Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 290

Thread: The Needle - Allegations and Closure

  1. #101
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    [The owners could have cut out the problem owner and remained open if they weren't completely inept at damage control. Instead they exacerbated the issue then shut the doors. In my eyes the blame lies squarely one them for those jobs being taken away, not on the women who have come forward. They did play a part, but they are hardly responsible for the outcome.
    Please substantiate how he owners "Exacerbated the issue"

    These are the owners actions:

    1) From the time an initial allegation was made the alleged owner was not on the premises/and or had no contact with the complainant until a recent meeting involving all owners to seek to further rectify the situation. So that 7mths went by in which the establishment in effect implemented its own restraining order of sorts. Without any police involvement or being told to do so. They volunteered this and put it into place on their own.

    2)The establishment also listened to the concerns, granted apologies for the same, and did this multiple times. The apologies were refuted by the complainant as insincere. Apparently actions were taken to seek to further remedy the situation and so that it would be an environment people can feel safe in. These efforts were apparently refuted.

    3)The establishment on its own, without any requirement to do so decided that they would involve SACE support allowing inservice, training, on site that would be mandatory. They agreed to all this. Again on their own recognizance.


    Now understand that the above 3 reflect the kinds of things that an establishment would do if the owners were charged and convicted of running an inappropriate establishment. So that reflects more that the ownership was responsive to remediation than opposed to it and that they were actually accommodating beneficial change.

    Now comprehend that the complainant had not gone to police, not filed a complained, not initiated charges, and has instead sought to essentially shut down the fuckers through such means as contacting lobbies and investing in social media in a fit of public shaming of the establishment going as far to air public allegations(that have not been substantiated through any due process) about the owner and complete with telling people to not patronize the establishment.
    Now we have the net result of the ownership feeling this is too much trouble and just closing the establishment, everybody, even the innocent are out of work. The complainants coworkers are out of work, and still no charges, no complaint filed with police, just an apparent intent of the complainant to do that when she finishes shaming on social media. Further the complained rebuked possible solutions, was apparently unwilling to hear any denoument and seemingly escalated through the process while feeling somehow threatened and "unsafe" even though the establishment had effectively stopped the contact between complainant and the alleged.

    So which party, of these, sought to remediate the situation.
    I'm glad that they made some effort to fix the situation (I.e cover their hides), but that meeting they held was about potentially hiring an individual who is known to have conducted himself in that same manner. So they went through the motions (granted, more than they maybe had to), then just continued along the same path with no meaningful change. They exacerbated the situation by appearing on TV and granting interviews which came off as insincere and self-serving. At that point the doors were still open. Only after they failed at damage control did they close the doors and publicly cut ties with the problem owner.

    If you think the establishment implemented their pseudo restraining order to rectify the situation and make it a safer environment for employees you are out to lunch. They did that to limit their liability and prevent their co-owner from costing them money.

    Everybody here agrees that ideally this should have gone through the proper channels. It all boils down to whether we want to know about it if that's not an option. You appear to be content to stick your head in the sand and ignore it unless there is a police report, while I'd rather know if there is impropriety (with multiple corroborating accounts). But maybe I just don't have a negative enough world view to read this story and automatically see it as someone seeking revenge or doing it as part of some nefarious agenda.

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    So that what people are concerned with is not just the specifics of this establishment and what occurred thee. Its that the further perpetration of tried, sentenced, convicted can so effectively operate on social media and without the benefit of restorative justice, or due process, or informed sentencing and restitution. No, current reality to any business and its operators is the very worst can occur without engaging any legal mechanism that exists for the purpose of due process and resolution in these matters.

    This was a complete subverting of due process and appropriate resolution by the complainant and the hypocrites that defend due process for Khadr (and rightly so) are cheering on this irresponsible action on the part of the complainant in this instance. Which further establishes a lack of due process and reinforces instead the public shaming mechanisms through social media which are apparently to be further used channel for anybody with allegation. At the peril of the untold damages that further ensues through reactionary responses by those that have no background in jurisprudence, have no conception of beyond a reasonable doubt but who will howl like banshees at any alleged accused just the same.
    Wait, Brittany locked up the owner in an offshore military prison without trial? Or did she literally just share her experience online for people to judge themselves. And people believe her, and therefore decided to, voluntarily, take their business elsewhere. You know, capitalism.
    You've proved yourself to be simply accusatory in these matters and have attacked myself and others on this board anytime you jump to your own conclusion on others and without even seeking to discuss, or have dialog. So given that this is a discussion board either discuss, without serial strawman attacks, or get lost.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  3. #103
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You've proved yourself to be simply accusatory in these matters and have attacked myself and others on this board anytime you jump to your own conclusion on others and without even seeking to discuss, or have dialog. So given that this is a discussion board either discuss, without serial strawman attacks, or get lost.
    You talk of me making strawman attacks, but you're the one equating this to the Khadr situation?

    Sure, let's have a discussion. What part of this situation is upsetting to you?

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    [The owners could have cut out the problem owner and remained open if they weren't completely inept at damage control. Instead they exacerbated the issue then shut the doors. In my eyes the blame lies squarely one them for those jobs being taken away, not on the women who have come forward. They did play a part, but they are hardly responsible for the outcome.
    Please substantiate how he owners "Exacerbated the issue"

    These are the owners actions:

    1) From the time an initial allegation was made the alleged owner was not on the premises/and or had no contact with the complainant until a recent meeting involving all owners to seek to further rectify the situation. So that 7mths went by in which the establishment in effect implemented its own restraining order of sorts. Without any police involvement or being told to do so. They volunteered this and put it into place on their own.

    2)The establishment also listened to the concerns, granted apologies for the same, and did this multiple times. The apologies were refuted by the complainant as insincere. Apparently actions were taken to seek to further remedy the situation and so that it would be an environment people can feel safe in. These efforts were apparently refuted.

    3)The establishment on its own, without any requirement to do so decided that they would involve SACE support allowing inservice, training, on site that would be mandatory. They agreed to all this. Again on their own recognizance.


    Now understand that the above 3 reflect the kinds of things that an establishment would do if the owners were charged and convicted of running an inappropriate establishment. So that reflects more that the ownership was responsive to remediation than opposed to it and that they were actually accommodating beneficial change.

    Now comprehend that the complainant had not gone to police, not filed a complained, not initiated charges, and has instead sought to essentially shut down the fuckers through such means as contacting lobbies and investing in social media in a fit of public shaming of the establishment going as far to air public allegations(that have not been substantiated through any due process) about the owner and complete with telling people to not patronize the establishment.
    Now we have the net result of the ownership feeling this is too much trouble and just closing the establishment, everybody, even the innocent are out of work. The complainants coworkers are out of work, and still no charges, no complaint filed with police, just an apparent intent of the complainant to do that when she finishes shaming on social media. Further the complained rebuked possible solutions, was apparently unwilling to hear any denoument and seemingly escalated through the process while feeling somehow threatened and "unsafe" even though the establishment had effectively stopped the contact between complainant and the alleged.

    So which party, of these, sought to remediate the situation.
    I'm glad that they made some effort to fix the situation (I.e cover their hides), but that meeting they held was about potentially hiring an individual who is known to have conducted himself in that same manner. So they went through the motions (granted, more than they maybe had to), then just continued along the same path with no meaningful change. They exacerbated the situation by appearing on TV and granting interviews which came off as insincere and self-serving. At that point the doors were still open. Only after they failed at damage control did they close the doors and publicly cut ties with the problem owner.

    If you think the establishment implemented their pseudo restraining order to rectify the situation and make it a safer environment for employees you are out to lunch. They did that to limit their liability and prevent their co-owner from costing them money.

    Everybody here agrees that ideally this should have gone through the proper channels. It all boils down to whether we want to know about it if that's not an option. You appear to be content to stick your head in the sand and ignore it unless there is a police report, while I'd rather know if there is impropriety (with multiple corroborating accounts). But maybe I just don't have a negative enough world view to read this story and automatically see it as someone seeking revenge or doing it as part of some nefarious agenda.
    Its really quite simple Alex. If the alleged concerns are serious enough, and with enough ramification that the complainant OUGHT to have taken her complaints to the police to effect the proper channels. Not to take it to the media for weeks, months giving updates, airing allegations not substantiated with due process etc.

    Interestingly Alex you apparently have enough of a "negative world view" to immediately try and convict the defendant in social media without knowing any of the details. Without realizing it you've just picked a side and assumed its on the right. There can be no doubt that this invocation of social media was extended and inappropriate use. These are legal issues. They should be discussed and contained in legal channels. It is a subverting of justice and remediation to opt instead for the unsafe medium of social media to obtain public shaming conviction.
    Last edited by Replacement; 24-11-2017 at 11:47 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  5. #105
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Wait, Brittany locked up the owner in an offshore military prison without trial? Or did she literally just share her experience online for people to judge themselves. And people believe her, and therefore decided to, voluntarily, take their business elsewhere. You know, capitalism.
    Well, by the sounds of it, some people took things a lot further than just taking their business elsewhere. If the Needle's management claims of death threats are true, anyway. That's the mob mentality or witch hunt aspect that some people are rightly bringing up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L
    Everybody here agrees that ideally this should have gone through the proper channels.


    Well, that's part of the problem with small businesses dealing with this kind of thing. There are no "proper channels". As I mentioned earlier, not every allegation of sexual harassment necessarily needs to go through the legal system. Unless the allegations are pretty severe or there is significant physical evidence (surveillance footage, for example), most times a court case will go nowhere. And with a small business like this, it's not like they have a large HR department or ombudsman to deal with it. The people dealing with it are the ones accused of the harassment.

    There seems to be this fixation on the part of some posters that everything in a situation like this must go through the legal system, when that's simply not the case. Harassment, whether sexual or otherwise, can be a serious concern, even if it doesn't necessarily rise to a criminal level.

  6. #106

    Default

    So, anyone changed their mind yet? Any Trump-lovin' knuckle-draggers see the error of their ways? How about the virtuous #Ibelieveyou types - feeling persuaded by evaneo's cave dweller wall etchings on the subject of sexual violence? And who among you is actually reading all of a Replacement raga style posts?

    All of you have fuqed up a good thread. You remind of my dog's favourite outdoor situation - taking a dump with a pizz pile sniffing distance of her snout.

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You've proved yourself to be simply accusatory in these matters and have attacked myself and others on this board anytime you jump to your own conclusion on others and without even seeking to discuss, or have dialog. So given that this is a discussion board either discuss, without serial strawman attacks, or get lost.
    You talk of me making strawman attacks, but you're the one equating this to the Khadr situation?

    Sure, let's have a discussion. What part of this situation is upsetting to you?
    In fairness to me I've taken the time to very clearly state the concerns. Try reading them without cursory and immediate reaction. I only brought up Khadr because either people believe in due process or they do not. Its all or nothing. Its not lets have due process in this instance for this individual and lets just forget about all that and have social media process and reactive public shaming and death threats in others..

    My point is very clear. I have no idea how it would be confusing to you.
    Last edited by Replacement; 24-11-2017 at 11:45 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  8. #108
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Wait, Brittany locked up the owner in an offshore military prison without trial? Or did she literally just share her experience online for people to judge themselves. And people believe her, and therefore decided to, voluntarily, take their business elsewhere. You know, capitalism.
    Well, by the sounds of it, some people took things a lot further than just taking their business elsewhere. If the Needle's management claims of death threats are true, anyway. That's the mob mentality or witch hunt aspect that some people are rightly bringing up.
    Agreed that death threats are not a solution to this, and that no one should be going there.

  9. #109
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You've proved yourself to be simply accusatory in these matters and have attacked myself and others on this board anytime you jump to your own conclusion on others and without even seeking to discuss, or have dialog. So given that this is a discussion board either discuss, without serial strawman attacks, or get lost.
    You talk of me making strawman attacks, but you're the one equating this to the Khadr situation?

    Sure, let's have a discussion. What part of this situation is upsetting to you?
    In fairness to me I've taken the time to very clearly state the concerns. Try reading them without cursory and immediate reaction. I only brought up Khadr because either people believe in due process or they do not. Its all or nothing. Its not lets have due process in this instance for this individual and lets just forget about all that and have beheading depiction in others..

    My point is very clear. I have no idea how it would be confusing to you.
    What due process are you expecting here? She didn't go to the police and file a complaint. That is her choice. She shared her details.

    The only due process I could see happening is that the Owner and/or Venue take her to court for Libel? Have they done so? If they're not doing so, again, what due process?

  10. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You've proved yourself to be simply accusatory in these matters and have attacked myself and others on this board anytime you jump to your own conclusion on others and without even seeking to discuss, or have dialog. So given that this is a discussion board either discuss, without serial strawman attacks, or get lost.
    You talk of me making strawman attacks, but you're the one equating this to the Khadr situation?

    Sure, let's have a discussion. What part of this situation is upsetting to you?
    In fairness to me I've taken the time to very clearly state the concerns. Try reading them without cursory and immediate reaction. I only brought up Khadr because either people believe in due process or they do not. Its all or nothing. Its not lets have due process in this instance for this individual and lets just forget about all that and have beheading depiction in others..

    My point is very clear. I have no idea how it would be confusing to you.
    What due process are you expecting here? She didn't go to the police and file a complaint. That is her choice. She shared her details.

    The only due process I could see happening is that the Owner and/or Venue take her to court for Libel? Have they done so? If they're not doing so, again, what due process?
    My issue, clearly, is that harmful allegations have been publicly aired and which are potentially libelous and potentially very harmful for the alleged (that can't even properly be termed defendants at this point). For this reason alone (and several others have been alluded to) it is not a proper course of action to bring this to social media. By all means if one does not want to take an assault to police (although she indicates she will, she hasn't got around to it) then go to SACE, seek therapy, seek support from others (that is discrete). Engaging the public realm, and particularly social media in these instances is DANGEROUS. Often times its dangerous to women and others. In this instance there has reportedly already been a backlash of social media derived threats to the owners. With this again not being any novel reaction. We've seen such actions countless times through social media shaming.

    So when are we going to learn to stop social media shaming, which is only harmful, dangerous, and has cost countless lives? We have an evolving world with new mediums that we need to learn how to use effectively, how to use them, how not to use them, ramifications etc. This is an irresponsible medium in which to air this. Because it will get inflamed and to dangerous levels. In essence its invoking irresponsible action. Its even invoking abuse and harm. Perhaps ironic.
    Last edited by Replacement; 24-11-2017 at 12:00 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    So, anyone changed their mind yet? Any Trump-lovin' knuckle-draggers see the error of their ways? How about the virtuous #Ibelieveyou types - feeling persuaded by evaneo's cave dweller wall etchings on the subject of sexual violence? And who among you is actually reading all of a Replacement raga style posts?

    All of you have fuqed up a good thread. You remind of my dog's favourite outdoor situation - taking a dump with a pizz pile sniffing distance of her snout.
    I sit here wondering what is "raga style" writing? I comprehend the musical term but...

    Hey, I would have posted in another thread. There have been several requests to make this a different thread. But it hasn't occurred. I will stop my part in it except that others will no doubt continue to respond and in which case I'm not making any promises..
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  12. #112
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    My issue, clearly, is that harmful allegations have been publicly aired and which are potentially libelous. For this reason alone (and several others have been alluded to) it is not a proper course of action to bring this to social media. By all means if one does not want to take an assault to police (although she indicates she will, she hasn't got around to it) then go to SACE, seek therapy, seek support from others (that is discrete). Engaging the public realm, and particularly social media in these instances is DANGEROUS. Often times its dangerous to women and others. In this instance there has reportedly already been a backlash of social media derived threats to the owners. With this again being any novel reaction. We've seen such actions countless times through social media shaming.

    So when are we going to learn to stop social media shaming, which is only harmful, dangerous, and has cost countless lives? We have an evolving world with new mediums that we need to learn how to use effectively, how to use them, how not to use them, ramifications etc. This is an irresponsible medium in which to air this. Because it will get inflamed and to dangerous levels. In essence its invoking irresponsible action. Its even invoking abuse and harm. Perhaps ironic.
    If they are libelous, your 'due process' might bring that to light. I think the actions of the owners and the reported public apology say otherwise.

    Her staying silent on this means that she would just be a single victim in a string of other victims if it's not out in the open. Her staying silent is far more dangerous to women than her speaking up and warning others.

    Her speaking up on social media is her right.

    People threatening the owners with injury and death threat are not appropriate either. But I don't see Brittany suggesting that that happen. There are similar threats likely being leveled against Brittany, which are also inappropriate.

  13. #113

    Default

    "Why can't these women either suffer in silence or go through the ineffectual system rife with institutionalized misogyny?"

    Y'all are a piece of work.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  14. #114
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    [The owners could have cut out the problem owner and remained open if they weren't completely inept at damage control. Instead they exacerbated the issue then shut the doors. In my eyes the blame lies squarely one them for those jobs being taken away, not on the women who have come forward. They did play a part, but they are hardly responsible for the outcome.
    Please substantiate how he owners "Exacerbated the issue"

    These are the owners actions:

    1) From the time an initial allegation was made the alleged owner was not on the premises/and or had no contact with the complainant until a recent meeting involving all owners to seek to further rectify the situation. So that 7mths went by in which the establishment in effect implemented its own restraining order of sorts. Without any police involvement or being told to do so. They volunteered this and put it into place on their own.

    2)The establishment also listened to the concerns, granted apologies for the same, and did this multiple times. The apologies were refuted by the complainant as insincere. Apparently actions were taken to seek to further remedy the situation and so that it would be an environment people can feel safe in. These efforts were apparently refuted.

    3)The establishment on its own, without any requirement to do so decided that they would involve SACE support allowing inservice, training, on site that would be mandatory. They agreed to all this. Again on their own recognizance.


    Now understand that the above 3 reflect the kinds of things that an establishment would do if the owners were charged and convicted of running an inappropriate establishment. So that reflects more that the ownership was responsive to remediation than opposed to it and that they were actually accommodating beneficial change.

    Now comprehend that the complainant had not gone to police, not filed a complained, not initiated charges, and has instead sought to essentially shut down the fuckers through such means as contacting lobbies and investing in social media in a fit of public shaming of the establishment going as far to air public allegations(that have not been substantiated through any due process) about the owner and complete with telling people to not patronize the establishment.
    Now we have the net result of the ownership feeling this is too much trouble and just closing the establishment, everybody, even the innocent are out of work. The complainants coworkers are out of work, and still no charges, no complaint filed with police, just an apparent intent of the complainant to do that when she finishes shaming on social media. Further the complained rebuked possible solutions, was apparently unwilling to hear any denoument and seemingly escalated through the process while feeling somehow threatened and "unsafe" even though the establishment had effectively stopped the contact between complainant and the alleged.

    So which party, of these, sought to remediate the situation.
    I'm glad that they made some effort to fix the situation (I.e cover their hides), but that meeting they held was about potentially hiring an individual who is known to have conducted himself in that same manner. So they went through the motions (granted, more than they maybe had to), then just continued along the same path with no meaningful change. They exacerbated the situation by appearing on TV and granting interviews which came off as insincere and self-serving. At that point the doors were still open. Only after they failed at damage control did they close the doors and publicly cut ties with the problem owner.

    If you think the establishment implemented their pseudo restraining order to rectify the situation and make it a safer environment for employees you are out to lunch. They did that to limit their liability and prevent their co-owner from costing them money.

    Everybody here agrees that ideally this should have gone through the proper channels. It all boils down to whether we want to know about it if that's not an option. You appear to be content to stick your head in the sand and ignore it unless there is a police report, while I'd rather know if there is impropriety (with multiple corroborating accounts). But maybe I just don't have a negative enough world view to read this story and automatically see it as someone seeking revenge or doing it as part of some nefarious agenda.
    Its really quite simple Alex. If the alleged concerns are serious enough, and with enough ramification that the complainant OUGHT to have taken her complaints to the police to effect the proper channels. Not to take it to the media for weeks, months giving updates, airing allegations not substantiated with due process etc.

    Interestingly Alex you apparently have enough of a "negative world view" to immediately try and convict the defendant in social media without knowing any of the details. Without realizing it you've just picked a side and assumed its on the right. There can be no doubt that this invocation of social media was extended and inappropriate use. These are legal issues. They should be discussed and contained in legal channels. It is a subverting of justice and remediation to opt instead for the unsafe medium of social media to obtain public shaming conviction.
    I simply believe the multiple people who have come forward with allegations. You are baselessly accusing one of those accusers of lying, or having some shady agenda as a reason for her methods or motivations.

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    My issue, clearly, is that harmful allegations have been publicly aired and which are potentially libelous. For this reason alone (and several others have been alluded to) it is not a proper course of action to bring this to social media. By all means if one does not want to take an assault to police (although she indicates she will, she hasn't got around to it) then go to SACE, seek therapy, seek support from others (that is discrete). Engaging the public realm, and particularly social media in these instances is DANGEROUS. Often times its dangerous to women and others. In this instance there has reportedly already been a backlash of social media derived threats to the owners. With this again being any novel reaction. We've seen such actions countless times through social media shaming.

    So when are we going to learn to stop social media shaming, which is only harmful, dangerous, and has cost countless lives? We have an evolving world with new mediums that we need to learn how to use effectively, how to use them, how not to use them, ramifications etc. This is an irresponsible medium in which to air this. Because it will get inflamed and to dangerous levels. In essence its invoking irresponsible action. Its even invoking abuse and harm. Perhaps ironic.
    If they are libelous, your 'due process' might bring that to light. I think the actions of the owners and the reported public apology say otherwise.

    Her staying silent on this means that she would just be a single victim in a string of other victims if it's not out in the open. Her staying silent is far more dangerous to women than her speaking up and warning others.

    Her speaking up on social media is her right.

    People threatening the owners with injury and death threat are not appropriate either. But I don't see Brittany suggesting that that happen. There are similar threats likely being leveled against Brittany, which are also inappropriate.
    Thank you for a well thought out response. That is appreciated.

    My read is that the individual didn't stay quiet with or without social media. Its pretty clear she is a strong confident person. I'm sure she has obtained support and/or others have helped with this. I do agree that staying quiet can potentially further victimhood. The only thing I object to is the airing on social media, which once done potentially enacts any nature of unanticipated response. Look, police departments everywhere, and legal channels have stated how dangerous social media shaming is to individuals. These cautions have existed for a longtime. I don't think facebook, or social media is an advisable answer.

    Additionally Victimization has been established and perpetrated through social media and facebook and with instances in which luring, grooming, seducing, or detecting vulnerable individuals has been perpetrated on social media through perpetrators that detect susceptible individuals. I mentioned that social media airing of very personal circumstance like this can be dangerous to all. People really tend to overshare on social media and including details that are inadvisable.

    Now this part would seem out there but I assure you that its commonplace. Perpetrators have often continued to stalk their alleged prey online. So that individuals that have been abused/attacked are certainly cautioned on uses of Facebook and other social media. An alleged perpetrator might actually be creeping pages regularly.

    Victims of violence, assault, crime used to routinely be advised to limit any display in public realm of information that can disclose their whereabouts, activities, etc. This indeed even being part of information packages included with filing restraining orders.
    Last edited by Replacement; 24-11-2017 at 12:25 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  16. #116

    Default

    Alex, I'm reasonably certain you believed allegations that were made against Khomeshi, as most people did. I only cite that case because multiple accusers came forward and made police reports and allegations.

    Now in that event collusion of the witnesses had occurred. In essence they plotted the accusation and stories. Its a cautionary tale.

    I haven't once stated that I do not believe the complainant in this instance. Inarguably something occurred which she felt strongly enough about to take the actions she did. Please cite where I stated any complainants were lying. This is why its so hard to have a discussion on these matters. People assume others have stated things they have not. In other words more strawman arguments.

    Do you think that is reasonable discourse?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  17. #117
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Thank you for a well thought out response. That is appreciated.

    My read is that the individual didn't stay quiet with or without social media. Its pretty clear she is a strong confident person. I'm sure she has obtained support and/or others have helped with this. I do agree that staying quiet can potentially further victimhood. The only thing I object to is the airing on social media, which once done potentially enacts any nature of unanticipated response. Look, police departments everywhere, and legal channels have stated how dangerous social media shaming is to individuals. These cautions have existed for a longtime. I don't think facebook, or social media is an advisable answer.

    Additionally Victimization has been established and perpetrated through social media and facebook and with instances in which luring, grooming, seducing, or detecting vulnerable individuals has been perpetrated on social media through perpetrators that detect susceptible individuals. I mentioned that social media airing of very personal circumstance like this can be dangerous to all. People really tend to overshare on social media and including details that are inadvisable.

    Now this part would seem out there but I assure you that its commonplace. Perpetrators have often continued to stalk their alleged prey online. So that individuals that have been abused/attacked are certainly cautioned on uses of Facebook and other social media. An alleged perpetrator might actually be creeping pages regularly.

    Victims of violence, assault, crime used to routinely be advised to limit any display in public realm of information that can disclose their whereabouts, activities, etc. This indeed even being part of information packages included with filing restraining orders.
    If she doesn't air this on social media, how does she prevent the further victims? Her attempts to deal with it internally were rebuffed. They were about to hire another person who's been accused of the same conduct, despite her and other employees concerns.

    You state that she now may become the victim of stalking and people preying on her online. The solution to that isn't for her to hide, it's for those people to not stalk her and prey on her online.

    She's become part of the ongoing and increasing amount of publicly airing of sexual abuse. This can be empowering for people (both genders) to realize they don't have to be silent about the sexual abuse and assault this is ongoing and a real problem.

    Silence only helps the perpetrators.

  18. #118
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Things are getting real - Councillor Scott Mckeen is on CBC right now talking about how no more business licenses will be issued to MEN who want to open music venues in Edmonton. Women only from now on. He's upset they can't do anything about existing clubs. The Slits, Pussy Riot and Sleater Kinney are booked to play a free show at City Hall in support of the move.

    I know I've made fun of Kitlope in the past but you've got to admit he saw this one coming.
    I'm still waiting any word about no more business licences for men to open music venues or on this supposed concert.

    Or were you being sarcastic and I misunderstood?

  19. #119

    Default

    Just makin' stuff up like everyone else.

  20. #120
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ Sorry my posts upset you. I don't believe in allegations. Let it come out in a court of Law not public opinion. He said she said is so high school.

    Yeesh now I'm being vilified by Admin because I'm not on the bandwagon.
    You're vilified because you're spewing hateful sexist rhetoric & are completely oblivious to it. You're like a leaky oil tanker of ignorance, blissfully unaware of the toxic slick you're leaving in your wake.
    This thread sounds like the Salem witch trials...

    #Reasonable doubt
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  21. #121
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Alex, I'm reasonably certain you believed allegations that were made against Khomeshi, as most people did. I only cite that case because multiple accusers came forward and made police reports and allegations.

    Now in that event collusion of the witnesses had occurred. In essence they plotted the accusation and stories. Its a cautionary tale.

    I haven't once stated that I do not believe the complainant in this instance. Inarguably something occurred which she felt strongly enough about to take the actions she did. Please cite where I stated any complainants were lying. This is why its so hard to have a discussion on these matters. People assume others have stated things they have not. In other words more strawman arguments.

    Do you think that is reasonable discourse?
    If it comes out that there was some sort of collusion in order to defame this owner I'll thoroughly apologize. Until then, you are using an unrelated prior case to paint your opinion of this one. In doing so you are drawing comparisons between those victims, thus calling these accusers liars in the process.

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Alex, I'm reasonably certain you believed allegations that were made against Khomeshi, as most people did. I only cite that case because multiple accusers came forward and made police reports and allegations.

    Now in that event collusion of the witnesses had occurred. In essence they plotted the accusation and stories. Its a cautionary tale.

    I haven't once stated that I do not believe the complainant in this instance. Inarguably something occurred which she felt strongly enough about to take the actions she did. Please cite where I stated any complainants were lying. This is why its so hard to have a discussion on these matters. People assume others have stated things they have not. In other words more strawman arguments.

    Do you think that is reasonable discourse?
    If it comes out that there was some sort of collusion in order to defame this owner I'll thoroughly apologize. Until then, you are using an unrelated prior case to paint your opinion of this one. In doing so you are drawing comparisons between those victims, thus calling these accusers liars in the process.
    Do you have trouble with reading comprehension or reading period? I have not once mentioned that there is collusion in this case or that anybody is lying. You read all of that into it. Plus do people really have this much difficulty discerning a citation as an example vs it being a direct comparison? I was even careful to describe in that post how it was merely a cautionary tale and that I wasn't making it as a comparison.

    Your inference is ridiculous. If you read that dishonestly into what other people are stating (and you do this consistently) then that's on you. Again it isn't reasonable discourse or response. I'm not even responding to what I wrote or defending it as much as responding to your chronic assumption of what I wrote.

    To wit, you stating lies, lies, lies.

    Its generally aggravating when you post with clarity and people purposely get what you are stating wrong. Done with this.
    Last edited by Replacement; 24-11-2017 at 01:45 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  23. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    This thread sounds like the Salem witch trials...

    #Reasonable doubt
    Your "reasonable doubt" is based upon thinking that women are gold-diggers out to scam their way through life.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  24. #124
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,690

    Default

    Not all women are "gold diggers" noodle in this male hate filled society we live in. I don't take anyone's word for anything, unless there is proof. That's for a court of Law to decide. It has nothing to do with hateful misogynistic attitudes.

    Until you can provide proof then its just like in this case "HE SAID SHE SAID." This isn't Nazi Germany noodle. I know your so full of hate towards me and maybe to others that don't think like you in this issue. That's ok. Not everyone has to like me.

    Some people need to grow up.

    And I'll leave it there.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Not all women are "gold diggers" noodle in this male hate filled society we live in.
    It's not "male hate", it's "bigoted, sexist male hate" & the fact you're completely incapable of discerning this is likely due to the fact you assume the rest of us males are as regressive, sexist & bigoted towards women as you have indicated you vociferously are.

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    I don't take anyone's word for anything, unless there is proof. That's for a court of Law to decide. It has nothing to do with hateful misogynistic attitudes.

    Until you can provide proof then its just like in this case "HE SAID SHE SAID." This isn't Nazi Germany noodle.
    Hahaha. Here you're all about due process, whereas when talking about immigrants you want them deported based on suspicion alone. Try to at least be a little consistent with your regressive, bigoted prattle.


    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    I know your so full of hate towards me and maybe to others that don't think like you in this issue. That's ok. Not everyone has to like me.
    I don't hate you. In fact, I don't really care about you whatsoever, beyond curtailing your spreading of ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Some people need to grow up.

    And I'll leave it there.
    And conversely, the world will be a lot better off when the bigoted boomers like yourself are fertilizer & no longer able to hold the rest of society back.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  26. #126
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Not all women are "gold diggers" noodle in this male hate filled society we live in. I don't take anyone's word for anything, unless there is proof. That's for a court of Law to decide. It has nothing to do with hateful misogynistic attitudes.

    Until you can provide proof then its just like in this case "HE SAID SHE SAID." This isn't Nazi Germany noodle. I know your so full of hate towards me and maybe to others that don't think like you in this issue. That's ok. Not everyone has to like me.

    Some people need to grow up.

    And I'll leave it there.
    in a perfect world you could probably successfully leave it there but this isn't a perfect world.

    just as it isn't nazi germany, it isn't "he said she said" either.

    anyone who is not deaf, blind and dumb and been sequestered since they were born probably knows the likelihood is that "where there's smoke there's fire". given what has been made public in conjunction with the particular industry involved, there's a pretty strong probability that "she" is closer to the truth than "he" regarding what may or may not have taken place.

    the issue isn't whether something needs to change here, in the industry and in society, the issue is what the appropriate response by the individuals, the business, the industry and society should be in this particular case and others.

    i'm not sure whether what we're seeing so far are the most appropriate responses or not but i am pretty sure that leaving these things until there is indisputable proof that would stand up a in court of law isn't the most appropriate response. that's the very requirement that has allowed this type of behavior to fester throughout our society, not just at the needle.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  27. #127
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,423

    Default

    Well, the other two owners believed her, which tells me something.

    Thing is, I'm betting sexual innuendo and harrasment are pretty wide-spread in the hospitality industry and especially so in the nightclub biz and there hasn't seemed to be much effort put in to stop it.

    Ergo - she gives up, goes public and having done so, encourages others to come forward.

    Beyond that, hoping someone or some group with a higher ethos comes forward to buy the Needle and get it back on its feet.

    Like it or lump it, the old boys club is in a death spiral.
    ... gobsmacked

  28. #128
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    What due process are you expecting here? She didn't go to the police and file a complaint. That is her choice. She shared her details.
    Just so we are all working from the same information, this CBC story from earlier in the week says she has filed a police report and that the police confirmed they are investigating.

    Rudyck filed a police report on Tuesday, and is encouraging other victims to follow suit. Edmonton police confirmed Wednesday they are investigating a report of sexual harassment at the tavern.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...erta-1.4414631
    Last edited by East McCauley; 24-11-2017 at 05:14 PM.

  29. #129
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In fairness to me I've taken the time to very clearly state the concerns. Try reading them without cursory and immediate reaction. I only brought up Khadr because either people believe in due process or they do not. Its all or nothing. Its not lets have due process in this instance for this individual and lets just forget about all that and have beheading depiction in others..
    What I found most objectionable about Ms. Rudyck's choice of Facebook cover photo is not the beheading depiction per se. It's the implication that this latest vanquished male would soon be joining the numerous other previously dispatched males on the necklace of the female conqueror. That's quite the calling card.

  30. #130
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Alex, I'm reasonably certain you believed allegations that were made against Khomeshi, as most people did. I only cite that case because multiple accusers came forward and made police reports and allegations.

    Now in that event collusion of the witnesses had occurred. In essence they plotted the accusation and stories. Its a cautionary tale.

    I haven't once stated that I do not believe the complainant in this instance. Inarguably something occurred which she felt strongly enough about to take the actions she did. Please cite where I stated any complainants were lying. This is why its so hard to have a discussion on these matters. People assume others have stated things they have not. In other words more strawman arguments.

    Do you think that is reasonable discourse?
    If it comes out that there was some sort of collusion in order to defame this owner I'll thoroughly apologize. Until then, you are using an unrelated prior case to paint your opinion of this one. In doing so you are drawing comparisons between those victims, thus calling these accusers liars in the process.
    Do you have trouble with reading comprehension or reading period? I have not once mentioned that there is collusion in this case or that anybody is lying. You read all of that into it. Plus do people really have this much difficulty discerning a citation as an example vs it being a direct comparison? I was even careful to describe in that post how it was merely a cautionary tale and that I wasn't making it as a comparison.

    Your inference is ridiculous. If you read that dishonestly into what other people are stating (and you do this consistently) then that's on you. Again it isn't reasonable discourse or response. I'm not even responding to what I wrote or defending it as much as responding to your chronic assumption of what I wrote.

    To wit, you stating lies, lies, lies.

    Its generally aggravating when you post with clarity and people purposely get what you are stating wrong. Done with this.
    The thing is, if you continually bring up another specific case in which the victim acted in a way that backs up your assumptions, it's pretty clear that whether you mean to draw that comparison or simply mean to bring it up as reference, you're fostering a discussion based on speculation. It's essentially a strawman argument, but with a reference.

    You brought Khadr into this (for some reason), and Ghomeshi numerous times. We understand your position. We simply disagree. I went back, and you're right, you didn't call anybody a liar specifically. You just brought up another case where the accusers lied, then tied it to this case because that's quite clearly what you think is happening here whether you actually say it or not. I could bring up a case where accusers didn't lie. Would that change your opinion?

    It's easy to act as if you're not being understood when you're grasping at straws while sitting on the fence and not really saying anything without paragraphs of non-committal statements.

  31. #131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Alex, I'm reasonably certain you believed allegations that were made against Khomeshi, as most people did. I only cite that case because multiple accusers came forward and made police reports and allegations.

    Now in that event collusion of the witnesses had occurred. In essence they plotted the accusation and stories. Its a cautionary tale.

    I haven't once stated that I do not believe the complainant in this instance. Inarguably something occurred which she felt strongly enough about to take the actions she did. Please cite where I stated any complainants were lying. This is why its so hard to have a discussion on these matters. People assume others have stated things they have not. In other words more strawman arguments.

    Do you think that is reasonable discourse?
    If it comes out that there was some sort of collusion in order to defame this owner I'll thoroughly apologize. Until then, you are using an unrelated prior case to paint your opinion of this one. In doing so you are drawing comparisons between those victims, thus calling these accusers liars in the process.
    Do you have trouble with reading comprehension or reading period? I have not once mentioned that there is collusion in this case or that anybody is lying. You read all of that into it. Plus do people really have this much difficulty discerning a citation as an example vs it being a direct comparison? I was even careful to describe in that post how it was merely a cautionary tale and that I wasn't making it as a comparison.

    Your inference is ridiculous. If you read that dishonestly into what other people are stating (and you do this consistently) then that's on you. Again it isn't reasonable discourse or response. I'm not even responding to what I wrote or defending it as much as responding to your chronic assumption of what I wrote.

    To wit, you stating lies, lies, lies.

    Its generally aggravating when you post with clarity and people purposely get what you are stating wrong. Done with this.
    The thing is, if you continually bring up another specific case in which the victim acted in a way that backs up your assumptions, it's pretty clear that whether you mean to draw that comparison or simply mean to bring it up as reference, you're fostering a discussion based on speculation. It's essentially a strawman argument, but with a reference.

    You brought Khadr into this (for some reason), and Ghomeshi numerous times. We understand your position. We simply disagree. I went back, and you're right, you didn't call anybody a liar specifically. You just brought up another case where the accusers lied, then tied it to this case because that's quite clearly what you think is happening here whether you actually say it or not. I could bring up a case where accusers didn't lie. Would that change your opinion?

    It's easy to act as if you're not being understood when you're grasping at straws while sitting on the fence and not really saying anything without paragraphs of non-committal statements.
    Actually you misunderstand basic logic. Khadr and Ghomeshi were not cited by me as comparisons, your own comprehension difficulty notwithstanding.

    Khadr was introduced to hilte that one either believes in due process or doesn't. PERIOD. I happen to believe in due process in either and all instance. Making me more consistent than people taking alternating positions on due process.

    Ghomeshi was introduced only to hilite that multiple accusers does not equal beyond a doubt 100% proof. That's it. Ghomeshi case was specifically interesting due to how much public opinion was literally hanging him from the gallows. Again a cautionary tale.

    Now do I think some sort of assault occurred at Vinyl? Sure I do. Again I never even remotely suggested anybody was lying or that it hadn't occurred.

    Your lies about what I stated notwithstanding.
    Last edited by Replacement; 24-11-2017 at 11:55 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  32. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In fairness to me I've taken the time to very clearly state the concerns. Try reading them without cursory and immediate reaction. I only brought up Khadr because either people believe in due process or they do not. Its all or nothing. Its not lets have due process in this instance for this individual and lets just forget about all that and have beheading depiction in others..
    What I found most objectionable about Ms. Rudyck's choice of Facebook cover photo is not the beheading depiction per se. It's the implication that this latest vanquished male would soon be joining the numerous other previously dispatched males on the necklace of the female conqueror. That's quite the calling card.
    Not sure if you caught the Mike Ross article I linked earlier. Ross was meaning to be helpful to her cause but in quoting her at length so captured the degree of narrative invective she used to describe her reactions for instance "I'm so ******* sick of this" and with her swearing at least half a dozen times within the short quoted statements. I mean almost every sentence. Thing is, the first thing Police will do when taking her testimony is ask her to calm down. Nobody I know in this employ will take a statement while the individual is quite clearly still harboring reactive anger in the moment. Clarity requires giving in control statements and its well known that anger infused statements can be more reactive, and not entirely helpful to the investigation. I mean this is 7mths after the initial incident. I've worked with populations of women who were very severely abused and the path of recovery is to get over the anger component, which only inures pain and continuing agony. These women would often have suffered decades of extreme physical abuse, sometimes on a daily basis, and their recovery from that is by an large on a faster rate than someone who maybe chose to harbor and retain some of the pain.

    All I wish for any women that has suffered physical, sexual, abuse is freedom from pain, freedom from it impacting, controlling their lives. Ideally we all wish for a world where such things don't exist but they do, and reaction, and reactive activation can often sustain the effects of the abuse. It can interfere with recovery. At some point in stages of grieving its imperative to get over the anger and reaction stages.

    Peace be with all.
    Last edited by Replacement; 25-11-2017 at 11:58 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  33. #133
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Alex, I'm reasonably certain you believed allegations that were made against Khomeshi, as most people did. I only cite that case because multiple accusers came forward and made police reports and allegations.

    Now in that event collusion of the witnesses had occurred. In essence they plotted the accusation and stories. Its a cautionary tale.

    I haven't once stated that I do not believe the complainant in this instance. Inarguably something occurred which she felt strongly enough about to take the actions she did. Please cite where I stated any complainants were lying. This is why its so hard to have a discussion on these matters. People assume others have stated things they have not. In other words more strawman arguments.

    Do you think that is reasonable discourse?
    If it comes out that there was some sort of collusion in order to defame this owner I'll thoroughly apologize. Until then, you are using an unrelated prior case to paint your opinion of this one. In doing so you are drawing comparisons between those victims, thus calling these accusers liars in the process.
    Do you have trouble with reading comprehension or reading period? I have not once mentioned that there is collusion in this case or that anybody is lying. You read all of that into it. Plus do people really have this much difficulty discerning a citation as an example vs it being a direct comparison? I was even careful to describe in that post how it was merely a cautionary tale and that I wasn't making it as a comparison.

    Your inference is ridiculous. If you read that dishonestly into what other people are stating (and you do this consistently) then that's on you. Again it isn't reasonable discourse or response. I'm not even responding to what I wrote or defending it as much as responding to your chronic assumption of what I wrote.

    To wit, you stating lies, lies, lies.

    Its generally aggravating when you post with clarity and people purposely get what you are stating wrong. Done with this.
    The thing is, if you continually bring up another specific case in which the victim acted in a way that backs up your assumptions, it's pretty clear that whether you mean to draw that comparison or simply mean to bring it up as reference, you're fostering a discussion based on speculation. It's essentially a strawman argument, but with a reference.

    You brought Khadr into this (for some reason), and Ghomeshi numerous times. We understand your position. We simply disagree. I went back, and you're right, you didn't call anybody a liar specifically. You just brought up another case where the accusers lied, then tied it to this case because that's quite clearly what you think is happening here whether you actually say it or not. I could bring up a case where accusers didn't lie. Would that change your opinion?

    It's easy to act as if you're not being understood when you're grasping at straws while sitting on the fence and not really saying anything without paragraphs of non-committal statements.
    Actually you misunderstand basic logic. Khadr and Ghomeshi were not cited by me as comparisons, your own comprehension difficulty notwithstanding.

    Khadr was introduced to hilte that one either believes in due process or doesn't. PERIOD. I happen to believe in due process in either and all instance. Making me more consistent than people taking alternating positions on due process.

    Ghomeshi was introduced only to hilite that multiple accusers does not equal beyond a doubt 100% proof. That's it. Ghomeshi case was specifically interesting due to how much public opinion was literally hanging him from the gallows. Again a cautionary tale.

    Now do I think some sort of assault occurred at Vinyl? Sure I do. Again I never even remotely suggested anybody was lying or that it hadn't occurred.

    Your lies about what I stated notwithstanding.
    Nobody said multiple corroborating accounts equals 100% proof.

    Hypothetically, If we we're talking about a car accident and speculating about road conditions, speed, etc and you insisted on continually bringing up another case where the driver was drunk (with nothing about the current accident warranting a drunk driving discussion) eventually other people would start to get the impression that alcohol might be a factor in the current accident. There is no basis for that discussion. Call it a cautionary tale all you like, but you are still drawing a parallel between the two cases whether or not you intend to.

  34. #134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Alex, I'm reasonably certain you believed allegations that were made against Khomeshi, as most people did. I only cite that case because multiple accusers came forward and made police reports and allegations.

    Now in that event collusion of the witnesses had occurred. In essence they plotted the accusation and stories. Its a cautionary tale.

    I haven't once stated that I do not believe the complainant in this instance. Inarguably something occurred which she felt strongly enough about to take the actions she did. Please cite where I stated any complainants were lying. This is why its so hard to have a discussion on these matters. People assume others have stated things they have not. In other words more strawman arguments.

    Do you think that is reasonable discourse?
    If it comes out that there was some sort of collusion in order to defame this owner I'll thoroughly apologize. Until then, you are using an unrelated prior case to paint your opinion of this one. In doing so you are drawing comparisons between those victims, thus calling these accusers liars in the process.
    Do you have trouble with reading comprehension or reading period? I have not once mentioned that there is collusion in this case or that anybody is lying. You read all of that into it. Plus do people really have this much difficulty discerning a citation as an example vs it being a direct comparison? I was even careful to describe in that post how it was merely a cautionary tale and that I wasn't making it as a comparison.

    Your inference is ridiculous. If you read that dishonestly into what other people are stating (and you do this consistently) then that's on you. Again it isn't reasonable discourse or response. I'm not even responding to what I wrote or defending it as much as responding to your chronic assumption of what I wrote.

    To wit, you stating lies, lies, lies.

    Its generally aggravating when you post with clarity and people purposely get what you are stating wrong. Done with this.
    The thing is, if you continually bring up another specific case in which the victim acted in a way that backs up your assumptions, it's pretty clear that whether you mean to draw that comparison or simply mean to bring it up as reference, you're fostering a discussion based on speculation. It's essentially a strawman argument, but with a reference.

    You brought Khadr into this (for some reason), and Ghomeshi numerous times. We understand your position. We simply disagree. I went back, and you're right, you didn't call anybody a liar specifically. You just brought up another case where the accusers lied, then tied it to this case because that's quite clearly what you think is happening here whether you actually say it or not. I could bring up a case where accusers didn't lie. Would that change your opinion?

    It's easy to act as if you're not being understood when you're grasping at straws while sitting on the fence and not really saying anything without paragraphs of non-committal statements.
    Actually you misunderstand basic logic. Khadr and Ghomeshi were not cited by me as comparisons, your own comprehension difficulty notwithstanding.

    Khadr was introduced to hilte that one either believes in due process or doesn't. PERIOD. I happen to believe in due process in either and all instance. Making me more consistent than people taking alternating positions on due process.

    Ghomeshi was introduced only to hilite that multiple accusers does not equal beyond a doubt 100% proof. That's it. Ghomeshi case was specifically interesting due to how much public opinion was literally hanging him from the gallows. Again a cautionary tale.

    Now do I think some sort of assault occurred at Vinyl? Sure I do. Again I never even remotely suggested anybody was lying or that it hadn't occurred.

    Your lies about what I stated notwithstanding.
    Nobody said multiple corroborating accounts equals 100% proof.

    Hypothetically, If we we're talking about a car accident and speculating about road conditions, speed, etc and you insisted on continually bringing up another case where the driver was drunk (with nothing about the current accident warranting a drunk driving discussion) eventually other people would start to get the impression that alcohol might be a factor in the current accident. There is no basis for that discussion. Call it a cautionary tale all you like, but you are still drawing a parallel between the two cases whether or not you intend to.
    No, you are, and you continue to. Continuing to discuss the disagreement is of course pointless. What I know I have stated is different than what you ASSUME I think, and have stated. Unless you're a complete asshat and in your mind your conception of what I stated has more bearing than what I actually stated. Albeit in the counterpoint you've well established that your asshat candidacy isn't really in question at this point.

    carry on confirming I guess..

    ps I could copy and paste around a dozen statements you made previous in the thread in which you inferred guilt even if you now succumb to reason and acknowledge that there is no 100% proof at this point. Which doesn't stop you or anybody on social media from 100% assuming guilt. Perhaps you could read to yourself your many posts that inferred guilt. Although in your mind there must be something like a 51% established guilt special clause, beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding..

    You're the poster boy for why conviction, reaction, and action on social media, in response to legal matters, is assumptive, harmful, inappropriate, and should not ideally occur.
    Last edited by Replacement; 25-11-2017 at 01:01 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  35. #135
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,690

    Default

    [QUOTE=East McCauley;858636]
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    What due process are you expecting here? She didn't go to the police and file a complaint. That is her choice. She shared her details.
    Just so we are all working from the same information, this CBC story from earlier in the week says she has filed a police report and that the police confirmed they are investigating.

    Rudyck filed a police report on Tuesday, and is encouraging other victims to follow suit. Edmonton police confirmed Wednesday they are investigating a report of sexual harassment at the tavern.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...erta-1.4414631[/QUOTE

    This is new information to me. I'm unclear of the timeline but did she open up in the media first and then filed a Police report later?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  36. #136

    Default

    ^Yes. The Social media updates, the gossip, sharing of notes, occurred weeks, and months before the police report. Thus my expressed concerns.

    The oddest thing in this whole instance is the agreed upon gossip about the alleged new hire. Here we have an instance of fear spreading involving an alleged abusive individual that hadn't worked there, hadn't been hired, but was stated to be uber abusive and harmful and so theres proactive panic about supposition after supposition after assumption.
    Last edited by Replacement; 25-11-2017 at 01:34 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  37. #137
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

    No, you are, and you continue to. Continuing to discuss the disagreement is of course pointless. What I know I have stated is different than what you ASSUME I think, and have stated. Unless you're a complete asshat and in your mind your conception of what I stated has more bearing than what I actually stated. Albeit in the counterpoint you've well established that your asshat candidacy isn't really in question at this point.

    carry on confirming I guess..

    ps I could copy and paste around a dozen statements you made previous in the thread in which you inferred guilt even if you now succumb to reason and acknowledge that there is no 100% proof at this point. Which doesn't stop you or anybody on social media from 100% assuming guilt. Perhaps you could read to yourself your many posts that inferred guilt. Although in your mind there must be something like a 51% established guilt special clause, beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding..

    You're the poster boy for why conviction, reaction, and action on social media, in response to legal matters, is assumptive, harmful, inappropriate, and should not ideally occur.
    Even where you digress to the point of namecalling you can't commit. "Even if your a complete asshat" followed by "your asshat candidacy" is the fanciest way if ever seen someone duck around actually breaking the rules. Just say what you mean! stop qualifying and skirting around actually taking a position.

    Also, you've now said that you can provide quotes of me inferring guilt while telling me that I'm being ridiculous for inferring your intentions. Is inference only allowed when you're the one inferring?

    Clearly you're far more invested in personal attacks than anything here. You've posted multiple times that you were done with this thread, yet here you are calling me an asshat (but not really, right?)

    I haven't called anybody to take action in this case, nor have I really said anything on social media aside from retweeting the original blog. I haven't called for this owner to be imprisoned, bankrupt, or anything. I simply said that it looks like he's at fault, and that assassinating the character of the victim(s) is callous, cynical, and not the discussion we should be having.

    Calling someone "the poster boy" for something you find objectionable is just another way of insulting someone behind cover. Grow a backbone please.

  38. #138

    Default

    Alex, what are you questioning? That I called you an asshat (I did just so theres no confusion) after you lied/misrepresented countless times what I had posted. I only called you that after several instances, strawman attacks, and had utilized extreme patience until that point at which there could no longer be any doubt.

    I only threw in the ps above (one time statement) to see how you'd respond as well to the same response.

    thanks for confirming that as well.

    My backbone is fine asshat.
    Last edited by Replacement; 25-11-2017 at 01:46 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  39. #139
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Alex, what are you questioning? That I called you an asshat (I did just so theres no confusion) after you lied/misrepresented countless times what I had posted. I only called you that after several instances, strawman attacks, and had utilized extreme patience until that point at which there could no longer be any doubt.

    I only threw in the ps above (one time statement) to see how you'd respond as well to the same response.

    thanks for confirming that as well.

    My backbone is fine asshat.
    I'm questioning why you object to me inferring guilt of the owner vs you inferring that the complainants are lying. You can say you aren't all you like, but you are.

    Continue throwing your hissy fit, saying you're done, and resorting to personal attacks. That's a great way to build concensus and prove your points.

  40. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Alex, what are you questioning? That I called you an asshat (I did just so theres no confusion) after you lied/misrepresented countless times what I had posted. I only called you that after several instances, strawman attacks, and had utilized extreme patience until that point at which there could no longer be any doubt.

    I only threw in the ps above (one time statement) to see how you'd respond as well to the same response.

    thanks for confirming that as well.

    My backbone is fine asshat.
    I'm questioning why you object to me inferring guilt of the owner vs you inferring that the complainants are lying. You can say you aren't all you like, but you are.

    Continue throwing your hissy fit, saying you're done, and resorting to personal attacks. That's a great way to build concensus and prove your points.
    I never once stated or inferred the complainants are "lying" Perhaps theres a difference. But you don't see it.

    You're free to state or think whatever you like. But when you try to tell any other person what they think or what they have stated that is different. THAT is a strawman attack and which YOU initiated. I even let you know you were doing that several times before I responded in kind.

    ps I stopped trying to have reasonable discourse in this exchange long after you did. Oh wait you were assumptive and dismissive in the first reply weren't you. You initiated a lot of tone in the exchange and where it is now.

    No worries, not angry here, no hissy fit, just being clear. But you might not like that.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  41. #141
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Alex, what are you questioning? That I called you an asshat (I did just so theres no confusion) after you lied/misrepresented countless times what I had posted. I only called you that after several instances, strawman attacks, and had utilized extreme patience until that point at which there could no longer be any doubt.

    I only threw in the ps above (one time statement) to see how you'd respond as well to the same response.

    thanks for confirming that as well.

    My backbone is fine asshat.
    I'm questioning why you object to me inferring guilt of the owner vs you inferring that the complainants are lying. You can say you aren't all you like, but you are.

    Continue throwing your hissy fit, saying you're done, and resorting to personal attacks. That's a great way to build concensus and prove your points.
    I never once stated or inferred the complainants are "lying" Perhaps theres a difference. But you don't see it.

    You're free to state or thing whatever you like. But when you try to tell any other person what they think or what they have stated that is different. THAT is an attack and which YOU initiated. I responded in kind.

    ps I stopped trying to have reasonable discourse in this exchange long after you did. Oh wait you were assumptive and dismissive in the first reply weren't you. You initiated a lot of tone in the exchange and where it is now.

    No worries, not angry here, no fit, just being clear. But you might not like that.
    I'm happy that you think you've taken the high ground. Feel free to claim victory and exit the conversation again.

  42. #142
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,468

    Default

    https://youtu.be/60vpBrKcr0U

    But what about Khadr?
    But what about the Ghomeshi saga?

  43. #143

    Default

    ^^That one was funny. No worries Alex, I can laugh at this. But realistically any two stubborn people in exchange and I don't mind saying I am, and that you probably are, end up locking horns like this on important issues. Which is somewhat odd. Because if ourselves or others were sitting around sharing a beer we wouldn't be that far apart on a lot of these issues if speaking these topics out in person. Its the social media basis in which these exchanges exist and takeplace that exemplifies, ironically, the antisocial nature of comments so often contained within.

    ergo, the medium is the message. haha

    ps I love John Oliver too.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  44. #144
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^^That one was funny. No worries Alex, I can laugh at this. But realistically any two stubborn people in exchange and I don't mind saying I am, and that you probably are, end up locking horns like this on important issues. Which is somewhat odd. Because if ourselves or others were sitting around sharing a beer we wouldn't be that far apart on a lot of these issues if speaking these topics out in person. Its the social media basis in which these exchanges exist and takeplace that exemplifies, ironically, the antisocial nature of comments so often contained within.

    ergo, the medium is the message. haha

    ps I love John Oliver too.
    That I can agree with.

  45. #145
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,493
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    I've moved this from the Live Music thread to its own thread. I put it in the Rants forum as there is no specific forum for this topic, and putting it into an Off Topic area will more than likely get misinterpreted.
    Ow

  46. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Admin View Post
    I've moved this from the Live Music thread to its own thread. I put it in the Rants forum as there is no specific forum for this topic, and putting it into an Off Topic area will more than likely get misinterpreted.
    Much appreciated.

  47. #147
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,510

    Default

    Posters accuse former Needle Vinyl Tavern employee of lying over sexual assault allegations

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...425638?cmp=rss
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  48. #148
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Because... wait for it... women never lie.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  49. #149

    Default

    I have no idea who is right or wrong in this case, but why are the police looking into the posters? Is there a law against putting up a poster?

  50. #150
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,690

    Default

    ^ Post no bills?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  51. #151
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,423

    Default

    She didn't lie about her name, which is on the public record.Not what you could say about the poster(s).
    ... gobsmacked

  52. #152
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Because... wait for it... women never lie.
    Where's noodle when you need him?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  53. #153
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I have no idea who is right or wrong in this case, but why are the police looking into the posters? Is there a law against putting up a poster?
    Well, the operative words might be "looking into", which means they're not neccessarily arresting anyone at the moment. I'm guessing that when anonymous posters are put up attacking a particular individual by name, the police would want to check it out to make sure that there is nothing defamatory or otherwise legally problematic contained therein.

  54. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Because... wait for it... women never lie.
    Where's noodle when you need him?
    When did I say that?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  55. #155
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,690

    Default

    ^ As in responding to Kitlope's comment.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  56. #156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I have no idea who is right or wrong in this case, but why are the police looking into the posters? Is there a law against putting up a poster?
    Well, the operative words might be "looking into", which means they're not neccessarily arresting anyone at the moment. I'm guessing that when anonymous posters are put up attacking a particular individual by name, the police would want to check it out to make sure that there is nothing defamatory or otherwise legally problematic contained therein.
    Hmmm, do they look at social media the same way? I doubt it.

  57. #157
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I have no idea who is right or wrong in this case, but why are the police looking into the posters? Is there a law against putting up a poster?
    Well, the operative words might be "looking into", which means they're not neccessarily arresting anyone at the moment. I'm guessing that when anonymous posters are put up attacking a particular individual by name, the police would want to check it out to make sure that there is nothing defamatory or otherwise legally problematic contained therein.
    Hmmm, do they look at social media the same way? I doubt it.
    Point taken. Those websites where various women post slanderous remarks about the "STD-infected sluts" who stole their boyfriends seem to operate pretty much free of police investtigation.

    That said, cops in Alberta do apparently pay attention to certain things on social media...

    Police in Fort McMurray are investigating a Facebook page masquerading as an official RCMP account that invited drug users to let police "test your cocaine before you snort it."
    I guess impersonation is an issue, though I can't imagine there are too many people stupid enough to take this as anything but a joke. I actually laughed out loud when I read the text.

    link

  58. #158
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Jays analyst Gregg Zaun fired by Sportsnet for 'inappropriate behaviour'

    Gregg Zaun has been fired from Sportsnet due to "inappropriate behaviour and comments" toward female employees.

    Rick Brace, President of Rogers Media, said in a statement Thursday that the company was terminating the contract of the Blue Jays analyst effective immediately.

    "This week, we received complaints from multiple female employees at Sportsnet regarding inappropriate behaviour by Gregg Zaun in the workplace," the statement said. "After investigating the matter, we decided to terminate his contract, effective immediately. This type of behaviour completely contradicts our standards and our core values. We believe in a professional workplace where all employees feel comfortable and respected. We are grateful to our employees who spoke with us and we will take every measure to protect their privacy."

    Zaun, a former Blue Jays catcher, began a part-time broadcasting career with Sportsnet following the 2006 season. He initially signed a two-year deal as a MLB studio analyst with Sportsnet in 2011 and continued working with the network until his termination.Zaun, 46, played 16 major league seasons, including five years in Toronto from 2004-2008. He captured a World Series with the Florida Marlins in 1997.

    Sportsnet said on its website that there were no allegations of physical or sexual harassment.

    Zaun's dismissal comes at a time when allegations of sexual harassment are widespread in the film industry, politics and the newsroom with prominent figures such as producer Harvey Weinstein and Today Show host Matt Lauer among those accused.Zaun, who referred to himself as "the Manalyst," was ridiculed over Twitter back in 2012 when he tweeted a disparaging comment about women in a Toronto nightclub.His was one of the names mentioned in the Mitchell Report — the result of former U.S. Senator George J. Mitchell's 20-month investigation into performance-enhancing drug use in MLB that was released in 2007.



    http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/ml...ired-1.4427565


    Bolding mine. He was fired because of... a dirty joke? What then if there were no allegations of physical or sexual harassment? This f*cking nonsense needs to stop. Might be time to start a "Males that lose their jobs & lives due to unproven allegations" thread, however in Zaun's case maybe he was just a garden variety douche.

    Last edited by Kitlope; 30-11-2017 at 07:19 PM.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  59. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I have no idea who is right or wrong in this case, but why are the police looking into the posters? Is there a law against putting up a poster?
    Well, the operative words might be "looking into", which means they're not neccessarily arresting anyone at the moment. I'm guessing that when anonymous posters are put up attacking a particular individual by name, the police would want to check it out to make sure that there is nothing defamatory or otherwise legally problematic contained therein.
    But it is interesting that social media can largely be a place where people slander to any degree including such serious allegations as sexual assault and yet postings are considered "attacking" and defamation. ( I agree that they are but consider BOTH egregious)

    Theres been nonstop defamation in this case and it was initiated by Rudyck, just cause, or not.

    Who knows the extent of what actually occurred but I've said all along people should avoid jumping to immediate conclusion and social media shaming of the owner and establishment. Theres a lot of relevant background that could have occurred.

    interesting as well that I specifically noted that the allegations about the alleged new hire were the most curious thing in all this. Basically that Rudyk started this firestorm at the time that she stated there was going to be a new hire who was known to have engaged in past sexual assault.

    So basically Rudyck reacting to assumption of a new hire, assumption he was sexually abusive, and this being supposition after supposition. The timing of Rudyck sex assault proclamation coming 7mths after an alleged incident and stating it was an unsafe environment (when the alleged owner had not been on site during the interim period) had struck me as odd. How was the environment unsafe when the alleged perp was not around? The question of what set off Rudyck has been unclear.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  60. #160

    Default

    ^I know of this case but don't know much about it. The police would would be/could be/should be looking into sexual assault if any took place. I think the defamation part would be a civil matter ie: social media/posted notices etc.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  61. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Jays analyst Gregg Zaun fired by Sportsnet for 'inappropriate behaviour'

    Gregg Zaun has been fired from Sportsnet due to "inappropriate behaviour and comments" toward female employees.

    Rick Brace, President of Rogers Media, said in a statement Thursday that the company was terminating the contract of the Blue Jays analyst effective immediately.

    "This week, we received complaints from multiple female employees at Sportsnet regarding inappropriate behaviour by Gregg Zaun in the workplace," the statement said. "After investigating the matter, we decided to terminate his contract, effective immediately. This type of behaviour completely contradicts our standards and our core values. We believe in a professional workplace where all employees feel comfortable and respected. We are grateful to our employees who spoke with us and we will take every measure to protect their privacy."

    Zaun, a former Blue Jays catcher, began a part-time broadcasting career with Sportsnet following the 2006 season. He initially signed a two-year deal as a MLB studio analyst with Sportsnet in 2011 and continued working with the network until his termination.Zaun, 46, played 16 major league seasons, including five years in Toronto from 2004-2008. He captured a World Series with the Florida Marlins in 1997.

    Sportsnet said on its website that there were no allegations of physical or sexual harassment.

    Zaun's dismissal comes at a time when allegations of sexual harassment are widespread in the film industry, politics and the newsroom with prominent figures such as producer Harvey Weinstein and Today Show host Matt Lauer among those accused.Zaun, who referred to himself as "the Manalyst," was ridiculed over Twitter back in 2012 when he tweeted a disparaging comment about women in a Toronto nightclub.His was one of the names mentioned in the Mitchell Report — the result of former U.S. Senator George J. Mitchell's 20-month investigation into performance-enhancing drug use in MLB that was released in 2007.



    http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/ml...ired-1.4427565


    Bolding mine. He was fired because of... a dirty joke? What then if there were no allegations of physical or sexual harassment? This f*cking nonsense needs to stop. Might be time to start a "Males that lose their jobs & lives due to unproven allegations" thread, however in Zaun's case maybe he was just a garden variety douche.

    Its interesting that he was fired for Inappropriate behavior and comments and yet neither behavior, or comment is actually cited. Its barely alluded to, just that he made some kind of twitter comment years ago.

    My lord, several of our elected officials have made ridiculous comments on social media years ago which commonly gets explained away as "I'm not that person now, that is not who I am..."


    But whats with the one way street on these matters? I attended Hadestown at the Citadel last week. Included in the dialog of the play is the statement "Men, give them a little rope and they all hang themselves" To which a couple women behind me cackled (yes I'm using the word cackled) after one said in response "I'm going to get some rope".

    Is a dialog required all round in terms of acceptable statements, inference, limits, or is society just going after misogyny?

    I've stopped laughing at the nonstop characterization of men as Homer Simpson clones. Why all the misandry? Is that better? Is it more appropriate?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  62. #162
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Modern feminists have turned misandry into a socially accepted hate movement, under the guise of equality.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  63. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Modern feminists have turned misandry into a socially accepted hate movement, under the guise of equality.
    Nothing is quite as hilarious as the rantings of a redpiller/MRA about how bad men allegedly have it in our society.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  64. #164
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,027

    Default

    ^Bingo

  65. #165

    Default

    Some of these lately have been getting out of hand. At what point do we say that it isn't proven and it's just an accusation, so move on until proven otherwise...? At the same time, these things that supposedly happened 20 years ago, well, not saying that it was ok, but why wait so long to say anything? And why are so many of these people getting fired and blasted in social media and the news because the accuser posted something on Twitter or whatnot? Isn't there a legal proceeding that needs to take place before someone is found guilty? Or right, not anymore. Now everything is social justice. Your reputation is now destroyed and you're automatically guilty because everyone on social media has shared and spread the accusation and now everyone's talking smack about you, so your employer fires you.

    Maybe I'll ruin my old teacher's life because back in grade 4 she slapped me on the butt, and now I feel that I think I was violated too...

    Not downplaying anything that actually happened here, but I've read too much of these stories that are only based on what someone said. Just look at what Ximena Morris tried to do to David Peterson when he turned around and challenged her lies... She then apologised for it. If I were Peterson, I would have started the most brutal counter-suing process ever.
    Last edited by alkeli; 01-12-2017 at 11:03 AM.

  66. #166
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,344

    Default

    Rules for men making dirty jokes at work...

    1. Only jump in after a woman has gotten the ball rolling by making a dirty joke, on which your joke builds.

    2. Don't astronomically up the ante in terms of raunchiness.

    At least that's how it was when I was a male working in the pink-collar ghetto, in the 80s and 90s.

  67. #167
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Maybe I'll ruin my old teacher's life because back in grade 4 she slapped me on the butt, and now I feel that I think I was violated too...



    Even though you loved it and played with your pee-pee for hours thinking about it.


  68. #168

    Default

    It's reasonable that the standard for firing should be lower than for criminal proceedings, but you're right that immediate firing seems harsh, especially when it comes with an announcement of presumed guilt. Let them go quietly or suspend/demote/put on probation after allegations of inappropriate behaviour, fire and police report on harassment or worse.

    Maybe not quite the suspend with pay we hear about for police misconduct but more due process than what we're seeing right now.

    Unless the allegations are actually more serious than inappropriate jokes, in which case it should be made public.
    There can only be one.

  69. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Rules for men making dirty jokes at work...

    1. Only jump in after a woman has gotten the ball rolling by making a dirty joke, on which your joke builds.

    2. Don't astronomically up the ante in terms of raunchiness.

    At least that's how it was when I was a male working in the pink-collar ghetto, in the 80s and 90s.
    heh, The rules have changed. In the case of Inappropriate discussion happening amongst females and/or colleagues at work;

    1)Stay far away, far far away. Wish that you were never there for an instant. Wish you that you had the flu and were back at home. Develop a tricky cough or laryngitis. (Actually if you're a male in the work place Laryngitis would be helpful as an ongoing standby condition that could initiate at any time, especially meetings)

    2Distance yourself as far as possible from joking colleagues who could be branded toxic in the work place at any future time. To yourself only question the judgement of those playing such Russian roulette with their jobs.

    3)NEVER, EVER, respond in kind in such a conversation in the work place.

    4)Always back slowly away from such workplace dangers. Do not run. It signals fear. Running invokes a potential predator prey response.



    The above meant as humor. But NSFW humor just so everybody knows..
    Last edited by Replacement; 01-12-2017 at 12:35 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  70. #170
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Modern feminists have turned misandry into a socially accepted hate movement, under the guise of equality.
    Nothing is quite as hilarious as the rantings of a redpiller/MRA about how bad men allegedly have it in our society.
    Nothing is quite as hilarious as the tough guy White Knight Cuck that worship the ground women walk on because of the potential they might get laid.

    I hope a false rape/sexual assault charge is thrown your way and then you can witness first hand just how unfairly stacked the system is against men.

    You useless cuck.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  71. #171

    Default

    Wow, that's a whole lot of insecurity you've got pent up there & a whole lotta projection going on.

    Mom not hug you enough as a kid? Tired of getting "friendzoned" because your lady friends won't put out just because you're a "nice guy"?

    Go back to reddit, neckbeard redpiller.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  72. #172
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Red Pill? Oh, you got so much to learn... if you actually read my posts you would know I'm not a PUA/Red Piller. Not only are you a useless cuck, you're obviously pretty stupid as well.

    Go troll someone else although I think there's not too many left for you on this forum. Been watching your nonsense for way too many years and I've had it. Now I have you on ignore White Knight cuck. Waiting by the keyboard for my response. Get a life.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  73. #173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Red Pill? Oh, you got so much to learn... if you actually read my posts you would know I'm not a PUA/Red Piller. Not only are you a useless cuck, you're obviously pretty stupid as well.


    Hahaha. Is that the only insult you know? Do you think such puerile & facile insults phase me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Go troll someone else although I think there's not too many left for you on this forum. Been watching your nonsense for way too many years and I've had it.


    Oh, you sure told me, MRA neckbeard! I'm clearly the troll, despite you uttering your one toothless insult over & over like someone with Tourette's & a handful of extra chromosomes, or a parrot from Steve Bannon's house.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Now I have you on ignore White Knight cuck. Waiting by the keyboard for my response. Get a life.


    Every time I get told I'm ignored by someone who can't even formulate a decent insult, much less an intelligent response, I take it as a gold star for the day. Thanks for getting my weekend started with a smile.


    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  74. #174
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,690

    Default

    Can we please have some measure of decorum here guys, yeesh.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  75. #175

    Default

    In this day and age when men are accused of any kind of sexual impropriety the public tends to find them guilty before the trial has even started. If they are found to be innocent it's usually to late. Their reputation is ruined and they have to carry that for life. Now with all these sexual charges going on with high profile people it seems every one is hyper vigilant. I would like to see the likes of Weinstein/Piven/Moore/Weiner etc. go down in flames but I don't like the baying of a lot of women bringing all men down to the level of those who are predators. Men and women have been pursuing mates for thousands of years. Pursuing mates and being a predator to them is two completely different things. It's a dance and without it the human race would not be around. Or maybe it would but by sheer physical strength men would dominate. We have come a long way (in the west anyway) to make the sexes equal. Granted some men/women did not get the memo but the majority of us did.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    In this day and age when men are accused of any kind of sexual impropriety the public tends to find them guilty before the trial has even started. If they are found to be innocent it's usually to late. Their reputation is ruined and they have to carry that for life. Now with all these sexual charges going on with high profile people it seems every one is hyper vigilant. I would like to see the likes of Weinstein/Piven/Moore/Weiner etc. go down in flames but I don't like the baying of a lot of women bringing all men down to the level of those who are predators. Men and women have been pursuing mates for thousands of years. Pursuing mates and being a predator to them is two completely different things. It's a dance and without it the human race would not be around. Or maybe it would but by sheer physical strength men would dominate. We have come a long way (in the west anyway) to make the sexes equal. Granted some men/women did not get the memo but the majority of us did.
    Well said Gem.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  77. #177

    Default

    So now are we damned if we do damned if we don't? I mean, if I now just keep my distance from women in the workplace, try to avoid them, and avoid conversation or keep it very short, am I then going to be accused of segregating them because they're women and be accused of being sexist?

  78. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    In this day and age when men are accused of any kind of sexual impropriety the public tends to find them guilty before the trial has even started. If they are found to be innocent it's usually to late. Their reputation is ruined and they have to carry that for life. Now with all these sexual charges going on with high profile people it seems every one is hyper vigilant. I would like to see the likes of Weinstein/Piven/Moore/Weiner etc. go down in flames but I don't like the baying of a lot of women bringing all men down to the level of those who are predators. Men and women have been pursuing mates for thousands of years. Pursuing mates and being a predator to them is two completely different things. It's a dance and without it the human race would not be around. Or maybe it would but by sheer physical strength men would dominate. We have come a long way (in the west anyway) to make the sexes equal. Granted some men/women did not get the memo but the majority of us did.
    Commonsense at work here. Albeit apparently not too common in present day.

    Interestingly flirting continues (and has to) and is a critical part of the human mating/courtship dance. How does one sex convey willingness to another without the elaborate human courting display. What, postit notes on ones forehead? Flirting itself can either be perceived as welcome, by the other, or rebuked. Based on whether the attention is wanted or not. But with many males lacking comprehension of what those cues are. Hasn't been a longtime since men, somewhat in the dark about females conveyance of green light/red light used a bullet and back off approach hoping something would work and an exit strategy when it didn't.

    Essentially what human males are being told to do is BEWARE of any courtship ritual. Because a lot of human males lack the tacit understanding subtly offered by females that an advance is welcome. A lot of males spend their entire lives not knowing the signals. I'm not convinced I do. Females practically had to be very forward for me to get any of the cues.

    Me:"Oh, you're undressing me now, this is fun"..

    I'm really glad I'm happily married and old. I think I would choose planned celibacy in present dating times.
    Last edited by Replacement; 01-12-2017 at 03:33 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  79. #179
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    So now are we damned if we do damned if we don't? I mean, if I now just keep my distance from women in the workplace, try to avoid them, and avoid conversation or keep it very short, am I then going to be accused of segregating them because they're women and be accused of being sexist?
    And don't make eye contact with any women (unless your married to one) that could be a precursor to something....
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  80. #180
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    So now are we damned if we do damned if we don't? I mean, if I now just keep my distance from women in the workplace, try to avoid them, and avoid conversation or keep it very short, am I then going to be accused of segregating them because they're women and be accused of being sexist?
    Are you suggesting that you are unable to be around a women and not harassing or assaulting them? Because if you can be around a women without doing that, you'll have less problems.

    Many men will still behave in casual sexism (and not even realise it) but if you can start at not harassing or assaulting them that would be a start.

    Others are making it sound like if can't sexually harass or assault someone, you won't find a date. And that's just absurd.

  81. #181
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,690

    Default

    I'm a man I can change, if I have to....I guess. (sorry couldn't resist.)
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  82. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    So now are we damned if we do damned if we don't? I mean, if I now just keep my distance from women in the workplace, try to avoid them, and avoid conversation or keep it very short, am I then going to be accused of segregating them because they're women and be accused of being sexist?
    Are you suggesting that you are unable to be around a women and not harassing or assaulting them? Because if you can be around a women without doing that, you'll have less problems. Many men will still behave in casual sexism (and not even realise it) but if you can start at not harassing or assaulting them that would be a start. Others are making it sound like if can't sexually harass or assault someone, you won't find a date. And that's just absurd.
    No, I'm saying someone might mishear something, misconstrue something, or straight up lie. It's already been done. Women lying, claiming harassment... Better to stay away, but then, that might also lead you into trouble as well.

  83. #183
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,690

    Default

    Has the AG Provincial age limit ever been revised for consensual sex? For example if in 1980 having consensual sex with someone at age 14 only to have that Law increased age limit 2-3 years later would make any difference to any sexual harassment case today?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  84. #184
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    It's reasonable that the standard for firing should be lower than for criminal proceedings, but you're right that immediate firing seems harsh, especially when it comes with an announcement of presumed guilt. Let them go quietly or suspend/demote/put on probation after allegations of inappropriate behaviour, fire and police report on harassment or worse.

    Maybe not quite the suspend with pay we hear about for police misconduct but more due process than what we're seeing right now.

    Unless the allegations are actually more serious than inappropriate jokes, in which case it should be made public.
    Employers have the discretion to dismiss employees with or without cause. Of course the appropriate compensation must be offered commensurate with the circumstances of the dismissal. Companies often have codes of conduct that extend to behavior both within and outside a place of work and employees can be dismissed when their conduct is deemed to reflect negatively on the employer.

    It appears that Gregg Zaun was the tip of the ice berg at Sportsnet and the male dominated corporate culture made it uncomfortable at times for female employees:

    Toronto Star
    “Zaun’s on-air brand and image was based around aggressive masculinity so when he wore (undershirts) around the office and made rude sexual comments directly to women, or in close proximity of women, with the clear intention of making us uncomfortable, it was sort of implied: that’s who he was, deal with it,” said one employee, who did not want to be identified for fear of reprisals at work.

    “It is openly accepted that over intercom (between the studio and in-game staff) we can objectify women in the stands of hockey games, we can discuss girlfriends and wives of professional athletes and use language that should not be accepted under any circumstances,” she said. “I have received text messages complimenting what dress I was wearing, and how an individual wanted to ride the elevator alone with me. It’s unfortunate that it’s been a situation where I now keep notes on things.”
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  85. #185
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    So now are we damned if we do damned if we don't? I mean, if I now just keep my distance from women in the workplace, try to avoid them, and avoid conversation or keep it very short, am I then going to be accused of segregating them because they're women and be accused of being sexist?
    Are you suggesting that you are unable to be around a women and not harassing or assaulting them? Because if you can be around a women without doing that, you'll have less problems. Many men will still behave in casual sexism (and not even realise it) but if you can start at not harassing or assaulting them that would be a start. Others are making it sound like if can't sexually harass or assault someone, you won't find a date. And that's just absurd.
    No, I'm saying someone might mishear something, misconstrue something, or straight up lie. It's already been done. Women lying, claiming harassment... Better to stay away, but then, that might also lead you into trouble as well.
    Ah yes, make yourself the victim instead. That's the ticket.

  86. #186
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,690

    Default

    In this world of she said he said I wonder how many of these "Me Too" cases would evaporate upon a polygraph test? Not hating, just saying.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  87. #187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    So now are we damned if we do damned if we don't? I mean, if I now just keep my distance from women in the workplace, try to avoid them, and avoid conversation or keep it very short, am I then going to be accused of segregating them because they're women and be accused of being sexist?
    Are you suggesting that you are unable to be around a women and not harassing or assaulting them? Because if you can be around a women without doing that, you'll have less problems. Many men will still behave in casual sexism (and not even realise it) but if you can start at not harassing or assaulting them that would be a start. Others are making it sound like if can't sexually harass or assault someone, you won't find a date. And that's just absurd.
    No, I'm saying someone might mishear something, misconstrue something, or straight up lie. It's already been done. Women lying, claiming harassment... Better to stay away, but then, that might also lead you into trouble as well.
    Ah yes, make yourself the victim instead. That's the ticket.
    I don't need to. There are already victims of lies out there already. But carry on in your perfect little life of assumptions.

  88. #188
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Has the AG Provincial age limit ever been revised for consensual sex? For example if in 1980 having consensual sex with someone at age 14 only to have that Law increased age limit 2-3 years later would make any difference to any sexual harassment case today?
    I'm not clear about the connection you're drawing here. Sexual harassment laws are separate from age-of-consent laws. So even if the AOC laws were changed, what difference does that make to someone accused of sexual harassment?

    Are you saying that because the AOC was shown to be changable, someone accused of harassment could say that those laws could change as well, and that his actions might be considered okay at some point in the future? Maybe, but I think the courts usually go with the law as it's written now, without thinking how they might be different a decade from now.

  89. #189
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    Before drifting even further off-topic, some posters would be well-advised to do a simple Google search. This would reveal that the age of consent to sexual activity in Canada is 16 years, with some exceptions for young people who are close in age. The current age of consent law has been in place for almost ten years.

    http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/o...e/clp/faq.html

    Not that - as overoceans pointed out - this has anything whatsoever to do with the allegations involving the Vinyl Needle Tavern.

  90. #190
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Before drifting even further off-topic, some posters would be well-advised to do a simple Google search. This would reveal that the age of consent to sexual activity in Canada is 16 years, with some exceptions for young people who are close in age. The current age of consent law has been in place for almost ten years.

    http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/o...e/clp/faq.html

    Not that - as overoceans pointed out - this has anything whatsoever to do with the allegations involving the Vinyl Needle Tavern.
    the act also goes on however as follows:

    "... In some cases, the age of consent is higher (for example, when there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency).

    In other words, a person must be at least 16 years old to be able to legally agree to sexual activity."

    emphasis added...

    whether this ends up having anything to do with the allegations involving the vinyl needle tavern or not - as with most everything else involving the vinyl needle tavern - remains to be seen.
    Last edited by kcantor; 04-12-2017 at 10:41 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  91. #191
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    I don't need to. There are already victims of lies out there already. But carry on in your perfect little life of assumptions.
    I'm not suggesting that there are not people out there that do lie about these things. But there are far more cases of things going unreported, undisclosed, and hidden, than there are false allegations.

    Nearly every single women in your life has been sexually harassed or assaulted in some degree. I am by no means suggesting that that means anyone should lie about what has happened to them for their own gain. I am suggesting that your overreaction, thinking that nearly any women around you might accuse you of something and be lying about is just trying to keep that power away from women. FUD to make it seem as if the problem is with the victim, not the accused.

  92. #192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    I don't need to. There are already victims of lies out there already. But carry on in your perfect little life of assumptions.
    I'm not suggesting that there are not people out there that do lie about these things. But there are far more cases of things going unreported, undisclosed, and hidden, than there are false allegations. Nearly every single women in your life has been sexually harassed or assaulted in some degree. I am by no means suggesting that that means anyone should lie about what has happened to them for their own gain. I am suggesting that your overreaction, thinking that nearly any women around you might accuse you of something and be lying about is just trying to keep that power away from women. FUD to make it seem as if the problem is with the victim, not the accused.
    Really? Nearly every single woman hey? Funny because since this has been going on and has been a topic, my mother, cousins, aunts, sister, wife and inlaws have all been shocked at all these accusations, and none have been harassed or assaulted according to them, even my wife said that people have joked about stuff, but no worse than anything she would also say. But hey, I guess they're all a bunch of liars huh?

  93. #193
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    I don't need to. There are already victims of lies out there already. But carry on in your perfect little life of assumptions.
    I'm not suggesting that there are not people out there that do lie about these things. But there are far more cases of things going unreported, undisclosed, and hidden, than there are false allegations. Nearly every single women in your life has been sexually harassed or assaulted in some degree. I am by no means suggesting that that means anyone should lie about what has happened to them for their own gain. I am suggesting that your overreaction, thinking that nearly any women around you might accuse you of something and be lying about is just trying to keep that power away from women. FUD to make it seem as if the problem is with the victim, not the accused.
    Really? Nearly every single woman hey? Funny because since this has been going on and has been a topic, my mother, cousins, aunts, sister, wife and inlaws have all been shocked at all these accusations, and none have been harassed or assaulted according to them, even my wife said that people have joked about stuff, but no worse than anything she would also say. But hey, I guess they're all a bunch of liars huh?
    Many women are just numb to the things that have happened, because it's so prevalent, and don't consider them to be sexual harassment or assault. The women in the Louis CK story weren't sure that him masturbating in front of them was a problem right away, for multiple reasons. I don't know your family and what has or happened to them. But for you to say not one of your mother, cousins, aunts, sister or wife has ever been groped unwillingly, harassed at work, or the numerous other kinds of sexual violence that don't include straight up rape is unlikely.

  94. #194

    Default

    When you look at all these famous (infamous) guys being charged with these offences you have to wonder what some of their parents are like. Really, what kind of upbringing brought them to think it's their right to be predatory towards women. Even worse, some of these guys who have been accused have daughters of their own. They really must have cess pits for minds. Who goes to work wondering who they are going to stalk that day and force themselves on. Got to be some kind of sickness right there. If not sickness one warped mind. Fantasize about it maybe, but actually pursue it, NO.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  95. #195
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Has the AG Provincial age limit ever been revised for consensual sex? For example if in 1980 having consensual sex with someone at age 14 only to have that Law increased age limit 2-3 years later would make any difference to any sexual harassment case today?
    I'm not clear about the connection you're drawing here. Sexual harassment laws are separate from age-of-consent laws. So even if the AOC laws were changed, what difference does that make to someone accused of sexual harassment?

    Are you saying that because the AOC was shown to be changable, someone accused of harassment could say that those laws could change as well, and that his actions might be considered okay at some point in the future? Maybe, but I think the courts usually go with the law as it's written now, without thinking how they might be different a decade from now.
    Someone might use an AOC law as a pretext to sexual harassment, especially if the AOC was changed closer to the date of a relationship. And might even be misconstrued as sexual assault/harassment in the eyes of a "victim."

    No. How the AOC was when the relationship happened, in the past.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  96. #196
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Before drifting even further off-topic, some posters would be well-advised to do a simple Google search. This would reveal that the age of consent to sexual activity in Canada is 16 years, with some exceptions for young people who are close in age. The current age of consent law has been in place for almost ten years.

    http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/o...e/clp/faq.html

    Not that - as overoceans pointed out - this has anything whatsoever to do with the allegations involving the Vinyl Needle Tavern.
    the act also goes on however as follows:

    "... In some cases, the age of consent is higher (for example, when there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency).

    In other words, a person must be at least 16 years old to be able to legally agree to sexual activity."

    emphasis added...

    whether this ends up having anything to do with the allegations involving the vinyl needle tavern or not - as with most everything else involving the vinyl needle tavern - remains to be seen.
    At the moment AOC laws are 16 but what were they like here in Alberta say 35-40 years ago? There have been cases where allegations in the Cosby case where women have come forward decades ago. How many #Me too women came forward with allegations that occurred 40 years ago? The end result about all of this are allegations. How many out of court cases were settled because of allegations to keep them quiet? How many marriages have been ruined over something that happened during the marriage or didn't? How many people have lost jobs over allegations?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  97. #197
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,344

    Default

    Evaneo wrote:

    "At the moment AOC laws are 16 but what were they like here in Alberta say 35-40 years ago?"

    I believe AOC is federal, isn't it? If so, it would have been 14, same as everywhere else in Canada, 40 years ago. Though some of the caveats we have about being in a position of power etc might not have been in place back then. Or maybe they were, I dunno.

  98. #198
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Before drifting even further off-topic, some posters would be well-advised to do a simple Google search. This would reveal that the age of consent to sexual activity in Canada is 16 years, with some exceptions for young people who are close in age. The current age of consent law has been in place for almost ten years.

    http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/o...e/clp/faq.html

    Not that - as overoceans pointed out - this has anything whatsoever to do with the allegations involving the Vinyl Needle Tavern.
    the act also goes on however as follows:

    "... In some cases, the age of consent is higher (for example, when there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency).

    In other words, a person must be at least 16 years old to be able to legally agree to sexual activity."

    emphasis added...

    whether this ends up having anything to do with the allegations involving the vinyl needle tavern or not - as with most everything else involving the vinyl needle tavern - remains to be seen.
    At the moment AOC laws are 16 but what were they like here in Alberta say 35-40 years ago? There have been cases where allegations in the Cosby case where women have come forward decades ago. How many #Me too women came forward with allegations that occurred 40 years ago? The end result about all of this are allegations. How many out of court cases were settled because of allegations to keep them quiet? How many marriages have been ruined over something that happened during the marriage or didn't? How many people have lost jobs over allegations?
    i’m not sure your questions have answers. but if you want to make a decision on questions without answers, how many women lost much of their life because of things that took place 35-40 years ago? you know, little things like self respect or careers or trust? how many self medicated with alcohol or drugs or simply gave up? i’m about the age as roy moore and it doesn’t matter what the laws were in alberta any more than what they were in alabama. the end result is that certain behaviours regardless of when they took place are simply unacceptable or worse. this isn’t meant to eliminate the need for due process, but insisting that due process is not possible is not the answer for what took place in the past any more than it’s the answer for what’s taking place today both today and 35-40 years from now.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  99. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    When you look at all these famous (infamous) guys being charged with these offences you have to wonder what some of their parents are like. Really, what kind of upbringing brought them to think it's their right to be predatory towards women. Even worse, some of these guys who have been accused have daughters of their own. They really must have cess pits for minds. Who goes to work wondering who they are going to stalk that day and force themselves on. Got to be some kind of sickness right there. If not sickness one warped mind. Fantasize about it maybe, but actually pursue it, NO.
    Some of these situations are a little weird though, and some I think are very innocent.

    Take for example George Bush Snr in trouble for patting women on the bum. I mean, sure, that's bad, and you can't do it today, but I think he is from a very different generation.

    Another one that confuses me a bit is the whole Weinstein thing. Yeah, the guy is a creep and was exploiting young actresses, even rape, so he deserves what he is getting. But, why were young women choosing to go up to his hotel room, what did they think was going to happen there? The exploitation goes a bit both ways, yeah, creeps have been exploiting young actresses and actors who want to get ahead, but I think there are also situations of young men and women intentionally using their sexuality to get ahead / jump the line. Some want the part, and will do anything to get it, that's not going to change, there are a lot more beautiful people who want to be actresses or actors, than there are acting jobs available - I wonder if there is some selective memory happening.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-12-2017 at 09:23 AM.

  100. #200
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    But, why were young women choosing to go up to his hotel room, what did they think was going to happen there?



    Yeah, exackly moa.

    That's the funny part.

    Now acting all appalled with their " ME TOO ! ME TOO ! " .

    But hey,



    they are actresses.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •