[HaveLove]

No one will deny we are decades behind with rapid transit in this city and that Scarborough and other areas of Toronto need LRT/subway service however I really need to know, how does it take 1.5-2 hrs. to get downtown? I grew up and lived in Scarborough ("midtown" Scarborough), I head out on occasion to visit old friends, family and my grandmother's resting spot and it doesn't take me much more than 45 minutes to an hour to get to any of those places from Yonge & Wellesley.

Hello, thank you for a civilized and non-personal attack response, much appreciated, seems to be rare in these parts.

My reference to 1.5-2 hours was from a few pages back, to get to Eaton Center for example sakes (up to 2 hours in rush hour). I live in the middlefield and mcnicoll area, so in order to get to a subway, we have to go ~45 mins down finch, or ~10 minutes then another ~30 down Kennedy. Now when we are at the subway, we can finally enter the long 45-60 minute route from kennedy station to union station. Let's not forget how overcrowded busses can be in scarborough too. It's definitely gotten better in the last decade when it comes to more frequent service, but it can still be a very dreadful trip.

 

[soimelk]

I don't have any evidence it's just my ALLEGATION (just like Ford's allegations). But if the video comes out and it's pot in the video, then yes, that is proof that the Star and Gawker have a criminal conspiracy going on.


So your ignoring our other convo and jumping into the next attempt at trashing me? Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.

First, I'm not trashing you as a person. I'm trashing your opinions, and the arguments you use to make them. The difference between your allegations of a criminal Star/Gawker conspiracy, and those that link Ford to crack, is that yours is a stand alone statement. When Donovan, Doolittle and Cook made their initial allegations, it was based on what they saw. They have good reputations, so enough people believed them to look further. Upon further investigation by them and others, more events have taken place which further substantiate the initial claim. Your allegation isn't something you witnessed, just something you hope had happened. That's what distinguishes a credible allegation from a baseless one.

 

[HaveLove]

Sure that seems reasonable.. except the person from Ford's office that called the police was Ford's chief of staff who also told Ford he has to "go to rehab" and was soon after fired. Three papers including the Sun reported this from their reliable source which means they each independently had a(the) source that told them this (and thus was not "copy cat" reporting). Towhey for what it's worth has never publicly denied the words quoted to him (which someone like him would likely do if they were being incorrectly quoted). But of course you believe all three papers are capable of completely fabricating all of this so really I'm wasting my breath.

The strange thing though... if your completely reasonable story is true why wouldn't Ford just explain this to us instead of dodging the media for a week, shaving is head, saying "I don't smoke crack" and then refusing to give any further details? It's all a just big misunderstanding!!!

Ford is hardly ever out of public view, when does he have time to smoke crack? At his home with his kids? Then obviously child aid would be involved a while ago and wouldn't wait... His "assistant" deserved to get fired, jumping the bandwagon telling him publicly to go to rehab just for publicity. If you really care about somebody who has a substance abuse problem, you don't go telling it to cameras, you talk privately with them.

The whole thing is BOOOOOOGUS, and when it's over with and you realize it, you will look back and laugh at yourself. Or when the proof comes he's not a crack head, people will still chase the idea.

While viewing a video is the most literal way to prove something exists, if many other credible people find information that corroborates it exists, a reasonable person can make a judgement that something exists, even if they haven't seen it yet.



If you actually read the newspaper stories, they clearly mention that Ford was seen holding a crack pipe. There are also related stories that mention the difference between a crack pipe, and a pipe used for weed. If you're going to try to debate this issue, perhaps knowing something about what you're talking about would help you.

So with your logic, it leads back to cult culture. You can't just say something exists because you were TOLD to believe it does...

I did a quick google search on the differences:

crack pipe-a straight pipe with steal wool in it so when the crack melts it can still be burnt, the crack is burned directly by the lighter.

meth pipe- a straight pipe with a bulb at the end, the meth goes in the bulb and the lighter is used to heat the bulb and in turn vaporizing the meth.

regular pipe-has a screen in it to keep burning plant material from going into your mouth, which is burned directly by the flame.

Read more: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19967#ixzz2dac5tsdC

From the looks of it, the only difference is if there is a steal wool, or a "screen". I really can't wrap my head around the idea that a couple reporters saw something on a TINY LITTLE CELL PHONE VIDEO, and KNEW that there was wool under the burning substance so it must have been crack and not weed. I didn't know our city had super hero x-ray vision reporters, good to know.

Once again, bogus.

 

[HaveLove]

First, I'm not trashing you as a person. I'm trashing your opinions, and the arguments you use to make them. The difference between your allegations of a criminal Star/Gawker conspiracy, and those that link Ford to crack, is that yours is a stand alone statement. When Donovan, Doolittle and Cook made their initial allegations, it was based on what they saw. They have good reputations, so enough people believed them to look further. Upon further investigation by them and others, more events have taken place which further substantiate the initial claim. Your allegation isn't something you witnessed, just something you hope had happened. That's what distinguishes a credible allegation from a baseless one.

I can say the same for you, your belief is not something you witnessed, just something you hope is true.

 

[adma]

Okay; he promised to leave after 7 posts. Now he's cracked three times that number.

So, HaveLove: you're knocking "cult culture" and anti-Human "Bullies". And a lot of UTers'll probably have seen this coming from me, but...remember: a lot of UT discussion tends to revolve around architecture, urban design, et al.

Because, go through this thread.. By your parameters, I suppose, a lot of the aesthetic discussion and handwringing *there* might constitute a sort of "cult culture" and anti-human bullying.

(Ah, who needs slut-shaming; there's nothing more sublime than philistine-shaming...)

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Why are you guys even trying with HaveLove? Having logical arguments with the illogical is a fools game. Ignore him and move on. Let him come to his own conclusions once the more damning evidence (and possibly arrests) happen in a few weeks.

Enjoy your weekend.

 

[soimelk]

I can say the same for you, your belief is not something you witnessed, just something you hope is true.

I'd say the difference between our positions is the reasonableness of the conclusions we draw from the scandal. I saw you in another reply jump through hoops saying that Towhey did what he did for publicity, not for the good of the Mayor's health, or the city's well being. I suppose a possibility, but based on what those close to him have said about his character and personality, not likely.

It seems that when confronted with making inferences about all of the events that have transpired, you choose the option least likely to be true, so long as it defends Ford.

 

[soimelk]

You make a very good point. I guess i just like the exercise.

 

[HaveLove]

Okay; he promised to leave after 7 posts. Now he's cracked three times that number.

So, HaveLove: you're knocking "cult culture" and anti-Human "Bullies". And a lot of UTers'll probably have seen this coming from me, but...remember: a lot of UT discussion tends to revolve around architecture, urban design, et al.

Because, go through this thread.. By your parameters, I suppose, a lot of the aesthetic discussion and handwringing *there* might constitute a sort of "cult culture" and anti-human bullying.

(Ah, who needs slut-shaming; there's nothing more sublime than philistine-shaming...)

Please don't assume the worst out of my words, I'm not trying to paint everyone with the same picture. Believing the video exists and having a discussion on it is one thing, but attacking my personal character without knowing me because I stated an opinion that differed from theirs, is bully-like and cult-like behaviour, and a little weird. The link you provided, is business talk, it is not personal talk, so of course there is going to be pokes here and there about business. When it comes to accusing somebody of being a crack head, and spreading the hate that arises from it and opposing anyone who has a different opinion, is far different from what is going on in that thread. So don't try to compare apples with oranges please and thanks.

 

[nfitz]

Why are you guys even trying with HaveLove?

I don't know. We've established clearly he/she/it's a liar. And given he's alleging to support Ford because of his transit policy (all those bus routes he cancelled which were more in Scarborough than downtown perhaps?) one can assume he's only trolling us ...

 

[mrtinfoilsocket]

Ford is hardly ever out of public view, when does he have time to smoke crack? At his home with his kids? Then obviously child aid would be involved a while ago and wouldn't wait... His "assistant" deserved to get fired, jumping the bandwagon telling him publicly to go to rehab just for publicity. If you really care about somebody who has a substance abuse problem, you don't go telling it to cameras, you talk privately with them.

He's a Chief of Staff not an "assistant".

According to the story he didn't publicly tell Ford to go to Rehab, he told him directly because Ford was acting irrationally. At that time he was fired and THEN a source related the events to all three media organizations. Also, at the same time Rob's people were scouring the city looking for the imaginary tape and sources relate that Rob told staff not to worry because they knew where it was. Those staff members (one with an incredibly shady background and criminal convictions) are now under investigation by the TPS.

But it's all a fabrication by thestar.

You didn't address my other point though - if your story is more accurate why didn't Rob just explain the misunderstanding to everybody? That's what I and most rational people would do.

 

[Tee]

I should have trusted my instincts and left my pic up instead of responding to a certain posted request.

 

[HaveLove]

I'd say the difference between our positions is the reasonableness of the conclusions we draw from the scandal. I saw you in another reply jump through hoops saying that Towhey did what he did for publicity, not for the good of the Mayor's health, or the city's well being. I suppose a possibility, but based on what those close to him have said about his character and personality, not likely.

It seems that when confronted with making inferences about all of the events that have transpired, you choose the option least likely to be true, so long as it defends Ford.

Once again, just because I have a different point of view from you, does not mean I am any less reasonable of the conclusion then you are. We are all in the same boat, stuck in limbo WAITING for the result of the entire scandal. I just happen to be on the other side because I care about complete truth, no guessing truths, but complete and utter factual evidence.d Gawker, they broke a story people LOVED before it was even proven, then disappointed everyone by not being able to prove it.

I would have been on the other side, if the Toronto Star and Gawker didn't flop on providing evidence for their well concocted story.

 

[adma]

Please don't assume the worst out of my words, I'm not trying to paint everyone with the same picture. Believing the video exists and having a discussion on it is one thing, but attacking my personal character without knowing me because I stated an opinion that differed from theirs, is bully-like and cult-like behaviour, and a little weird. The link you provided, is business talk, it is not personal talk, so of course there is going to be pokes here and there about business. When it comes to accusing somebody of being a crack head, and spreading the hate that arises from it and opposing anyone who has a different opinion, is far different from what is going on in that thread. So don't try to compare applies with oranges please and thanks.

*Business talk*?!? Did you even read the thread?!? That's the most bizarre categorization I've ever read...unless you're admitting you're totally disengaged from matters of urban aesthetics.

So, metaphorically speaking, may I offer the following before-and-after.

According to what you might consider to be UT "cult culture", what was done to this building was "bullying".

Whereas by your inverse logic, the UT-style knocks on what was done here is "bullying"; y'know, spreading the hate, opposing different aesthetic opinion, tromping on property-owner's rights, etc...

 

[HaveLove]

*Business talk*?!? Did you even read the thread?!? That's the most bizarre categorization I've ever read...unless you're admitting you're totally disengaged from matters of urban aesthetics.

So, metaphorically speaking, may I offer the following before-and-after.

According to what you might consider to be UT "cult culture", what was done to this building was "bullying".

Whereas by your inverse logic, the UT-style knocks on what was done here is "bullying"; y'know, spreading the hate, opposing different aesthetic opinion, etc...

My apologies, I read the first few sentences and found it completely unappealing to read and moved back to this thread, so no I did not even read the thread.

According to your metaphor, you don't know what a metaphor is. I love the new building, that has nothing to do with the ford scandal. Being called a crack head, and getting a building turned into a new beautiful building, please connect the dots for me I'm not seeing it.

I just went back to double check what I wrote, and I still don't understand your metaphor. I am not saying it's wrong or cult-like to disagree with anyone with a different point of view, there's nothing wrong with that.

There is DEFINITELY something wrong with attacking people PERSONALLY just because they have a different point of view. Please paint your picture for me, I'd love to see how strange these dots can connect......