspect — and when they knew it. Instead the CBC has outsourced the investigation, in the same way that governments appoint inquiries and commissions when scandals erupt, essentially to validate silence and buy time.
> 
> But the network clearly can’t contain this mess. Every day has brought fresh allegations, via interviews and personal blogs. Every day it becomes more apparent that the warnings about non-consensual violence had been there for quite a long time.


To quote Jimbo:



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Yep. CBC at its best.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Cripes even Charles Adler is throwing in his two cents. (on his Facebook page)

Anyone think there'll be a movie made about this story one day?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

gwillikers said:


> Anyone think there'll be a movie made about this story one day?


Starring Don Cherry as Jian Ghomeshi...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

gwillikers said:


> Cripes even Charles Adler is throwing in his two cents. (on his Facebook page)
> 
> *Anyone think there'll be a movie made about this story one day?*


Absolutely! I said the exact same thing to my colleague just yesterday.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Starring Don Cherry as Jian Ghomeshi...


No I don't think so, more likely Julian Assange, their MOs seem to be quite similar.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Starring Don Cherry as Jian Ghomeshi...



Nope. It'll be that little Indian comedian from This Hour Has 22 Minutes. Or maybe it's Air Farce. Or hey, maybe even Russel Peters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

*Q weekly guest Elvira Kurt posts rant about Ghomeshi scandal*

Q weekly guest Elvira Kurt posts rant about Ghomeshi scandal | Georgia Straight, Vancouver's News & Entertainment Weekly



> Toronto-based comedian Elvira Kurt has added her voice to the ever-growing chorus rallying against (and also cutting ties with) former Q radio host Jian Ghomeshi.
> 
> Kurt hosts the game show Spin Off, starred on the Comedy Network's PopCultured with Elvira Kurt, was a CTV etalk Daily correspondent, and was a weekly guest on Q who presented a segment called—believe it or not—Cultural Hall of Shame. (Looks like Ghomeshi himself could now be featured on that. Allegedly.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

rgray said:


> Q weekly guest Elvira Kurt posts rant about Ghomeshi scandal | Georgia Straight, Vancouver's News & Entertainment Weekly


 LOLD HARD at all the cliches in that post.

Two things remain:

1- Why no police reports?
2- Why agree to have sex with him in the first place?

Until that's dealt with there can be no honest discussion about this.

As for the rest of these mangina white knights and the women they're defending:








and







respectively


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You really have to wonder about the reports of women who say the guy appeared violent, then returned for another visit. However, under those circumstances I can understand why there were no police reports--it's embarrassing to have gone to that well a second time.

Likewise, having sex with the goof in the first place may be a fool's decision.

However, beating someone is still a crime.





Macster Blaster said:


> LOLD HARD at all the cliches in that post.
> 
> Two things remain:
> 
> ...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> You really have to wonder about the reports of women who say the guy appeared violent, then returned for another visit. However, under those circumstances I can understand why there were no police reports--it's embarrassing to have gone to that well a second time.
> 
> Likewise, having sex with the goof in the first place may be a fool's decision.
> 
> However, beating someone is still a crime.


Makes you wonder why more people in the..uh……BDSM community don't report the crime. According to a Canadian judge, any act that involves being physically abused cannot be legally consented to. If nothing else, this story has certainly shone a flashlight into some pretty dark corners that we don't like to think about. Perhaps going back for more really is a sign of masochistic tendencies. Providing the people are of age, it's hard to fathom why they would willingly do this. Plus, woman-on-woman violence and man-on-man violence is pretty culturally acceptable (think pretty much any non-Olympic hockey game). It's when males and females are violent to each other that some kind of line is crossed. I can't blame the CBC for firing the guy (his version of events really just reinforces that he is abusive), but maybe it's our complacency toward physical violence that is the bigger problem here.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Makes you wonder why more people in the..uh……BDSM community don't report the crime. According to a Canadian judge, any act that involves being physically abused cannot be legally consented to. If nothing else, this story has certainly shone a flashlight into some pretty dark corners that we don't like to think about. Perhaps going back for more really is a sign of masochistic tendencies. Providing the people are of age, it's hard to fathom why they would willingly do this. Plus, woman-on-woman violence and man-on-man violence is pretty culturally acceptable (think pretty much any non-Olympic hockey game). It's when males and females are violent to each other that some kind of line is crossed. I can't blame the CBC for firing the guy (his version of events really just reinforces that he is abusive), but maybe it's our complacency toward physical violence that is the bigger problem here.


Maybe you should consider adding a paragraph break once in a while. It would make reading your posts much easier. 

Seeing as you are teacher I would expect such basic respect for syntax from you.

Practise what you preach, please. 

It would be much appreciated.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Bungled Jian Ghomeshi investigation playing out at taxpayers’ expense



> The Ghomeshi story is morphing from concern about the host’s conduct into evolving disquiet as to whether his behaviour was covered up by CBC management, and how pervasive the culture of harassment may be at the CBC.
> 
> If, as is increasingly alleged (and as I have personally been told by one complainant), management took no action after being informed of Ghomeshi’s misconduct, there could not only be sanctions by the Canadian Human Rights Commission but significant negligence lawsuits from victimized women both against CBC managers and the corporation itself.


This sums it up for me:



> *The CBC conducting its own investigation is like putting a fox in charge of solving an abused-chicken case.*
> 
> The federal government should be the one investigating its Crown corporation, letting chips fall where they may. Unlike the CBC, the government has no ostensible interest, other than protecting taxpayers and CBC employees. Unlike the CBC, it has no institutional bias that would favour a whitewash. Even if the investigation by the CBC into its own misconduct were conducted honestly, Canadians would naturally be suspicious of a cover-up.


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Maybe you should consider adding a paragraph break once in a while. It would make reading your posts much easier.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How about read the message, not shoot the messenger.

Or I could do like some people.

And just have breaks.

Far too often.

Like pablum.

For the masses.

As to the subject of complacency toward violence by much of our society, including the hockey crowd, and assuming you have an attention span longer than a couple of sentences, you might try answering the question posed. Or not. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

fjnmusic said:


> How about read the message, not shoot the messenger.



Impossible for a liberal parasite. Message content irrelevant. How the wording makes one feel is paramount.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Macster Blaster said:


> Impossible for a liberal parasite. Message content irrelevant. How the wording makes one feel is paramount.


screature is no liberal parasite.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> How about read the message, not shoot the messenger.
> 
> Or I could do like some people.
> 
> ...


I was not addressing the content of your post, I was addressing the manner in which you presented it, which was poor.

Paragraph breaks are helpful for good communications that is why they exist.

As I indicated, as an educator I would hope/expect that you would apply the same basic principles that you teach when writing to others... even if it is only an on-line forum.

As for the content of your post IMO it was as muddled as your writing of it. 

I really don't know what you were trying to say... perhaps because you didn't take the time to present your argument in a structured manner.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> screature is no liberal parasite.


I think he was addressing fjnmusic not me, but then again maybe not.

I'm not sure if fjnmusic or me was the "liberal parasite" that MB was referring to...

But then again I really don't understand much of anything coming from MasterBlaster/Master Blaster.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> I was not addressing the content of your post, I was addressing the manner in which you presented it, which was poor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You really know how to alienate people, don't you? What an asshole.

For what it's worth, you seem to enter a return after every sentence, which would be a misuse of the format for paragraphing. It is not intuitive to have a line space after each sentence, even if it's what they seem to do in newspapers today; it is a sign of sloppy paragraphing. I don't know why I'm even responding to this. You've sort of missed the point big time, and you've made an arse of yourself by pointedly refusing to comment on the substance of my post, which had to do with our culture of violence and Jian Ghomeshi's role in it. And if this paragraph is too long for you, good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macster Blaster said:


> Impossible for a liberal parasite. Message content irrelevant. How the wording makes one feel is paramount.


Wisdom! Let us be attentive.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Wisdom! Let us be attentive.


We haven't yet determined whether you or screature are the intended parasite...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> We haven't yet determined whether you or screature are the intended parasite...



Does it matter? The observation is right on 
the money. When the form becomes more important that the content, the message is the casualty. When one's posts become the focus of the paragraph nazi, and indeed when one's profession is maligned as a result, I think it's safe to say one has crossed the line. Yup, having no mods has certainly increased the civility around here. You can even say the word "asshole" with impunity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Does it matter? The observation is right on
> the money. When the form becomes more important that the content, the message is the casualty. When one's posts become the focus of the paragraph nazi, and indeed when one's profession is maligned as a result, I think it's safe to say one has crossed the line. Yup, having no mods has certainly increased the civility around here. You can even say the word "asshole" with impunity.


That may be true, but does it help foster the kind of place you seem to want, or your profession, by you using it in retaliation?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Civility is not achieved by mods wielding force--and yes, it's pretty good here without them.

While we may not appreciate people ignoring our message, why not take little time to work on form and presentation? It can only make your message more powerful.



fjnmusic said:


> Does it matter? The observation is right on
> the money. When the form becomes more important that the content, the message is the casualty. When one's posts become the focus of the paragraph nazi, and indeed when one's profession is maligned as a result, I think it's safe to say one has crossed the line. Yup, having no mods has certainly increased the civility around here. You can even say the word "asshole" with impunity.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> That may be true, but does it help foster the kind of place you seem to want, or your profession, by you using it in retaliation?



I'm sorry now I ever mentioned my profession, only to have it used against me in an argument. I don't know everyone else's professions, nor does it matter, since I am participating here as a person with my own opinions, and references to what I've learned as a teacher are incidental. But to have one's chosen profession shoved back in one's face at every opportunity is unfair. I don't malign anyone's choice of career when I feel I need to lash out.

Without mods, we often lack decorum here. We often do not play nicely, and we seem to be setting a new bar for how far you can go to insult someone. To have one's message picked apart for paragraphing (the observations about which are incorrect, at any rate) is just a conversation killer and crosses the line about civility. So does the word "asshole," which while crude, seems to slip past the auto-censors, and describes well the kind of behaviour I am zeroing in on. I can be one too from time to time, and it is fair when someone calls me on it. 

So to sum up, sometimes there are very pleasant conversations on which we agree to disagree. This is not one of them. And also none of what I have said here has the slightest thing to do with Jian Ghomeshi.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I apologize if you think I used your profession against you. I did not mean it that way.

I simply pointed out that you are complaining about decorum while breaking it yourself. Think about that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Seriously, go back through the logs of interactions here over the past 10 years. Civility is only what occurs between fights. It's pretty good here now.



fjnmusic said:


> Without mods, we often lack decorum here. We often do not play nicely, and we seem to be setting a new bar for how far you can go to insult someone. To have one's message picked apart for paragraphing (the observations about which are incorrect, at any rate) is just a conversation killer and crosses the line about civility. So does the word "asshole," which while crude, seems to slip past the auto-censors, and describes well the kind of behaviour I am zeroing in on. I can be one too from time to time, and it is fair when someone calls me on it.
> 
> So to sum up, sometimes there are very pleasant conversations on which we agree to disagree. This is not one of them. And also none of what I have said here has the slightest thing to do with Jian Ghomeshi.
> 
> ...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> I apologize if you think I used your profession against you. I did not mean it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> I simply pointed out that you are complaining about decorum while breaking it yourself. Think about that.



I appreciate that Don. I am not above admitting to breaking decorum and have apologized myself before too, and likely will continue to do so whenever I put my foot in my mouth. But when I respond here, I am not speaking on behalf of the teaching profession, nor should I, anymore than anyone else is speaking on behalf of their profession. I am me, speaking on my own recognizance. When you write something, I assume you are writing as SINC (or Don), not "that curmudgeonly old newspaper guy." We are all free agents ultimately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> I appreciate that Don. I am not above admitting to breaking decorum and have apologized myself before too, and likely will continue to do so whenever I put my foot in my mouth. But when I respond here, I am not speaking on behalf of the teaching profession, nor should I, anymore than anyone else is speaking on behalf of their profession. I am me, speaking on my own recognizance. When you write something, I assume you are writing as SINC (or Don), not "that curmudgeonly old newspaper guy." We are all free agents ultimately.


On that we can agree Frank, thanks.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

Macfury said:


> We haven't yet determined whether you or screature are the intended parasite...



The mental weakling screature was the intended target. 

fjnmusic seems like a cool cat.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

Fjnmusic,

Civility is not relevant. I don't mind angry words as long as truth shines through. I'm just gratified that in typical liberal fashion, his default response was to lower the bar and attempt ad-hominems. 

His pathetic swipes at you based on his erroneous vision of paragraph spacing really just indicate his total lack of any valid counterargument. His insistence in that particularly hamfisted attempt at misdirection is further proof of his intellectual bankruptcy. 

Not quite sure why you engaged him on that level, maybe some unrelated sensitivity to the topic, but pay him no further mind. He has revealed himself to be an intellectual weakling with the media-configured, morally ambiguous conscience that is standard issue with any liberal crybaby.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Exceptin' that FJN is the local liberal, and screature is a nominal conservative.



Macster Blaster said:


> Fjnmusic,
> 
> Civility is not relevant. I don't mind angry words as long as truth shines through. I'm just gratified that in typical liberal fandom, his default response was to lower the bar and attempt ad-hominems.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

Macfury said:


> Exceptin' that FJN is the local liberal, and screature is a nominal conservative.



Not likely. Maybe by the broad strokes mass market understanding of the political spectrum but screature's howling promotion of feminist tripe indicate that he is as red as they come.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Seriously, ...It's pretty good here now.


:lmao: Too funny for words. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Maybe a little tough for desexed progressives such as yourself, Big DL... but pretty good!




BigDL said:


> :lmao: Too funny for words. :lmao:


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> Seriously, go back through the logs of interactions here over the past 10 years. Civility is only what occurs between fights. It's pretty good here now.


Compared to how it was? Oh, yeah, things are exponentially better now.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I don't give a rat's ass what somebody's political colours are as long as they can be respectful and present a reasonable argument. Nothing wrong with a little conjecture here and there, but respect is the cornerstone, especially in the absence of effective mods. As far as political leanings, I hate gov't wastefulness, which should be a conservative value, yet I see it daily with the federal C's as well as the Alberta PC's. In Alberta it is blatant, while I settles for a four year wage freeze. F-ing wonderul. I also have many liberal democratic ideals, like state-subsidized Educatiin and Health Care, but I don't have a problem with higher premiums for extras like the ones I use. I just think that a basic level of health care for all citizens should be better than what the homeless in both the US and Canada are currently seeing. Was that too wordy? Oh well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The homeless--and all citizens--in both the US and Canada have standard health care available to them. 

Disliking wastefulness isn't of itself a conservative value.



fjnmusic said:


> I don't give a rat's ass what somebody's political colours are as long as they can be respectful and present a reasonable argument. Nothing wrong with a little conjecture here and there, but respect is the cornerstone, especially in the absence of effective mods. As far as political leanings, I hate gov't wastefulness, which should be a conservative value, yet I see it daily with the federal C's as well as the Alberta PC's. In Alberta it is blatant, while I settles for a four year wage freeze. F-ing wonderul. I also have many liberal democratic ideals, like state-subsidized Educatiin and Health Care, but I don't have a problem with higher premiums for extras like the ones I use. I just think that a basic level of health care for all citizens should be better than what the homeless in both the US and Canada are currently seeing. Was that too wordy? Oh well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> The homeless--and all citizens--in both the US and Canada have standard health care available to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Disliking wastefulness isn't of itself a conservative value.



Hmmm. I wonder if argumentativeness is then.... 😜


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Are you argumentative in addition to being a spendthrift?




fjnmusic said:


> Hmmm. I wonder if argumentativeness is then.... 😜


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> You really know how to alienate people, don't you? What an asshole.
> 
> For what it's worth, you seem to enter a return after every sentence, which would be a misuse of the format for paragraphing. It is not intuitive to have a line space after each sentence, even if it's what they seem to do in newspapers today; it is a sign of sloppy paragraphing. I don't know why I'm even responding to this. You've sort of missed the point big time, and you've made an arse of yourself by pointedly refusing to comment on the substance of my post, which had to do with our culture of violence and Jian Ghomeshi's role in it. And if this paragraph is too long for you, good.



Wow just wow!

I think your post has proven who is the one who is incapable of making commentary without resorting to such lows of insults and name calling. The funny thing if it wasn't just do sad is that somehow you think you own the high ground.

You seem to be incapable of accepting criticism without making it a personal attack.

What I posted was a critique of your post and its structure that made it very difficult to read. It was not an attack on you like your rant was on me.

You want a comment on your post:



fjnmusic said:


> Makes you wonder why more people in the..uh……BDSM community don't report the crime. According to a Canadian judge, any act that involves being physically abused cannot be legally consented to. If nothing else, this story has certainly shone a flashlight into some pretty dark corners that we don't like to think about. Perhaps going back for more really is a sign of masochistic tendencies. Providing the people are of age, it's hard to fathom why they would willingly do this. Plus, woman-on-woman violence and man-on-man violence is pretty culturally acceptable (think pretty much any non-Olympic hockey game). It's when males and females are violent to each other that some kind of line is crossed. I can't blame the CBC for firing the guy (his version of events really just reinforces that he is abusive),* but maybe it's our complacency toward physical violence that is the bigger problem here.*


It isn't is the least. Since when is our culture or jurisprudence complacent about physical violence?

It isn't at all.

If you had read my posts to Master Blaster you would know that I in no way condone JG's acts and the vast majority of people don't either. But apparent you didn't.

You just decided to get all up in my face about my criticism of the structure of your post. 

Look, you like to flaunt your position as being an educator here all the time and so when trying to read your post with a decided lack of proper structure, I did reference your profession because why would you not practice what you preach?

It irked me because it seemed flippant to the degree that it seemed "this is only an online forum after all and I don't need to take the time to insert paragraph breaks where they are required."

Kind of like the dismissive attitude that another educator (professor) took on here before even though he posted here almost every day.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Wow just wow!
> 
> I think your post has proven who is the one who is incapable of making commentary without resorting to such lows of insults and name calling. The funny thing if it wasn't just do sad is that somehow you think you own the high ground.
> 
> ...


And, as usual, off-topic. Re-read your criticism of my post that led to me characterizing you as an "asshole" and ask yourself how much of it had anything to do with Jian Ghomeshi, the CBC, rape culture in the workplace or anything else that this thread was designed for, and how much dealt with what your (mistaken) conception of what a paragraph should like (because my paragraph length was apparently too hard on your eyes). You start a new paragraph when you switch topics or when you start a sub-topic, not each time you begin a new sentence. Screature, you can do better and you could try a little harder to be agreeable.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

For example, this whole commentary could have easily been written as one paragraph instead of four. For example:

_ Wow just wow! I think your post has proven who is the one who is incapable of making commentary without resorting to such lows of insults and name calling. The funny thing if it wasn't just do sad is that somehow you think you own the high ground. You seem to be incapable of accepting criticism without making it a personal attack. What I posted was a critique of your post and its structure that made it very difficult to read. It was not an attack on you like like your rant was on me._

There. Much tidier.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> For example, this whole commentary could have easily been written as one paragraph instead of four. For example:
> 
> _ Wow just wow! I think your post has proven who is the one who is incapable of making commentary without resorting to such lows of insults and name calling. The funny thing if it wasn't just do sad is that somehow you think you own the high ground. You seem to be incapable of accepting criticism without making it a personal attack. What I posted was a critique of your post and its structure that made it very difficult to read. It was not an attack on you like like your rant was on me._
> 
> There. Much tidier.


Nope not at all four different distinct thoughts each worthy of emphasis. 

Just to add I was not finished, I hit submit reply prematurely... see I am capable of admitting when I can do better...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Wow just wow!
> 
> I think your post has proven who is the one who is incapable of making commentary without resorting to such lows of insults and name calling. The funny thing if it wasn't just do sad is that somehow you think you own the high ground.
> 
> ...





screature said:


> Nope not at all four different distinct thoughts each worthy of emphasis.
> 
> Just to add I was not finished, I hit submit reply prematurely... see I am capable of admitting when I can do better...





fjnmusic said:


> For example, this whole commentary could have easily been written as one paragraph instead of four. For example:
> 
> _ Wow just wow! I think your post has proven who is the one who is incapable of making commentary without resorting to such lows of insults and name calling. The funny thing if it wasn't just do sad is that somehow you think you own the high ground. You seem to be incapable of accepting criticism without making it a personal attack. What I posted was a critique of your post and its structure that made it very difficult to read. It was not an attack on you like like your rant was on me._
> 
> There. Much tidier.


Wholly whistling heysus fjnmusic, where do you find the patients? My brain hurts with the foolishness of it all! I gave up on him a long time ago, it's always the same circular conversation, how do you persist.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macster Blaster said:


> Impossible for a liberal parasite. Message content irrelevant. How the wording makes one feel is paramount.





Macster Blaster said:


> The mental weakling screature was the intended target.
> 
> fjnmusic seems like a cool cat.





Macster Blaster said:


> Not likely. Maybe by the broad strokes mass market understanding of the political spectrum but screature's howling promotion of feminist tripe indicate that he is as red as they come.


:lmao:

Coming from you being called a liberal parasite, mental weakling, and promoting feminist tripe is a badge of honor.

Better that than being a knuckle dragging, Neanderthal and misogynist. Which your posts clearly indicate that you are and maybe you should go back to the caveman era and mentality from which you came.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Wholly whistling heysus fjnmusic, where do you find the patients? My brain hurts with the foolishness of it all! I gave up on him a long time ago, it's always the same circular conversation, how do you persist.


:lmao:

It seems you are still reading my posts none-the-less and are willing to comment on them 2nd hand.

Post FAIL.

If you really:



> gave up on him a long time ago


Why would you even comment... It seems you aren't quite done with me yet.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> *Does it matter? *The observation is right on
> the money. *When the form becomes more important that the content, the message is the casualty.* When one's posts become the focus of the *paragraph nazi*, and indeed* when one's profession is maligned as a result*, I think it's safe to say one has crossed the line. *Yup, having no mods has certainly increased the civility around here. You can even say the word "asshole" with impunity.*
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Of course it matters who is speaking relative to what they have said previously.

Yes and no. If the manner in which one presents their argument is not well structured the content can be lost. That is what teachers of any language teach every day. 

Nice hyperbole.

I didn't malign your profession as a teacher, not in the least. I hold good teachers in the greatest regard. 

I was a teacher my self in the past, as a long term replacement teacher of physics, ecology and remedial mathematics (those 45 minutes were as difficult as the rest of the day combined). 

Also I have been a manager on a number of occasions (3 to be exact) where I had to teach on the job new hires how to do their job correctly, all the while still doing all my other duties/obligations which were many.

In this capacity I also had to do what new hires did on occasion. If I taught them what needs to be done and what shouldn't be done and then disregarded it in my own work... well that would not be a good thing.

I was *critical of your post* based on the fact that you are an educator and didn't seem to IMO hold up to the standards that you would/should be critical of in your students when it comes to the use of the English language.

The amount of "civility" is the same, it is just a matter of that we police ourselves now and don't have some overriding 3rd party thought police to tell us what we can or cannot say.

How about a truce...

I apologize for critiquing your post, if you apologize for calling me an asshole.

We will call it "even Steven" and move on and both try to do better going forward.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> :lmao:
> 
> Coming from you being called a liberal parasite, mental weakling, and promoting feminist tripe is a badge of honor.
> 
> Better that than being a knuckle dragging, Neanderthal and misogynist. Which your posts clearly indicate that you are and maybe you should go back to the caveman era and mentality from which you came.


Fair enough, Screature. I apologize for calling you an asshole, and I accept your apology. Plus, she IS kind of hot.

Also, I still believe you hit the "return" button far too often. Let your paragraphs breathe and grow instead of reducing them into little sound-bites. We get enough of that from TV and and newspapers as it stands.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Fair enough, Screature. I apologize for calling you an asshole, and I accept your apology. Plus, she IS kind of hot.
> 
> Also, I still believe you hit the "return" button far too often. Let your paragraphs breathe and grow instead of reducing them into little sound-bites. We get enough of that from TV and and newspapers as it stands.


Ok let us move on... 

I agree with your criticism of me, I do have a "twitchy trigger finger". But I still stand firm on the importance of structure, when posting online in particular, it makes for greater clarity in a medium that is rife with misunderstanding.

Peace Out.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Oops... that twitchy trigger finger again. 

Actually a double post.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

:lmao:

But sticking to the confines of the questionnaire my answer is:

I am me.


----------



## Macster Blaster (Oct 21, 2014)

Necromancing this thread since the new developments are rather interesting. As it turns out, Jian Ghomeshi is confirmed for violent-sex-having weirdo, and a creepy mother****er. However, that's legal since the supposed victims consented.

The defense pulled out a pile of emails and manuscripts making very clear the fact that the witnesses/accusers lied though their teeth during their testimony. 

After our _*vibrant cultural enrichment agent*_ Jian supposedly (well, probably) had rough-but-legal sex (which the accusers are calling rape) with them, all three of the "victims" contacted him repeatedly trying to obtain repeat performances and in some instances initiate a relationship.

A little odd, no?

This implies that the sexual activity was consensual, since they wanted more after the fact.

So basically, all three "victims" perjured themselves. This is against the law.



> Perjury
> 131. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.
> ...
> Punishment
> 132. Every one who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.



The trial is wrapped up and the judge will render a verdict my the end of March.

Possible outcomes:

1) Ghomeshi found guilty despite the prosecution building its entire case on confirmed false testimony. What could the sentence be in this case in light of false evidence used to prosecute?

2) Ghomeshi acquitted/case is thrown out.


If he's acquitted, what happens to the women who knowingly committed perjury to get revenge on Ghomeshi for (presumably) wanting nothing to do with them after managing to get them into bed?

What happens to the prosecution/crown given that they zealously proceeded to prosecute on false evidence/under false pretenses? (probably nothing, who are we kidding)

What happens to the CBC? Wrongful termination suite? Public apology but no re-hire?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macster Blaster said:


> Necromancing this thread since the new developments are rather interesting. As it turns out, Jian Ghomeshi is confirmed for violent-sex-having weirdo, and a creepy mother****er. However, that's legal since the supposed victims consented.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes Ghomeshi will likely get off. So to speak.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

On the evidence, he should not be convicted. Case was terribly handled by the prosecution.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Jian Ghomeshi acquitted on all charges of sexual assault and choking


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Macfury said:


> On the evidence, he should not be convicted. Case was terribly handled by the prosecution.


I'll add the unconvincing witnesses to this. Changing your mind is not a reason to prosecute.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> I'll add the unconvincing witnesses to this. Changing your mind is not a reason to prosecute.


Unfortunately, a lot of men's reputations are irreparably damaged due to next day regret. 

I firmly believe that if someone accuses you of rape and you prove they lied, they should be subject the same penalty that you were facing had their lie not been discovered.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

heavyall said:


> Unfortunately, a lot of men's reputations are irreparably damaged due to next day regret.
> 
> 
> 
> I firmly believe that if someone accuses you of rape and you prove they lied, they should be subject the same penalty that you were facing had their lie not been discovered.



Nobody proved they lied, though. They simply poked enough holes in the testimonies as to make the witnesses stories not credible beyond a reasonable doubt. He even admitted to enjoying "rough sex" on his Facebook page but disagreed about the details. I am certain the assaults still took place, but the witnesses sunk themselves by carrying on a relationship with the accused after the assaults took place, and then appearing to corroborate their stories as well in what appeared to be a conspiracy. It certainly does not mean Ghomeshi didn't do it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> On the evidence, he should not be convicted. Case was terribly handled by the prosecution.


Once again, we agree. The prosecution really did not deliver a consistent presentation in this case.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Nobody proved they lied, though. They simply poked enough holes in the testimonies as to make the witnesses stories not credible beyond a reasonable doubt. He even admitted to enjoying "rough sex" on his Facebook page but disagreed about the details. I am certain the assaults still took place, but the witnesses sunk themselves by carrying on a relationship with the accused after the assaults took place, and then appearing to corroborate their stories as well in what appeared to be a conspiracy. It certainly does not mean Ghomeshi didn't do it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Frank, we agree on these points, especially your concluding comment.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Even the judge said he didn't believe "nothing" happened - he was handcuffed by the way the "evidence" came out.

The complainants/witnesses engaged in poorly though out activities after the fact and were poorly counselled (if at all) on their manner of disclosure. Also the defence (too which he was entitled) was perhaps more brutal than necessary (or ethical).

I, for one, firmly believe he carried out the actions complained about. My own daughter had two (non sexual) encounters with Gomeshi and she believes also!! Make of that what you will.

This whole show makes clear the travesty of the way Canada treats sexual complainants. The Gomeshesi's of the world get away with it and their victims are not only sexually assaulted but when they stand up they are psychologically assaulted further by the so-called defence..... It is the Canadian way!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I feel badly for any woman who has been abused in such a manner by any man. Just knowing that coming forward is at best a 50-50 proposition for justice must be hard to live with.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

rgray said:


> Even the judge said he didn't believe "nothing" happened - he was handcuffed by the way the "evidence" came out.
> 
> The complainants/witnesses engaged in poorly though out activities after the fact and were poorly counselled (if at all) on their manner of disclosure. Also the defence (too which he was entitled) was perhaps more brutal than necessary (or ethical).
> 
> ...





SINC said:


> I feel badly for any woman who has been abused in such a manner by any man. Just knowing that coming forward is at best a 50-50 proposition for justice must be hard to live with.


Not sure if this is "the Canadian way", but it was a travesty. Sadly, it seems even less of a "50-50 proposition" when coming forth, but I strongly agree that this sort of "justice" would be very hard to live with.


----------



## 18m2 (Nov 24, 2013)

I question the actions of the prosecutor. Not that he/she should council the witnesses to lie but to prepare them for the strategy of the defence council to discredit them.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)




----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

fjnmusic said:


> Nobody proved they lied, though.


That's ridiculous, of course they did. That's the reason he got off -- they were caught in enough easily proven lies that the totality of their testimony was in question.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

In the end Ghomeshi's career is over and rightfully so. He was a creep with a nice voice, nothing more.

Maybe Fox will hire him but I can't think of anyone else who would...

Maybe he could write a tell all book about "rough sex" that some perverts might buy but I really can't think of anything else that would gainfully benefit him economically.

Acquitted or not he is done like diner.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






What a nice guy... tptptptp He is an asshole and always has been.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

... and thus the universe is, indeed, unfolding as it should....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Acquitted or not he is done like diner..


"Once he was the King of Spain.
Now he eats humble pie..."


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> "Once he was the King of Spain.
> Now he eats humble pie..."


Indeed. "You reap what you sow."

That is lost on some people... Some call it karma while others call it just deserts... in the end we all know what it means.

He knows and we all know what he did was wrong. He abused his position for his own personal gain. End of story.

Except for the fact that someone may benefit by selling the rights to his "story"... all we can hope is that it will not be Ghomeshi himself. That would be insult to injury.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> Indeed. "You reap what you sow."
> 
> That is lost on some people... Some call it karma while others call it just deserts... in the end we all know what it means.
> 
> ...


Agreed! Sadly I have no doubt, that being out of a job, he will be rushing to get it all into print.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Agreed! Sadly I have no doubt, that being out of a job, he will be rushing to get it all into print.


Wow, eMacMan sometimes we can actually agree. Miracles never cease. 

Have a nice week-end and if you are so inclined a Happy Easter.

(I still think it is time you changed your signature, those days have come and gone.)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> Wow, eMacMan sometimes we can actually agree. Miracles never cease.
> 
> *Have a nice week-end and if you are so inclined a Happy Easter.*
> 
> (I still think it is time you changed your signature, those days have come and gone.)


We agree perhaps more often than either of us realize.
And a happy Easter to you as well.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Paula Todd: A post-Ghomeshi guide for reporting your sexual assault


> Here then, The Post-Ghomeshi Guide to Reporting Sexual Assault:
> 
> If you are grabbed about the neck, yanked hard by the hair, smacked across the face or assaulted in any way, even in the midst of romance, detach immediately with the psychological cool of a trained therapist.
> Gather evidence like a CSI pro immediately — a saliva swab for DNA, a photo of slapped cheeks, and bag your panties. Leave immediately without explanation or inquiry.
> ...


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 4, 2005)

Kathryn Borel just destroyed Ghomeshi’s and the CBC's efforts to rescue their reputations


In my experience with the public service, this does not surprise me:



> CBC’s handling of this crisis was, in fact, appalling from the outset. But it succeeded in quickly pre-empting the necessary independent investigation. It retained a lawyer, with whom it had had a previous relationship, to conduct its “investigation.” And who ran that investigation? The CBC’s own legal and human resource departments — the very ones who should have been the subject of the investigation. The probe’s mandate was carefully limited to looking incidents at two shows involving Ghomeshi, rather than any broader sexual harassment issues at the CBC. And most egregiously, staff at the CBC were warned that anything they said in the investigation would be used against them and they themselves could be subject to discipline. Predictably (and responsibly), the CBC’s workers’ union instructed its members not to participate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> Paula Todd: A post-Ghomeshi guide for reporting your sexual assault


A better guide--don't perjure yourself on the stand and your testimony will be more solid, thus bringing the perp to justice.


----------

