News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
SecretSquirrel said:
I haven't ever been able to more-or-less-wholeheartedly agree with one of CowboyLogic's posts before, and it's not a nice feeling.

I really, really wish I could find more about this post that I could disagree with.

I really do.
Click to expand...

Bennett didn't make the claims that Cowboy suggests he did - Bennett pointed out that people were rebuked for saying such things, not that they weren't said. I know, because I was one of those that Bennett and a few others (RiverdaleRinkRat I think) rebuked for suggesting that the Ford's and Ford Nation exhibit the kind of dogmatic and myopic thinking that can be pretty scary. The same kind of thinking that leads to ..... well I won't go there again. Even though I feel it's a valid point.
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
SecretS:

It's not exactly a secret - and if the initial scenario did present itself (i.e. bringing out a gun), my stance on the outcome remains unchanged (that only the individual bringing out the gun shall be harmed, and no other).

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/14268-Mayor-Rob-Ford-s-Toronto/page1820
Click to expand...

Thank you for this civil response to what was effectively a complaint to the thread at large, i.e. please don't make CowboyLogic right.

As you will see from my posts, I am no fan of the Fords. I loathe the Fords and every dysfunctional, hate-fomenting, close-minded, crush-the-poor thing they say and every flagrantly illegal, morally despicable and wildly hypocritical thing they do. I would shed no tears for either Doug or Rob should some misfortune befall them.

So to be clear, I'm not outraged in the slightest, and I will certainly confess to having had dark thoughts about how the Fordocracy might end. In any case, when you refer to those who are outraged, I'm pretty sure you weren't referring to me but to CowboyLogic. Rather, I think it's a shame that I don't see any good defence to the core point of that post, i.e. that UT cannot be both a venue for high-minded discussion and a place where even joke-y, kidding-around discussions of violence applied to those we dislike are A-OK.

I don't see any value added to the discussion when people start making comments which will be seen as an advocation of violence by those who aren't as diametrically opposed to the Fords as most here are. When I wish to gain perspective on such things, I imagine how I would feel if I read something on some other forum where people were making similar comments about some politician I didn't despise quite as much.

I don't think this discussion would lose any value if no-one ever made a comment like the ones referenced above again.

AlvinofDiaspar said:
And on the matter of vitriol and extremism - let's put it this way, considering what his worship has said regarding cyclists and death and being in a position to directly influence policy around such, I think anyone who complains about vitriol and extremism is misdirected in their supposed outrage.
Click to expand...

I have been a frequent and consistent critic of Ford's insane commentary on cyclists (perhaps not thus far on UT, but certainly elsewhere - you'll have to take my word for it).

My question is: tit for tat, or rise above?
 
Last edited:
atodaso said:
Bennett didn't make the claims that Cowboy suggests he did - Bennett pointed out that people were rebuked for saying such things, not that they weren't said. I know, because I was one of those that Bennett and a few others (RiverdaleRinkRat I think) rebuked for suggesting that the Ford's and Ford Nation exhibit the kind of dogmatic and myopic thinking that can be pretty scary. The same kind of thinking that leads to ..... well I won't go there again. Even though I feel I make a valid point.
Click to expand...

Quite right. I should have been more specific, since I wasn't really talking about the Bennett000 portion of the post. I don't really want to revisit that bit of the thread where you made a comparison which may or may not have been accurate but which caused a certain amount of... inflammation. For myself, I already regret dragging the thread in [another] meta direction by engaging with CL's post, although I stand by my assertion that we can and should be better than those we are criticising.

Back on topic: I hadn't seen Conrad Black's ridiculous fumbling for his long-lost dignity until today. Here is is - quoted by The Star - responding to the charge that he allowed Ford's misanthropic lies to pass unchallenged:

Cotton-wool 'conversationalist' Conrad Black said:
“To quote the chief of police, ‘I am disappointed,’” Black wrote in an email. “I hope that this is the beginning of a straighter course of conduct for [Ford].”
Click to expand...

Why, of course? How could poor Conrad have known that Rob Ford the confirmed liar would lie when encouraged to lie?

Having heard his feeble excuses, I'd love to ask Black whether he himself is incompetent or insufficiently truthful - must be one or the other, since - short of saturnism - there can surely be no other explanation! How else is it that someone of Black's illimitable and festiligious intelligence could allow such ventose crumbs of oneirodynian falderal and shameful scazon from Ford to go unchallenged? Should we take the scapegrace Ford at his word, since no vigia was forthcoming from the estimable Lord? Has he nary a thought for we mere obstreperous sansculottes who must remain forever ineluctably mired in our own ferity?

Surely he's not so stupid as to think that Ford will change? No, of course not; this is just an attempt to wash off that toxic Ford slime. Too late, Connie, too late...

...and once again: what of the Cachet Ladies story? I wanted to read that over coffee last weekend, dammit!
 
Last edited:
SecretSquirrel said:
Surely he's not so stupid as to think that Ford will change? No, of course not; this is just an attempt to wash off that toxic Ford slime. Too late, Connie, too late..
Click to expand...

One can arguably say that as a felon Conrad Black is even more toxic (though considerable less odious given the nature of his crime, his considerable past achievements and his generally more polished - though likely one of artifice - personality).

AoD
 
Jackson Proskow ‏@JProskowGlobal 1m
Rotunda of city hall erupts with applause as Doug Ford walks by on the second floor.

Shoot me now.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
One can arguably say that as a felon Conrad Black is even more toxic (though considerable less odious given the nature of his crime, his considerable past achievements and his generally more polished - though likely one of artifice - personality).

AoD
Click to expand...

I suppose, but do you think that Black has directly tarnished Ford? Other than allowing Ford to libel Dale, I'd say that it was the other way around.

Having said that, I do note that Black's past achievements include a Guinness Book of Records entry: Most 'Personal' Documents Removed From An Office In Defiance Of A Court Order (Chauffeur-assisted category)
 
Last edited:
From Kinsella's blog:
John Tory and his chief advisor, Nick Kouvalis, were together at the City Hall press party last night. Nick was telling everyone that he is working for John, and that he is going to “destroy” everyone else. John looked a bit uncomfortable about that.
 
Squirrel:

No, I don't think so of course - that's why I said there is a difference between the Black's toxicity (simply due to the fact that he has been convicted and served jail time) and Ford's own special brand of odiousness - outrageously attacking the moral character of others doing their job when one is utterly lacking in that regard. As far as I know, Conrad Black never gone that route as blatantly as Ford did on multiple occasions.

AoD
 
Last edited:
One Nut Kruk said:
Goldsbie was moved to tears over what Ford insinuated about Daniel Dale? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

How about giving US a break? A break from your offensive, ill-informed and prejudicial judgements on other people's behaviour.

One Nut Kruk said:
I do, and I suspect most people do -- though the wrapper is often the problem. I think the problem lots of people have with many gays is imagery from pride parades, that is engrained in their memories. All footage and pictures I've seen from such events are alienating to me, and many others. From what I've seen -- for the most part -- the people that partake in the parade appear to be extremely obnoxious, shallow and narcissistic.
Click to expand...
One Nut Kruk said:
From my experience, it is examples such as those that turn a lot of society off gay people. Obviously not all gay people fit into this mold (many straight people do as well), but this is an example of why I think Pride is terrible.
Click to expand...
One Nut Kruk said:
I think the majority of society would feel much greater comfort and happiness around gay people if there wasn't such a vocal, vulgar minority. I would gladly like to speak with someone like Kevin Spacey or Rock Hudson (if he were still alive).
Click to expand...
One Nut Kruk said:
Re physical appearance -- what do you suppose is the reason(s) for a segment of lesbians tending to look masculine (eg. K.D. Lang).
Click to expand...
One Nut Kruk said:
That's why I asked if this has to do with having stronger male role models compared to females. Likewise for gay men...There are conservative (in terms of personality/fashion) gay men -- such as Kevin Spacey -- and there are gays who are more effeminate and exhuberant. I would think this has to do with relationships these men have had with their fathers -- or lack thereof -- and or other men in their lives that had an influence on them in their formative years.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top