News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.7K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kilroy said:
I wouldn't put too much stock into the paragraph on Randy's declining bonus.
He's just trying to hide income in divorce court.
Click to expand...

If it's true Deco then is a house of cards, which is fun. If he's lying, he's committing perjury, which would be fun if Fords were subject to legal repercussions.
 
johntauren said:
I've seen an attack ad where he says something along the lines of "Working women should play golf, it is advantageous to their career" (something like that)
But I didn't actually see where or when he made such comments.
Click to expand...

It was a throw away comment made on Live Drive sometime last year, to get the converstion going...Isn't that what you do as a radio host make sure there isn't dead air when interviewing a guest and to get guest response?
 
From the latest Warmington column which revolves around Farah and the crack judge accusations:

“I want closure,†Farah said, adding that he didn’t want anyone out there to think he “kept a secret or someone to think I am a threat to them.â€

In a followup e-mail Friday, he expressed a desire to arrange a meeting between him and Ford.

“I will be frank. The only picture I want on the front cover of the Sun is me and Rob together. I would love to have a personal conversation with him and I would love to help in his recovery ... I really think he can be an inspirational leader and PM one day.â€

In another e-mail, Farah said: “I never met Rob†and “I want to meet him and have that face-to-face conversation. Whatever (is) discussed will be a personal conversation and I would share it with no media outlet. I would only go public with details that we both agree on.â€
Click to expand...

Say what?
 
Jimmi T said:
Golf is hugely important in business when you're at or near an executive level. My pops spent at least half his workdays golfing with clients and board members. Lots more women started to take lessons because they knew it'd open opportunities. I don't get the controversy.
Click to expand...

My dad was an avid golfer. For pleasure only, not business. He also enjoyed the relaxation and camaraderie of the club. I remember him telling me, “We’re all the same here, no matter what happens outside the gate.”
 
Last edited:
kaboi said:
My mother was one of those women who learned to play golf. It didn't get her ahead in her work, it just got her on the golf course. Her entire career she has watched younger and less capable white men sail past her in salary and opportunity. Want to guess how many times she's been called aggressive or strident? She's achieved some success, but make no mistake, she's been bashing her head against the glass ceiling her entire life and has had to struggle for every achievement.

Since you seem unwilling to dig into the reasons why people were upset about the golf comments and about his most recent comments, let me spell it out for you: it's systemic, stupid.

John Tory's denial of white privilege, along with saying women never came to negotiate higher salaries and that women should learn to play golf if they want to advance their careers misses the point that people of colour and women are held back by much greater forces that they have little or no control over. Tory's insensitivity to those realities is what makes everyone so upset.
Click to expand...

I agree with the idea that it is systemic and have seen a number of glaring instances in the career of my spouse and other women I know.

I think though that JT just has a way of putting his foot in his mouth around some of these issues. Consider each of OC, JT and DoFo as a boss. Olivia likely has the most awareness and immediate understanding of what women might face in advancing in the workplace but I suspect the difference between how she evaluates a woman's capability is only very slightly different than Tory's. DoFo must be a nightmare to work for if you are a woman. Perhaps only slightly less so if you are a man because you can at least trot out the old "How about those Leafs, eh?" line and paste on a stupid smile and he'd give you the credibility that he wouldn't a woman.
 
tiffer24 said:
Difficult to brush off as a disgruntled employee, Doug. I see fraud, fraud, fraud...
Click to expand...

What do you think Doug will do to counter this ? Obviously he will claim its all false or the documents were all gathered fraudulently and without permission. Will he drag Robbie into the streets and wail? I'm so curious.
 
The house with the 7 Ford lawn signs also has an suv with 2 bumper stickers on the back and two more on top of the windshield. Wtf?
 
Outside Looking In said:
DoFo must be a nightmare to work for if you are a woman. Perhaps only slightly less so if you are a man because you can at least trot out the old "How about those Leafs, eh?" line and paste on a stupid smile and he'd give you the credibility that he wouldn't a woman.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, because being a Leafs fan is the gold standard of credibility.*


*Go Habs!

(I notice from that article that Ontario support for the Leafs is around 33% - from UT I've learned to parse that as 27% crazification factor plus 6% bump for current newsiness.;))
 
Bebop17 said:
Hahaha, because being a Leafs fan is the gold standard of credibility.*


*Go Habs!

(I notice from that article that Ontario support for the Leafs is around 33% - from UT I've learned to parse that as 27% crazification factor plus 6% bump for current newsiness.;))
Click to expand...

The 33% support is the Leafs' Keyes Constant, supported by a 47-year case of Stockholm syndrome.
 
Re "White Privilege" soundbite; while many might ignore it, what it serves to do is draw some of the more left-leaning-beat-Ford Tory supporters to Chow.

As for Doug and Deco - so they're incompetent and slimy. No surprise.
 
drk said:
+/- 10% was a standard term in printing contracts (buried deep in the fine print on the back of the quote) for a long time to cover the ass of printers who had to run some extras to insure against problems in binding, cutting, damage, etc. You could specify "no overs or unders" but would then probably pay more.

I haven't had a printer use the 10% clause with me in probably 10 years as more and more printing has gone digital and the equipment is much better. In the past, the ones that consistently padded the bill with the full 10% overs were the ones I stopped using very quickly.
Click to expand...

I can understand that the printer needs to run a few samples to check the quality of the labels coming out. I can see how it could add up to 10% on a small job as they run a couple hundred 2 or 3 times to get everything just right.

But 50,000? They just ran up the contract as high as they could.

Hiding the "no overs or unders" clause in the fine print and leaving it to the customer to find it and stroke it out is essentially negative option billing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top