guyser Posted December 12, 2013 Report Posted December 12, 2013 (edited) The editors and producers have final say in what gets aired. And--though I didn't watch but have read about--the interview seemed barely any softer on Ford than Peter Mansbridge's was (and that--which I did watch--was disappointingly soft). No quibble with that, but the simple truth is Black is renowned for his research, and where was it here? The conundrum is Black fancies himself as a truth seeker and his prior knowledge of facts does not play well here. Add on top of that, Zoomer does have editors, so why did they let obvious (and potentially if not egregiously slanderous/libelous) falsehoods and outright lies to go on air? All said, Dale the reporter should print pieces on this reiterating the truth, but he should not sue and hope he doesnt. Dont want the fat boy to become a martyr Edited December 12, 2013 by Guyser2 Quote
jacee Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 No quibble with that, but the simple truth is Black is renowned for his research, and where was it here? The conundrum is Black fancies himself as a truth seeker and his prior knowledge of facts does not play well here. Add on top of that, Zoomer does have editors, so why did they let obvious (and potentially if not egregiously slanderous/libelous) falsehoods and outright lies to go on air? All said, Dale the reporter should print pieces on this reiterating the truth, but he should not sue and hope he doesnt. Dont want the fat boy to become a martyr And Daniel Dale takes legal action ... http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/toronto/story/1.2462081 Quote
BubberMiley Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Indiscriminately calling someone a pedophile is a trait that pretty much all of humanity, right and left, despises, so I would even be so optimistic to think that this would actually be the straw that breaks the 42% approval rating. But maybe I'm naive. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
g_bambino Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 (edited) Seems to me nobody has to ask Ford hard questions: Just put a mike on him and he smears himself. I think the point of an interview is to get answers and the side of the story from the person smeared. Even if an interview of Ford hasn't been tame, the more pointed questions are simply batted aside by this buffoon with automated responses like "I've admitted I did crack", "I'm only human", "you enjoy a few drinks on the weekend, don't you?", "it's a politically motivated attack on me", "I saved taxpayers a billion dollars", "I have the biggest mandate in Toronto history", etc. Often these are given in retort to a question on a subject not even remotely related. [ed.: sp.] Edited December 13, 2013 by g_bambino Quote
g_bambino Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Zoomer does have editors, so why did they let obvious (and potentially if not egregiously slanderous/libelous) falsehoods and outright lies to go on air? Controversy attracts eyes, I guess. Quote
g_bambino Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Indiscriminately calling someone a pedophile... Ah, but he didn't actually call Dale a paedophile. And we all know how Ford loves semantics. Quote
jacee Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Ah, but he didn't actually call Dale a paedophile. And we all know how Ford loves semantics. I guess it depends whether the judge sees it as defamatory: /full-text-daniel-dales-libel-notice-against-toronto-mayor-rob-ford Daniel Dale in my backyard taking pictures. I have little kids. When a guys taking pictures of little kids, I dont want to say the word, but you start thinking, you know, whats this guy all about? Quote
Black Dog Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Ah, but he didn't actually call Dale a paedophile. And we all know how Ford loves semantics. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you can smear someone by implication. Quote
jacee Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 (edited) IANAL,? but I'm pretty sure you can smear someone by implication.It will certainly be interesting to watch Ford try to weasel out of this in front of a judge. I dont want to say the word ... Judge: What 'word', Mr. Ford? Edited December 13, 2013 by jacee Quote
Rue Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Lol Blackdog you can not defame by indirect inference. If that was possible trust me you would know by now given what you said to me in the past about being a pedophile. The bottom line is there is insufficient words to prove defamation. Its a non issue. Its despicable, its boorish, its typical Ford, being ignorant and repulsive, but it probably won't meet the legal test. If it did, the test for defamation would be too low a bar and establish a huge infringement on freedom of speech. You actually have to state the words. The state can not be asked to be psychic and assume the words. I am sure you might like that Dog, and then we could have a police state where governments and courts can infer what you are thinking and read your mind. Dale also has another serious issue. He won't be able to quantify damages. Its one thing to try argue defamation now he also has to go prove the damages. What damages. He has to show actual damages, not speculate their might be damages in the future. More to the point all Ford's stupid comment has done is guarantee Dale probable job security in the media as a martyr or victim not the opposite. Ford's comments were pathetic but Dale is only adding fuel to them and giving them undeserved attention by suing. Sometimes you have to let the fat boy fart and let the smell speak for itself. Quote
Black Dog Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Lol Blackdog you can not defame by indirect inference. If that was possible trust me you would know by now given what you said to me in the past about being a pedophile. Still lying about that eh? Quote
Black Dog Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 FTR if anyone wonders why Rue keeps claiming I called him a pedo, here's the post in question. Quote
BubberMiley Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Lol Blackdog you can not defame by indirect inference.Lol Rue, you should look up libel per quod. IANAL, but if you are, you obviously aren't a very good one. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
scribblet Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you can smear someone by implication. I don't believe the reporter is a pervert or whatever the word was intended to be, but Ford does know all about being smeared by implication. I'd say it was karma or just retribution. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
BubberMiley Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 (edited) I don't believe the reporter is a pervert or whatever the word was intended to be, but Ford does know all about being smeared by implication. I'd say it was karma or just retribution.What are you referring to? By saying it's karmic retribution, you are implying the reporter did something wrong when he tried to report on Ford's shady attempt to obtain city land. You're also suggesting that Ford has been smeared by anything other than his own actions. BTW, I only ask this question because I don't expect you to have the strength of argument to back up anything you say. Edited December 13, 2013 by BubberMiley Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
left_alberta Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Here is a quote, cut-and-pasted from the comments under a Star article about Tom Flanagan's child-pornography comments earlier this year... "May be time to inspect his personal computers" Could this be construed as libel? Even if you want to argue that Flanagan opened himself up for the speculation by entertaining the legalization of child-porn, the quote is still suggesting that he might have been commiting criminal acts, an allegation for which there was and still is no evidence. http://tinyurl.com/nzraluj Quote
scribblet Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 What are you referring to? By saying it's karmic retribution, you are implying the reporter did something wrong when he tried to report on Ford's shady attempt to obtain city land. You're also suggesting that Ford has been smeared by anything other than his own actions. BTW, I only ask this question because I don't expect you to have the strength of argument to back up anything you say. I thought personal attacks and comments about posters were not allowed. I'm not obligated to reply to you, nor will I. Imply and misconstrue that anyway you choose. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
BubberMiley Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Saying your argument lacks strength is not a personal attack. It's stating a fact that is proven with your response. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Black Dog Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 I don't believe the reporter is a pervert or whatever the word was intended to be, but Ford does know all about being smeared by implication. I'd say it was karma or just retribution. Examples SVP. Quote
BubberMiley Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Examples SVP.Now, now. Asking for examples could be construed as a personal attack. We should just nod politely when people make baseless accusations and slander the Star reporters for the umpteenth time, even after being proven wrong. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
scribblet Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Talking about baseless attacks hmmmm Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
BubberMiley Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Still not willing to clarify what you meant when you said Ford knows about being smeared by implication and that it was karmic retribution that he would call Dale a pedophile? You really shouldn't give drive-by smears and expect to not get called on it. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
scribblet Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 (edited) I'm not willing to get into a circle jerk with you, nor am I willing to spend 24/7 on line trolling for sources to keep you happy. The harassment innuendo and vendetta by one paper in particular has been noteworthy. The media relies on a lot of anonymous sources, innuendo and supposition flinging around a lot of mud on the basis of allegations with no solid proof. If you think I’m going to spend my time searching for articles to keep you happy, think again. I’m not on line 24/7 at your beck and call, but if your beliefs and drive by smears keep you happy that’s your problem. Have a good time. ETA: He didn't call the reporter anything, he inferred something, taken from a link posted earlier. Daniel Dale in my backyard taking pictures. I have little kids. When a guys taking pictures of little kids, I dont want to say the word, but you start thinking, you know, whats this guy all about? Now you are going on ignore. have fun Edited December 13, 2013 by scribblet Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.