Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[Shady]

You two still don't get it. It's not simply that a journalist said the video exists. It's that there's corroborating testimony from more than one journalist, as well as the grocery list of other factors that BubberMiley posted. The totality of the evidence has already been pointed out to you that, so quit being so utterly dishonest with this discussion that you would look at one thing and claim that's the point being made. It's not and your total refusal to honestly consider what's being said is obnoxious at best.

You still don't get it. Corroboration of something unprovable is meaningless. The whole story was based on a magical video that doesn't exist. Either show us the video or STFU. Otherwise, it's just national enquirer type stuff.

Regardless, I still have a video of Mulcair killing a prostitute. He'd better resign soon or I may have to release it.

[cybercoma]

And you reply with the exact same narrow understanding.

[Guest American Woman]

You two still don't get it. It's not simply that a journalist said the video exists. It's that there's corroborating testimony from more than one journalist, as well as the grocery list of other factors that BubberMiley posted. The totality of the evidence has already been pointed out to you that, so quit being so utterly dishonest with this discussion that you would look at one thing and claim that's the point being made. It's not and your total refusal to honestly consider what's being said is obnoxious at best.

I get it just fine - and it's exactly as I said. The "grocery list of other factors" is nothing more than what I said it is regarding the authenticity of this video. That you can't see that doesn't make my take on it "dishonest," and to put it politely, your accusation of such is evidence of an inability to accept what others honestly have to say. I know what point I'm making, and your claim that it's not what I say it is, that I am dishonest because I won't say it is, is, well, let's just say that "obnoxious" doesn't even begin to cover it.

[cybercoma]

You always know exactly what you're saying. The problem with your posts is that apparently you can't communicate that to anyone else.

[Guest American Woman]

You always know exactly what you're saying. The problem with your posts is that apparently you can't communicate that to anyone else.

If you can't understand what I am saying, the problem lies with you.

[g_bambino]

Except people have seen the Ford video.

I've looked back through a few pages of this thread and didn't notice anyone mention the fact that the police, in their conduct of Operation Traveller, became aware through wiretaps of the Ford video before when Gawker's and The Star's journalists said they saw it.

It's funny how people just keep wanting so hard to believe the implausible (drug dealers producing a convincing fake video of Rob Ford smoking crack; a conspiracy theory of journalists from two media sources in two countries and now the Toronto Police teaming up to make a false story about a video of Rob Ford smoking crack) to be plausible.

[Shady]

If you can't understand what I am saying, the problem lies with you.

Well said. Their Orwellian double-speak of having to prove a negative is absurd. So is their so-called evidence. All based on a video that doesn't exist. But a few people say it does. But with no video, there's no way to find out if what they say is true. It's a loop of journalistic malpractice tolerated only because of the individual that's being targeted. It's completely pathetic.

[Shady]

They're essentially Rob Ford birthers.

[g_bambino]

All based on a video that doesn't exist..

Prove it doesn't exist.

[Guest American Woman]

....a conspiracy theory of journalists from two media sources in two countries and now the Toronto Police teaming up to make a false story about a video of Rob Ford smoking crack) to be plausible.

Have the police seen the video? If not, they have no idea of its authenticity.

[cybercoma]

I've looked back through a few pages of this thread and didn't notice anyone mention the fact that the police, in their conduct of Operation Traveller, became aware through wiretaps of the Ford video before when Gawker's and The Star's journalists said they saw it.

It's funny how people just keep wanting so hard to believe the implausible (drug dealers producing a convincing fake video of Rob Ford smoking crack; a conspiracy theory of journalists from two media sources in two countries and now the Toronto Police teaming up to make a false story about a video of Rob Ford smoking crack) to be plausible.

A very good point. I thought people knew about this, but you're right. It hasn't come up. But this is what I mean about their myopic focus, failing to account for the abundance of evidence that suggests there's a good possibility the video is legit. Shady often has a hard time dealing in probabilities though.

[Shady]

Prove it doesn't exist.

Exactly.

[g_bambino]

Have the police seen the video? If not, they have no idea of its authenticity.

Of course they don't. But, please go back to the first of the implausible theories I mentioned in brackets and which you edited out when quoting me in your reply.

[Shady]

Yes, there's a good possibility that the video that doesn't exist is legit! LOL! More Ford birtherism.

[g_bambino]

Exactly.

Sorry, that doesn't satisfy my request.

[Shady]

Regardless, how can you tell what somebody is smoking in a video. Can you tell what somebody is drinking in a picture? If so, I've got a picture of Mulcair drinking what I'm pretty sure is vodka at a public event, during the morning!

[Shady]

Sorry, that doesn't satisfy my request.

Prove that it does. See, there's no end to this.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course they don't. But, please go back to the first of the implausible theories I mentioned in brackets and which you edited out when quoting me in your reply.

I didn't include it in my quote because it didn't pertain to the only point I wanted to make. I'm not sure what else you want me to say here?

Edited June 16, 2013 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

But this is what I mean about their myopic focus, failing to account for the abundance of evidence that suggests there's a good possibility the video is legit. Shady often has a hard time dealing in probabilities though.

I have begun to wonder whether or not they (AW, Shady, and others) are picking up on the fact that noone has--well, I, at least, haven't--said with absolute certainty that there is a video or that, if there is one, it is authentic. With me having never seen any video myself, it would be impossible for me to do so. However, as more information keeps coming out and ancillary events take place, it's becoming more and more plausible that a video exists and that, combined with a little rational thought about what would be involved in the production of a convincing fake video, it's real. As you said, evidence is suggesting more and more a good possibility the video is legitimate, whereas attempting to believe the opposite requires ignorance of the evidence and adherence to unlikelihoods.

[g_bambino]

Prove that it does. See, there's no end to this.

There's apparently no end to your avoidance of my request.

[g_bambino]

I didn't include it in my quote because it didn't pertain to the only point I wanted to make.

Yet, in making the only point you wanted to make, you specifically raised the matter of authenticity, which was addressed in the part of my post you edited out.

[Guest American Woman]

I have begun to wonder whether or not they (AW, Shady, and others) are picking up on the fact that noone has--well, I, at least, haven't--said with absolute certainty that there is a video or that, if there is one, it is authentic. With me having never seen any video myself, it would be impossible for me to do so. However, as more information keeps coming out and ancillary events take place, it's becoming more and more plausible that a video exists and that, combined with a little rational thought about what would be involved in the production of a convincing fake video, it's real. As you said, evidence is suggesting more and more a good possibility the video is legitimate, whereas attempting to believe the opposite requires ignorance of the evidence and adherence to unlikelihoods.

Who said I believed it wasn't authentic?? I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read what I've had to say before mouthing off about me. And speak for yourself, as I doubt if you've read every post I've responded to. But bottom line - my stance has been all along that no one outside of those directly involved knows if it's authentic - and Ford's "past history" and that of his "inner circle" has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is.

[Shady]

There's apparently no end to your avoidance of my request.

Ditto.

[Guest American Woman]

Yet, in making the only point you wanted to make, you specifically raised the matter of authenticity, which was addressed in the part of my post you edited out.

So again, what do you want me to say?? My point, my only point, was to say that the police, having knowledge of it's existence, having not seen it, have no idea if it's authentic or not.

[g_bambino]

My point, my only point, was to say that the police, having knowledge of it's existence, having not seen it, have no idea if it's authentic or not.

Right. But you won't address the matter of how unlikely it is that drug dealers in an Etobicoke ghetto would be able to orchestrate the production of a convincing fake video. Instead, you just edited that part out of your quote of me, but, in your response, used the point that the police haven't seen the video in order to once more cast doubt on the authenticity of it, anyway.