Thanos
Active Member
I'm talking about within Montreal and est of St-Denis street. Wowzers, some people.
|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
- Status
I'm talking about within Montreal and est of St-Denis street. Wowzers, some people.
LowPolygon
Senior Member
i think there is little question that virtually ANYONE facing these kinds of accusations would go cold turkey. he's probably not drinking either.
nfitz
Superstar
I actually can't follow your point. How is pointing out the Star's anti-Miller bent hypocrisy? I wasn't attacking the Star for being anti-Miller, simply pointing it out.
I haven't seen much exaggeration of Ford's mistakes ... there might have been one or two. Ford's drug problems have not been a secret, and it's taken a long time for the Star to start highlighting it.
guitarchitect
Active Member
Well damn, I guess if you can't buy an english-only newspaper in a pocket of montreal that is almost exclusively french, you can't say that the toronto star is nationally circulated. GOOD WORK!!!
sarnya
Active Member
It's fascinating that a couple weeks ago, Price was discussed here as one of the thugs in the magnet video. Now this guy's recent past is headline news on a major Canadian newspaper. Whoever had the premonition that Price was bad news was bang on.
NotKevinBacon
New Member
I must say that I lol at the issue. More at the irony of the whole thing. First, Ford "allegedly" gets caught on a video and then they are unable to show the video, because their guys went off the grid. I "wonder" who made them do such thing. It's like an amateur Shakespearean comedy in three acts.
Anyway, I still don't get it why the Gawker donated the money to a charity instead of giving it back to backers. Aren't those crowdsourcing supposed to have a policy of refunding the people if the project didn't meet its goal?
I definitely agree with this article:
"It seems morally wrong to arbitrarily donate someone's money to a charity of Gawker's choice, when the original intention was to use that money to help purchase a video, especially when you don't know if the funders are the giving type or would support such a donation. What Gawker really should be doing is giving the money back to the backers if the video cannot be purchased. If Gawker's motivations are truly altruistic, why not match the contributions of it's pledgers in the form of a charitable donation themselves? If the $200,000 target is not hit before the deadline, why not refund the money to the pledgers and still match them dollar for dollar in the form of a charitable donation? This would be a real show of good will and everyone would go home at the same point they were at when this proposed fund began."
Anyway, I still don't get it why the Gawker donated the money to a charity instead of giving it back to backers. Aren't those crowdsourcing supposed to have a policy of refunding the people if the project didn't meet its goal?
I definitely agree with this article:
"It seems morally wrong to arbitrarily donate someone's money to a charity of Gawker's choice, when the original intention was to use that money to help purchase a video, especially when you don't know if the funders are the giving type or would support such a donation. What Gawker really should be doing is giving the money back to the backers if the video cannot be purchased. If Gawker's motivations are truly altruistic, why not match the contributions of it's pledgers in the form of a charitable donation themselves? If the $200,000 target is not hit before the deadline, why not refund the money to the pledgers and still match them dollar for dollar in the form of a charitable donation? This would be a real show of good will and everyone would go home at the same point they were at when this proposed fund began."
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
You don't understand how Indigogo worksI must say that I lol at the issue. More at the irony of the whole thing. First, Ford "allegedly" gets caught on a video and then they are unable to show the video, because their guys went off the grid. I "wonder" who made them do such thing. It's like an amateur Shakespearean comedy in three acts.
Anyway, I still don't get it why the Gawker donated the money to a charity instead of giving it back to backers. Aren't those crowdsourcing supposed to have a policy of refunding the people if the project didn't meet its goal?
I definitely agree with this article:
"It seems morally wrong to arbitrarily donate someone's money to a charity of Gawker's choice, when the original intention was to use that money to help purchase a video, especially when you don't know if the funders are the giving type or would support such a donation. What Gawker really should be doing is giving the money back to the backers if the video cannot be purchased. If Gawker's motivations are truly altruistic, why not match the contributions of it's pledgers in the form of a charitable donation themselves? If the $200,000 target is not hit before the deadline, why not refund the money to the pledgers and still match them dollar for dollar in the form of a charitable donation? This would be a real show of good will and everyone would go home at the same point they were at when this proposed fund began."
NotKevinBacon
New Member
Then tell me, where's the catch?
bobbob911
Active Member
What catch? No money has been donated yet, they are trying to buy the video and will continue to try for at least 30 days
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
Agreed re: the sour grapes. I could almost hear Doug Ford dictating the script.
There are a couple of cryptic allusions in recent stories that I'm trying to figure out:
In the NP article, the "source" says: "Isaac had his shredder going in overdrive, so it was pretty obvious what was going on." Not sure what to make of that. It could simply be that Ransom was making sure that any confidential info in his possession was safely disposed of, but considering the source and the way it's referenced in the story, something doesn't feel right.
In yesterday's Star story about the police investigation is the following passage:
Why would Towhey be angry to discover that Price was at the Ford family compound? It could simply be that he expected Price to obey Towhey's instructions, but, again, there seems to be more to it.
guitarchitect
Active Member
Ugh. Why don't you spend a few minutes on the internet and educate yourself?
Google Indiegogo. I'll even give you two hints: look up "flex funding" campaigns and "fixed funding" campaigns, both of which are detailed on Indiegogo's site. Go to Gawker's site or the crackstarter page and look up which one it is, and read about the plan for the crowdsourced funds. Then understand that they met the $200K goal and they are following through on the plan that they set out on the Crackstarter page.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
So I just found this sticker...
junior43
Active Member
If someone says the Star is Anti-Ford, they're a dumb racist and the Star's just doing their job.
If someone says the Star was anti-Miller, it's just accepted as the truth and the Star was being overly critical.
The Star is overly critical of anyone in power (journalistic integrity aside, they still need to sell papers and exaggerating minor gaffes does this), but when it's a side you don't agree with that states it, their just idiots and racists. Leading up to this debacle, the Star did this too many times and people just discounted everything the Star had to say (the newspaper that cried wolf) Now that they have him dead to rights, the Fordistas don't want to believe because of the Star's past performance.
I'm not excusing Ford's supporters for not believing at this point, but the Star shares a lot of the blame for this.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
The Toronto Star reports on stories of importance to keep the local populous informed on the issues, they aren't "attacking" or "out to get" anyone, they are simply reporting on stories of merit as they arise. As I briefly noted 10 or whatever pages back I think the Star is fairly balanced, they investigate and do stories on a Rob Ford, a Barbara Hall or a David Miller. Compare to NOW (very, very left of centre!) that didn't have too many negative stories on David Miller (who they actually got to leather-up as their front page man) yet relentlessly go after Rob Ford. I enjoy reading NOW and the issues that they cover but one has to admit NOW is a fair example of local media obsessed with trashing Ford, not the Toronto Star.
canmark
Active Member
Are the salaries of Mayor Ford's staff paid for by the city? And doesn't the city have to follow some rules for hiring--such as publicly posting job descriptions, interviewing all qualified candidates and ensuring employment equity and fairness to all applicants? Don't all levels of government have to follow proper HR protocol?
David Price, Ford's "Director of Logistics and Operations." Wouldn't a job description have to be filed for that position? Wouldn't procedures need to be followed? Or what about the 21 year old former football coach? Were his qualifications better than other applicants?
Can Ford just hire whomever he wants--like a private business--or is he required to follow city HR guidelines?
David Price, Ford's "Director of Logistics and Operations." Wouldn't a job description have to be filed for that position? Wouldn't procedures need to be followed? Or what about the 21 year old former football coach? Were his qualifications better than other applicants?
Can Ford just hire whomever he wants--like a private business--or is he required to follow city HR guidelines?
- Status