Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Movies
Byrne Robotics > Movies << Prev Page of 18 Next >>
Topic: Sexual Harassment In the Entertainment Industry (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Bill Collins
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 10413
Posted: 14 July 2018 at 12:26am | IP Logged | 1  

Wallace, strange behaviour from the gay Louis Walsh!
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Joseph Greathouse
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 August 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 481
Posted: 14 July 2018 at 9:24am | IP Logged | 2  

Its exactly that mentality that allows such a deplorable act to be laughed off.

It wasn't a strange behavior, it was a wrong behavior that he should have known better, yet decided he just didn't care or was above it somehow.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 1200
Posted: 14 July 2018 at 11:44am | IP Logged | 3  

Frigid b**** vs. 'asking for it'. Nun vs. sl**. Then women are to wear heat absorbing black all-over coverings like they are censored and it becomes common for men to look to young (often immigrant) males because it's arrestable to be in public with non-related females.

Saucermen! We need those evolvo-rays over here... pronto!

I'm not Rachel Welch but I've had so many grabs and special hugs lets say in my life so far. I can still only imagine what smaller women in jobs with even more contact with the public deal with, but as I say I've been grabbed at by women a couple times too. Sometimes I feel well, why flip your lid over a lot of small potatoes stuff like that, even coming out of the blue from an unexpected person as it often has, so maybe it's just saying, yes, me too, this goes on, and it is what it is, not violent assault but something that the imposer should feel like a jerk about. And men or women pushing themselves at young males are just as bad to me, and yet someone like Allen Ginsberg known for going after young wannabe poet guys is still somehow a cool 'icon' of the '60s or left? Yucko! Not to say someone isn't talented, like Bill Cosby certainly was, but it must hurt their victims to see them honored in anyway, and helps keep them silent in the face of such status.

Laughing at them where it is as much weird as inappropriate could be the right thing if everyone laughs, makes them feel stupid and not their target! If Louis C.K. pulled his twig out at me I'd definitely have laughed. Maybe we should be teaching empathy in school (along with basic finances and how to pay bills).
Back to Top profile | search
 
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: Macau
Posts: 4451
Posted: 16 July 2018 at 8:06am | IP Logged | 4  

The pendulum has swung.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12372
Posted: 25 July 2018 at 1:48pm | IP Logged | 5  

Chris Hardwick has been reinstated on TALKING DEAD:

Back to Top profile | search
 
Marc M. Woolman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 April 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2025
Posted: 25 July 2018 at 4:20pm | IP Logged | 6  

Assuming he's innocent of the
allegations, good for Hardwick and Amc
for doing the right thing.

Edited by Marc M. Woolman on 25 July 2018 at 7:31pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Robin Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1151
Posted: 26 July 2018 at 9:29am | IP Logged | 7  

Galloway is still a monster, he just has convict Conrad Black's former media empire defending him because he is one of them.

Galloway had means to clear his name without relying on media pals and chose to keep that information unreleased.

RT
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3086
Posted: 26 July 2018 at 2:13pm | IP Logged | 8  

Yeah, I'm sure AMC employs a crack investigative staff.  They don't care about my opinion though, since I didn't watch the show anyway.  Its not like I can not watch it more than I already don't.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Marc M. Woolman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 April 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2025
Posted: 26 July 2018 at 4:16pm | IP Logged | 9  

According to their statement (did you
read it?) AMC hired an outside firm to
investigate the allegations against
Harwick.They did their due diligence.

Edited by Marc M. Woolman on 26 July 2018 at 4:16pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3086
Posted: 26 July 2018 at 6:46pm | IP Logged | 10  

I did read it.  The point is, how do you investigate what is ultimately a he said/she said issue years after the fact?  It boils down to who you find more believable.  I find her completely believable.

Ratings for the 'Dead' stuff was declining anyway.  The place where the rubber will hit the road on this is the celebrity guests.  The reason 'Talking' got pulled from the schedule was that a number of the celebrities who had taped episodes told AMC they didn't want them to air.  If the cast members of the shows are willing to appear with Hardwick, then there probably won't be a problem.

I never said that he should lose his job, or that there should be some kind of legal action against him.  I just said he's an asshole.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Marc M. Woolman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 April 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2025
Posted: 26 July 2018 at 7:09pm | IP Logged | 11  

Yes, you based your opinion of whether
he's an asshole on unfounded
allegations that so far apear to be
completely untrue.

How do investigate these allegations?
You interview the parties involved,
you go through their communications
back and forth with each other, you
talk to friends and other ex-partners,
etc. All that was done,and the
celebrity objections to his interview
show, seem to have been abated because
AMC will be airing that, in addition
to reinstating him as the after-host
of their programs.

Edited by Marc M. Woolman on 26 July 2018 at 7:11pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3086
Posted: 26 July 2018 at 7:21pm | IP Logged | 12  

They don't 'appear to be untrue'.  You based your opinion of whether he's an asshole on immediately disbelieving the accuser's story.  There's a difference between saying 'This is he said/she said, there's no proof either way', and saying that the accusations are false.  You'll notice, AMC didn't say that.  I find her statement totally believable, and his reaction totally consistent with her story being true.  You don't.  But don't pretend your opinion, which is identical to your initial reaction, is based on some kind of 'facts' to which we are now privy.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: Macau
Posts: 4451
Posted: 26 July 2018 at 8:30pm | IP Logged | 13  

Robin, from your comments, I can assume you believe the National Post is "fake news"? Margaret Atwood and Yan Martel are in on the conspiracy? I would love to hear why you call him a monster. 
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Marc M. Woolman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 April 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2025
Posted: 27 July 2018 at 1:18am | IP Logged | 14  

I think you're confused about initial reactions.
You're the one who pronounced Hardwick an asshole
based on his ex-girlfriend's unvetted statements.

That's great that you find her statements "totally
believable" and I could say right back to you "don't
pretend your opinion which is identical to your
initial reaction, is based on some kind of facts"

Since she made her statement, here are the facts we
ARE now privy too:
1) she cheated on Hardwick (as Hardwick claimed in his
response to her allegations)

2) he dumped her for cheating on him and told her he
won't speak to or communicate with her anymore (as
Hardwick claimed in his response)

3) she repeatedly tried to get Hardwick to take her
back. (as Hardwick claimed in his response)

4) Hardwick rejected her attempts, moved on with his
life, got engaged, and is now married.

5) other ex-girlfriends have spoken out, vouching for
Hardwick, saying he never acted the way his one ex-
girlfriend has accused him off, in their own
relationships with Hardwick.

6) AMC hired an outside firm to investigate and found
no "damning evidence", and are satisfied with the
results of said investigation and have resumed their
working-relationship with Hardwick.
OF course, they can't say they think his ex lied, that
they think Hardwick is innocent. (can't prove a
negative)

All these things have come light since Hardwick was
initially accused (smeared?) by his ex-girlfriend.

On top of that, so far, Hardwick doesn't fit the
profile of an abusive, controlling person.

Controlling/abusive males don't live their lives
having healthy romantic relationships until one day
they wake up and decide "I'm going to abuse my next
girlfriend".

People like this exhibit these traits and behaviours
in ALL of their "romantic" relationships, right from
the point they start dating as young adults/teens.

That would mean that Hardwick, if he were controlling
and abusive, would have other ex-girlfriends that he
treated in similar fashion.
He certainly would not have any coming forth to defend
him, years/decades after he dated them. (which has
happened)

In addition to this, these controlling/abusive types
of people use terrible psychological tactics to
destroy their partner's self-esteem.
The victim's self-esteem is broken down to such a
point that they are convinced by, and genuinely
believe, that they are lucky to be in a relationship
at all, and very lucky to have their partner.

The abusers do this so that their partner/victim won't
leave.
If the abused victim does actually leave, their abuser
constantly tries to get them to come back, (assuming
they don't stalk and kill them) and if the victim does
come back, as is often the case, these abusers take
them back and resume the relationship, immediately.

Now let's look at Hardwick's actions:

He finds out his girlfriend has cheated on him, he
breaks up with her, he informs her during the break up
that he won't be talking to her anymore, and then
rejects every attempt she makes to get him to resume
the relationship with her.
A year later, she has not moved on with her life and
continues to try to get Hardwick to resume their
relationship.

He moves on with his life and gets married.
The only time he publicly states that his ex cheated
on him and this is why he broke with her, is after his
ex has publicly accused him of being abusive and
controlling to her.
(while she also tries in her statement, to justify her
cheating, typical behaviour of people who cheated and
got caught)

Hardwick does not appear to fit the pattern of an
abusive/controlling man, and despite all that has come
to light since he was accused, all of it in his
favour, I allow for the possibility it could be true.
There could be another woman totally unaffiliated
with his ex, that also claims similar experiences.
Should that happen, I would immediately change my
belief about Hardwick's innocence or guilt.

You, however, read his ex-girlfriend's statement and
seem to have completely made up your mind that her
story is true, especially as her story does contain
some elements that seem typical of abusive
relationships.
Con-artists love people like you.

As mentioned earlier, it's impossible to prove a
negative, or in this case, that Hardwick didn't do
these things, beyond a doubt, and it sounds like
nothing short of his ex, recanting her entire story,
would change your mind.
She is very unlikely to do that for a whole host of
legal/financial reasons if her allegations were
untrue.

You want to believe Hardwick is an abusive asshole,
fine, just qualify your statement, "I believe" or "I
think" don't definitively state it as proven fact.
I've qualified every statement I've made about
Hardwick possibly/probably being falsely accused.

And while you completely believe Hardwick's ex, and
all your sympathies lie with her, consider this:

If she's told the truth, she's out of an abusive
relationship and probably (hopefully) in a better
place.

If she lied, that means she is emotionally abusing
Hardwick, causing him and his wife all sorts of stress
and worry, (and *financial harm) years after her
relationship with Hardwick has ended.

Regardless of what did or did not occur, there will
always be people that believe Hardwick is an abusive,
controlling person now.

(* I know his wife is mega-rich.)
Back to Top profile | search
 
Robin Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1151
Posted: 27 July 2018 at 11:03am | IP Logged | 15  

Hey Neil

The National Post has been in decline for years and going to shutter completely within the next year or two. It has shifted from being a conservative leaning news organization to partisan pundit factory that includes islamaphobes like Barbara Kay in its roster. 

As for the Canadian literary scene, look only to the how they reacted to the rightly placed disgust with Joseph Boyden's attempts to appropriate indigenous culture. They are insular and protective of their own.

The NP is also a big supported of Jordan Peterson.

Galloway was a union protected faculty member of UBC. The union could have forced the public release of the complete report or sued the accusers for defamation. He did neither of these things. He is attempting to redeem himself using the media because all other means would require him to make statements under oath and he apparently is not prepared to do so.

What Galloway did is unethical even if it had been consensual, which according to the women, it was not.

I choose to believe the women.

RT
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3086
Posted: 27 July 2018 at 12:36pm | IP Logged | 16  

1) she cheated on Hardwick (as Hardwick claimed in his
response to her allegations)
--------------------------------------
As she admitted in the initial allegations.  So that's hardly 'point Hardwick'.  And how does that prove he didn't abuse her?


2) he dumped her for cheating on him and told her he
won't speak to or communicate with her anymore (as
Hardwick claimed in his response)
----------------------------------------------
Again, she said the same in her initial statement.  That she had become involved with another guy and that precipitated the breakup.  Again, consistent with both stories.  And how is this evidence that he didn't abuse her?


3) she repeatedly tried to get Hardwick to take her
back. (as Hardwick claimed in his response)
------------------------------------------------------------ -
Which is very common for abuse victims who get dumped.  And so supports her story.  If you think that's not the case, it just shows you don't know what you're talking about.  Not only doesn't argue that he didn't abuse her, but is completely consistent with him having abused her.


4) Hardwick rejected her attempts, moved on with his
life, got engaged, and is now married.
--------------------------------------------------------
Which she said in her initial statement.  And what does that have to do with whether he abused her?


5) other ex-girlfriends have spoken out, vouching for
Hardwick, saying he never acted the way his one ex-
girlfriend has accused him off, in their own
relationships with Hardwick.
--------------------------------------------------
Right, because if he didn't abuse every single woman he ever dated, he can't possibly have abused one of them.  Yes, all of his friends stood up for him.  All of her friends stood up for her.  That doesn't prove anything.


6) AMC hired an outside firm to investigate and found
no "damning evidence", and are satisfied with the
results of said investigation and have resumed their
working-relationship with Hardwick.
OF course, they can't say they think his ex lied, that
they think Hardwick is innocent. (can't prove a
negative) 
----------------------------------------------
And, what sort of evidence would you expect to find to prove that a man emotionally abused his girlfriend a decade ago?  Again, I never said AMC should fire him.  That's their decision to make.


The only time he publicly states that his ex cheated
on him and this is why he broke with her, is after his
ex has publicly accused him of being abusive and
controlling to her. 
-----------------------------------------------
This is false.  He went on and on about it on the Nerdist podcast at the time it happened.  Maybe you weren't listening at that time.  Part of her accusation against him is that after they broke up, he badmouthed her around the industry.  There is evidence that he did that, primarily because she cheated on him.  But again, this is irrelevant to whether or not he abused her.


So, your 6 facts have no relevance to the actual issue, whether or not he abused this particular woman.  Which, as I previously said, devolves to he said/she said and who you believe.  From the beginning, I believed her statement, you disbelieved it.  I didn't believe it because I'm gullible, as you imply.  I believe it because I have actually counseled people of both genders who were victims of abuse and there are elements of her story that someone wouldn't know to say unless they either were a victim, or did some kind of research to craft a believable story.

Perhaps you want to believe that that's what happened.  Even though Chris Hardwick is a wonderful person and stand up guy, this woman who cheated on him for no reason a decade ago decided, ten years later, to do an immense amount of research to craft a perfect abuse story, which she then posted without his name on an obscure women's site as an elaborate plan to get revenge.  And of course, she's getting revenge for nothing because he never did anything to her.  I find the idea that the world is full of man-hating women who randomly decide to destroy perfectly innocent men's lives to be a misogynist trope.  Its not the real world.

As for me couching 'Hardwick is an asshole' as my opinion rather than 'fact', how can one be proven objectively to be an asshole?  Is there some kind of assholery scale on which one can be charted?  Is there some set of objective criteria laid out by an international body as to what constitutes an asshole?  If I say, "Chris Hardwick is an asshole", it goes without saying that since I am saying it, its my opinion.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Stephen Churay
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 March 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 8252
Posted: 27 July 2018 at 1:08pm | IP Logged | 17  

If being an asshole is enough to have your
entire life taken from you as you are
publicly scorned, then there will be a lot
of people unemployed. If criminal wrong
doing has taken place, why not press
charges? There have been real scumbags who
have been outed in the last year, but you
have to leave at least a little room for
the idea of a woman rejected sticking it
to an ex.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Marc M. Woolman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 April 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2025
Posted: 27 July 2018 at 2:42pm | IP Logged | 18  


Nobody suggested the world is full of
man-hating women, you're the one
bringing that straw-man argument.

You try to frame the idea that a
rejected ex making false statements is
some totally impossible, elaborate
research-requiring scheme.
It is easy to twist any event, so that
a person is either an instigator or
victim.

You also gloss right over the point
that Hardwick's post-break up
behaviour does not match with the
typical abusive male's post-break up
behviours.

You use cheap twisting of points to
try to make your point. I never said
that because Hardwick hasn't abused
all his girlfriends he therfore hasn't
abused any,
I said an abusive man wouldn't have
any ex-girlfriends coming forth to
defend him, and if as a counsellor
you've done any research into abusers
you would know this.

There is a world of difference between
friends coming out publicly to support
someone accused of being abusive, and
Ex-girlfriends coming out supporting
the accused.

If anything, it appears that
Hardwick's accuser is the one who
comitted the abuse.
She emotionally abused him by cheating
on Hardwick, when Hardwick left her,
she followed the typical abuser's
pattern of trying to get Hardwick to
come back, and now she's emotionally
abusing Harwick and his wife if she
issuing false statements.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3086
Posted: 27 July 2018 at 4:01pm | IP Logged | 19  

You also gloss right over the point
that Hardwick's post-break up
behaviour does not match with the
typical abusive male's post-break up
behviours.
--------------------------------
I didn't gloss over that point.  That point is false.  His behavior is completely consistent with such a person.  For example, every time he has spoken about the issue, he has made himself out to be the victim, and denied any wrongdoing on his part whatsoever.  So you might notice that in reading Chloe's statement, she talks about her own co-dependency and complete lack of self-esteem, that she should have ended it and left when it became toxic, etc. etc.  She admits her own fault in how things progressed.  And she did so, not naming him, but to encourage other women in toxic relationships to be stronger than she was and get out.  She also admitted to cheating on him.  In his responses, he has never once admitted an iota of fault.  He was perfect, she cheated on him for no reason despite having the perfect boyfriend, and now she's making up lies to destroy his life, also for no reason.  That's entirely consistent with someone who was abusive in a relationship.


I said an abusive man wouldn't have
any ex-girlfriends coming forth to
defend him, 
----------------------------------
This is also a false assumption on your part.  Why would this be the case?  A person goes through different times in their life.  Its entirely possible for a person to, for one particular period in their life, to go through a dark time, be involved in a toxic relationship, and behave horribly.  Its not unusual for family and friends, even former girlfriends, to be completely stunned by what a person did at a particular time and place.  Though again, if you were listening to the Nerdist podcast around this time, he was also having pretty severe relationship difficulties with one of his co-hosts, and other issues at the time.  Real people aren't either Superman or Lex Luthor from childhood.  Its entirely possible that he was a perfectly decent partner to those other women, and yet due to Chloe Dykstra's own issues (which she was honest about in her initial statement), and stresses and difficulties he was going through at the time, that the relationship became toxic and even abusive.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Marc M. Woolman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 April 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2025
Posted: 27 July 2018 at 8:56pm | IP Logged | 20  

Defending himself from false
accusations is not consistent with
being an abuser, nor is setting the
record of straight as to why he ended
the relationship.
Nor is not wanting to publicly admit
any wrong doing, even if said wrong
doing wasn't abusive or controlling.
Most people don't want to share the
details of a failed relationship with
the entire world.

If a person dumps someone for
cheating, and then this spurned ex
publicly claims the person cheated
upon was in the wrong, responding by
denying her allegations and explaining
that the cheating was the
relationship-breaker, is not an "aha"
abusive response, it's a normal one.

Again with the twisting of ideas from
you: you can't argue that an abusive
male is or is not a comic book
villain.
Do any reserach at all and you will
see that men that are abusive to their
partners exhibit these traits in all
of their adult "romantic" relationship
s. They start out as abusive high
school boyfriends.
I think you on some level concede
this because you're now suggesting
maybe just this one time, this one
relationship, Hardwick deviated from
his norm and became an abusive,
controlling, person.

Based purely on their post-break up
actions, Dykstra falls more in line
with the typically abusive partner.

Hardwick ended things, kept his
distance, moved on with his life.

Dykstra kept trying to get Hardwick to
come back to her, and failing in that,
eventually pens a glorified blog post
describing Hardwick as an abuser,
herself the victim, and tries to
justify and minimize the cheating she
did during their relationship.

She doesn't name Hardwick as most of
the victims who are either seeking
help or to create awareness of the
Harvey Weinstein's that are out there,
do, no she coyly mentions more than
enough hints that it couldn't be
anyone other than Hardwick.
Seems like someone carefully trying to
avoid a possible law suit.

She's the one that kept trying to get
her ex-partner to come back, she's the
one that didn't move on and leave
Hardwick alone and she's the one that
posted her unvetted and
unsubstantiated in any way, story
which she had to know would cause
major turmoil for Hardwick and his new
bride.

Her actions do match the typical
abuser's, while Hardwick's actions
fall in line with normal and or a
victim's actions. He got away, he
stayed away, he moved on.

Since you've closed your mind to any
possibility that Dykstra is lying or
at the very least misrepresenting
their past relationship, what has to
happen that could possibly convince
you Hardwick might be innocent? Could
anything convince you?

If Dykstra never recants her story,
which is probable, but no other female
ever accuses Hardwick of being
controlling and abusive right up to
the day he dies, would that do?

If every girlfriend he has ever had
defends him? Do you see what happens
here? Once accused....

I know what would change my mind:
evidence.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Sommerville
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 April 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 417
Posted: 27 July 2018 at 11:17pm | IP Logged | 21  

The Galloway incident was investigated by a former BC Supreme Court Judge and with a lower burden of proof was found not to be credible, if I am not mistaken. It appears it was a questionable/inappropriate affair between two consenting adults.

AMC had an outside investigation that also found no substantial proof of anything that kept them from reinstating Hardwick. This in today's culture of guilt through hearsay in the entertainment industry.

Why do people, who may not have all the information, still support the accusation as fact when those that investigate and find the evidence or lack of, say it is not credible. If being investigated and cleared is not enough, what is?




Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 32779
Posted: 27 July 2018 at 11:41pm | IP Logged | 22  

Marc, Steve, I gotta chime in here and say someone at some point has to realize that neither one of you is going to change the others opinion.  You just aren't.  As an outside observer, I totally know where you both stand.  I think that should be enough.  

On a side note, Marc what's up with your posting formatting?  Why are your paragraphs so short?  Makes for a really difficult read!
Back to Top profile | search
 
Marc M. Woolman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 April 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2025
Posted: 28 July 2018 at 9:53pm | IP Logged | 23  

Formatting goes crazy when I post from
a mobile phone. Don't know why.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: Macau
Posts: 4451
Posted: 28 July 2018 at 10:13pm | IP Logged | 24  

I was not going to respond to Robin's reply, as, as Matt stated, the positions are set and there is no changing. However, with Michael Sommerville's excellent post (which is the perfect response to Robin), I have to chime in on one part of Robin's post.

You discredit the National Post since they print editorials by Conrad Black. I have found over the years that people usually never attack his idea but instead dismiss him entirely since he was a convicted felon in the US. Never mind that he served his sentence completely and was a model convict. I guess in the mind of the Canadian progressive elite, he is forever to be ignored since he was a felon, the scum. Ad Hominem at its finest. One of the many reasons I finally gave up on CANADALAND.

Also, The Globe and Mail is a big supporter of Naomi Klein. See how silly that sounds?
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12372
Posted: 28 July 2018 at 10:36pm | IP Logged | 25  

Formatting goes crazy when I post from  a mobile phone. Don't know why.


If you turn on or off WYSIWYG editor, it might stop the weird formatting of your posts from your phone.
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 18 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login