Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[GostHacked]

If you want to read my arguments Rue, parse through the thread if you wish.

[cybercoma]

Right and you think giggling at typo errors does what exactly? Does it make you feel good about yourself? really? Lol. Well I em glahd I can hep you feel good about yerself being aybel to edit. becuz you never made a typ in your lyf.

Oh come on, now. I wasn't calling you an idiot or anything. We've all made typos. I was just tossing around a few amusing puns. I apologize if it offended you. I didn't mean it like that. Edited February 22, 2014 by cybercoma

[jacee]

I wasn't going to respond but I am going to finish it. Venting evidence refers to the smell test. It has nothing to do with vetting although in this case they are tatamount to the same thing. The smell test or venting passing out the gas from the evidence to get to the substance is one expression. Testing it to make sure its authentic is another.

Now ur just making it up as you go along ... or perhaps parodying yourself ?

At this point the best your group has done is to bring up typing errors and completely ignore and avoid the fact that the police do indeed have legal obligations to vet evidence

vett ... all good.

and that under codes of ethics for journalists they have many smell tests.

Ah ... now we're down to smell tests.

It smelled like news ...

Whether it broke their code is disputable, and nobody has formally disputed it to my knowledge.

Are we done yet?

Edited February 22, 2014 by jacee

[Rue]

Cyber thank you for that. lost track of who was doing what, Apprediated that explanation.

[Rue]

No Jacee that\s the problem. I may be a lot of things but I have no reason to make things up. On this forum I have put some noises out of joint over forum exchanges over Israel and its clearly spilled over into thiese discussions.

I apologize to Cyber again. Its hard to know when one is joking or taking a jab sometimes on this forum.

I told you I respected you. I had no intention o pursue this and I was pushed. I will now shut up on this issue and leave it for you to put a stake in it and let it get back to the original thread and not about me.

Lol, yes we call it smell test. No I did not make that up. Go ask some editor. I have had a few. each one has their own smell test

There is a range on what editors allow but for the most part there is a line they will not cross.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Rue

[Black Dog]

The bottom line Black Dog is that you came on this board and tried to bait me personally and suggest I made up the standard operating procedures that police must follow before they can present evidence to the media and courts.

Cite required.

The bottom line Black dog is that you can not deny the above exists or the codes of ethics that I referred to which you claimed I made up.

Cite required.

The bottom line is the lot of you do not have the integrity to admit I did not make up the police procedures or codes of ethics.

Cite required.

The bottom line is you tried to attack typos and not discuss the issues.

False.

The bottom line is you let your personal feelings for me cloud your responses.

Exactly backwards.

The bottom line is when anyone sees a video but never authenticates it, that does not make it first hand evidence as much as you try spin that it does.

"Authenticates" how?

It does not become direct evidence until it comes into the physical possession of the reporter and is tested for authenticity, until then its second hand unverified evidence and yes there was a time a newspaper would never run such a story and I deliberately used the Calgary code of ethics because they were forced to rexamine their code of ethical procedures after being involved in a scandal that undermined their credibility.

Nonsense. You are implying that the standards for journalism are the same as in a court of law. That is not the case.

The Star did exactly what they should have done. They did not pay for the evidence. They did not report on the tape until the news was already out. They made no claims as to the authenticity of the video or its contents. As Rob Ford would say: anything else?

The bottom line is you can accuse me of lying, pretending I am a lawter, law professor and have made a living as a journalist. I don't care. This was never about me. Never has been. Your attempt to try make it about me speaks for itself.

If someone makes claims about their expertise to lend their views credibility and then goes on to do make basic errors that suggest their expertise is not what they say, I'm gonna point that out. in other words, if you don't want people attacking your credentials, don't use your alleged credentials to prop up your arguments and then make basic errors that undermine your credibility.

By the way one other bottom line. The issue is not just whether the Star paid for the video and again you missed that point in an attempt to try avoid once again the actual ethical issue. Its not the paying or not paying of the video that makes it questionable. That is but one ethical criteria. You completely missed the point. The codes I showed you and many others exist and state as I have shown, that when someone offers you any evidence that they try make money off of, a red flag goes off there is a conflict of interest that necessarily brings that person's reputation into question making it even more crucial not to run the story until the tape could be taken in and varified.

Cite required. There's nothing in either code of conduct you linked to that says this. Both simply say "don't pay for information."

The bottom line is the police are obliged by law to vet evidence or as we say in slang and you people do not get vent it, i.e., give it the smell test, air it out.

Nobody has said otherwise. The question, which you clearly cannot answer, is what they did to verify the video's authenticity.

One other thing: you seem to think the standards for journalists are the same as those required to get a criminal conviction. That's simply absurd.

You are so busy jumping on vent and vet you avoided the very issue as usual.

Victim card. I've taken each of your points to task. The rest is gravy.

I provided the very manual and laws that oblige the police to vent/vet the evidence before relasing it.

No one contested that.

As for your absurd comment there is no code of ethics for newspapers, I provided one.

I made no such comment. This is another lie.

The fact that you now pretend I did not give you the very things you said did not exist repeat once again an m.o. by you with me to call me a liar or infer I make things up and then when you are provided the basis for these remarks, rather than have the decency to acknowledge them continue to deny them and state yet more personal accusations and attacks.

Stop lying, I'll stop calling you a liar.

This latest name calling accusing me of making false accusations against other posters- that's par for the course. Its exactly what happens with you and I. When you cant' debate the issues I present, you try bait me and avoid the issues..

Your track record speaks for itself: you make claims about posters (I called you a pedophile, Hudson said Israel is a cancer, I said codes of conduct don't exist, etc.) and when called to back it up, you simply repeat the claim instead of supplying evidence.

But yeah, you're always the victim, it's never your fault.

The name calling speaks loudly. Calling me a liar, full of crap, all these names, they reflect on you not I.

Truth is the ultimate defense. You are a proven liar who is also full of crap on this. That's not name calling, that's just fact.

I wasn't going to respond but I am going to finish it. Venting evidence refers to the smell test. It has nothing to do with vetting although in this case they are tatamount to the same thing. The smell test or venting passing out the gas from the evidence to get to the substance is one expression. Testing it to make sure its authentic is another.

At this point the best your group has done is to bring up typing errors and completely ignore and avoid the fact that the police do indeed have legal obligations to vet evidence and that under codes of ethics for journalists they have many smell tests.

Now you go giggle away at that.

Holy shit this is the lamest attempt at ass-covering I have ever seen, especially since you first implied the vent/vet thing was a "typo" and now you're claiming its real terminology.

Here's what you said:

Guyser you made a statement that Blair did not vent the tapes before releasing them to the press. That is absolutely wrong. He can't. Procedures won't allow him to release anything to the press let alone to the courts as criminal evidence without first venting them. The fact that you refuse to admit such standard operating procedures exist doesn't make them go away nor will trying to bait me like Blubber or Black Dog make them go away.

It's pretty clear here that you were using "vent" as a synonym for "authenticate" and not some informal assessment, which is what "smell test" means.

You're in a hole, yet you just can't stop digging.

[jacee]

I had no intention o pursue this and I was pushed.

You insisted that people agree with your opinion.

That's not happening. Move on.

[cybercoma]

I apologize to Cyber again. Its hard to know when one is joking or taking a jab sometimes on this forum.

No need to apologize to me. It's totally understandable.

[Rue]

Jacee I nave never insisted anyone agree with me on anything. More to the point when someone asks for cites he's already been provided that s peaks for itself a well. As for the vent/vet you really want to keep flogging that? For someone who finds the topic boring its interesting what you do spend your time focusing on, Whether its called vent or vet it makes zero difference to the issues presented and that I backed up. I could care less if anyone agrees with them but to suggest they were made up or not provided shows where Balck Dog is at and now your preoccupation with vent/vet and making this silly claim I want people to agree with me is not the issue at all. This is a debating forum. I could care less if someone agrees or does not agree with me. Its a free world.

[BubberMiley]

The above statementy is illogical. My typing errors have nothing to do with whether standard police operations for vetting evidence exists or whether codes of journalist ethics I referred to exist. That is however the kind of response I have come to expect from you.

Maybe it's because you refuse to address Black Dog's clear, concise, and typo-free explanation of how the Star did not fail to meet the standards you cited.

[Black Dog]

Jacee I nave never insisted anyone agree with me on anything. More to the point when someone asks for cites he's already been provided that s peaks for itself a well.

You haven't provided the citations I have asked for. Again: who claimed there was no such thing as journalism codes of conduct/standards or that police don't authenticate evidence before it goes to the courts? I want exact quotes.

As for the vent/vet you really want to keep flogging that? For someone who finds the topic boring its interesting what you do spend your time focusing on, Whether its called vent or vet it makes zero difference to the issues presented and that I backed up.

I for one would have let it go were it not for the absurd claim you made that vent is some lingo for smell test, which is the same as authentication (it is not).

[jacee]

"no such thing" ???

Rue said that somebody said there's no such thing as journalism standards?

Rue! Shame!

Cite!

Show us where somebody said that!

Or retract it.

And "vent" is a smell test ... mhm ...

Admit it.

U R joking

Right?

U R using up your creds.

Some hills ain't worth dyin on Rue!

.

[Rue]

Lol Jacee since you areBlack Dog's spokesperson now,for the record:

1-he contended to me that the chant fist by fist blow by blow hey ho Israel must go is not a reference to violence and the destructon of Israel

2-was provided the site for standard police operations standards he claimed I made up

3-was provided codes of ethics for journalism to back up exactly what I stated and was told did not exist and that I was making up

4-contends that a poster stating Zionism is a cancer that needs to be rid from the world after first referring to Israel as an evil Zionist regime is not a reference to destroying Israel

6-repeatedly calls me a liar and full of crap posing that as absolute truth

7-claiming a statement made to me asking me if I am able to prove I am not a pedophile was just a silly absurd way of debating a point

That is no hill.Just someone baiting,

You want to keep flogging this?

Flaunting my credentials? Using up my credits? What is that?

If you or anyone else feels insecure because I have written articles for a living or practiced law and want to keep giggling at that as flaunting credentials go ahead. Its not and I couse me of making uld care less what you think of me or my credentials.

No I don't hide behind semantics to justify calling for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state or when avoiding topics I am called out on as other have.

No I not wiggle and dance my way through gay pride parades yelling fist by fist blow by blow hey ho Israel has to go and argue that this is appropriate for a gay pride parade and better still is should be funded by the city government.

No Blll Blair just throws out evidence to the press and courts with no screening process and as was claimed he did and then when given the proper police procedures as was claimed on this board.

Semantics, semitics, vent ,vet.

The issue is about Ford and what is the proper way to hold him accountable not oh well he's an ignorant pig so it doesn't matter how we take the pig down.

From the get go this has been a pig hunt.Ford is a large loud hog and many gloat at his self destruction. I am disgusted by it and his slow suicide in public.

The fact he is as low as it gets does not mean he or anyone else is entitled to presumption of innocence and it doe snot excuse the line the Star crossed over and then the Globe followed.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Rue

[jacee]

... it doe snot ...

Well that was worth reading only for the typo gem!

[On Guard for Thee]

Well that was worth reading only for the typo gem!

I've seen that stuff stuck to pine trees when I used to snowshoe in the woods back in Ont.

[jacee]

Thanks for sharing.

[Boges]

John Tory is going to join the race. I didn't think he'd do it.

I don't even really see Tory as a true conservative anymore. But if you had listened to his show he does highlight the REAL Gravy Train. People at City Hall that rake in large salaries that do noting (you know pencil and paper pushers)

[Mighty AC]

I'm glad cons have a sane option in T.O. Unfortunately, Tory and those slow enough to vote Tommy Boy could end up splitting the conservative vote letting another candidate through.

[Boges]

I'm glad cons have a sane option in T.O. Unfortunately, Tory and those slow enough to vote Tommy Boy could end up splitting the conservative vote letting another candidate through.

People might think that, but remember in 2010 Rocco Rossi was a centre right candidate and people just didn't like him.

As the race develops people are going to drop out and throw their support behind someone or be decimated to single digits.

Chow is sort of like JT. She's popular but hasn't said much. The only thing she seems to be saying is the Gardiner should be torn down. Good luck getting elected in Scarborough with that policy.

[Black Dog]

Lol Jacee since you areBlack Dog's spokesperson now,for the record:

1-he contended to me that the chant fist by fist blow by blow hey ho Israel must go is not a reference to violence and the destructon of Israel

Cite? I never said that.

2-was provided the site for standard police operations standards he claimed I made up

Prove that I made such a claim

3-was provided codes of ethics for journalism to back up exactly what I stated and was told did not exist and that I was making up

prove that I made such a claim

4-contends that a poster stating Zionism is a cancer that needs to be rid from the world after first referring to Israel as an evil Zionist regime is not a reference to destroying Israel

The exact issue was whether or not Hudson had said Israel was a cancer that needed to be wiped out, but there's no evidence such a statement was made.

6-repeatedly calls me a liar and full of crap posing that as absolute truth

There's ample examples of you lying. See the point above.

7-claiming a statement made to me asking me if I am able to prove I am not a pedophile was just a silly absurd way of debating a point

Which it was, as should be obvious to anyone who reads the post in context.

Anyway, it seems clear by now that there's something really wrong with you. Your inability to argue in good faith, to support your arguments with evidence and logic, it all makes me wonder why you are even on this board.

[Black Dog]

People might think that, but remember in 2010 Rocco Rossi was a centre right candidate and people just didn't like him.

As the race develops people are going to drop out and throw their support behind someone or be decimated to single digits.

Chow is sort of like JT. She's popular but hasn't said much. The only thing she seems to be saying is the Gardiner should be torn down. Good luck getting elected in Scarborough with that policy.

When did she say that?

[Rue]

Cautionary Note: any typos have been created by Zionist Mason illuminati intercepting my messages

I think you are right Bog, I think eventually who ever is allegedly on the right will be asked politely to step aside. I think in the final analysis it will come down to Chow, with Ford and Tory vying for the anyone but Chow voters. I can not see Stinz winning at this point. She is a poor communicator. Her anouncment on Global television this morning was painful to watch-canned responses, stiff fake smile barely showing her lack of patience-not good meta communication. Chow is going to run of course. She feels she is the annointed Messiah of the leftist NDP millionaire elitists of Toronto.

I openly support Tory. I think he is a progressive or Red Tory and that I think is the balance between fiscal responsibility but trying to balance compassion for the marginalized in Toronto.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Rue

[Topaz]

When it comes to picking a mayor, I rather see an election among the candidates and the winner runs against the present mayor, so its one to one.

[PIK]

Listening to the radio and the hosts were talking about how ford will be the cicus at the mayor meetings in ottawa. But really it is not ford it is the media itself that is the circus. Ford shows up and of course the media goes wild and after one question of why he was there (infrastructure money) they scream '' have you done drugs since nov'' well he just walked away. So maybe it is time for the media to back off and go find something important to report on like the corruption at queens park, or even report on the actual meeting.

[BubberMiley]

Ford loves the attention though. I can't see any other reason why he would go be interviewed by Matt Lauer.

I was surprised that he would think his answer of "I don't do illegal drugs" wouldn't be a dead giveaway that he must have done illegal drugs recently.