It wasn't crack, it was hash .
He denied doing " crack ".
He's going to look like a real ASS when and if the vido shows up
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/27/toronto-police-closing-in-on-alleged-mayor-rob-ford-crack-video
Gawker Claims Video Exists of Rob Ford Smoking Crack
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
He denied doing " crack ".
He's going to look like a real ASS when and if the vido shows up
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/27/toronto-police-closing-in-on-alleged-mayor-rob-ford-crack-video
Except you're now saying the two Star reporters must have lied in print when they fully, and in detail described how they had each each repeatedly viewed the video on different occasions. The probability of such a self-destructive career choice—one that could bring down their newspaper—by two unrelated professionals is vanishingly small. But then there's a teensy possibiliity dinosaurs spoke Elizabethan English, isn't there?
Unless this hare-brained theory requires the invention, you should stick to the facts on record, namely that the Star heard from CNN that Gawker was actively seeking money to buy the video the Star's folks had seen weeks ago and were trying to flesh out into a better story than the,"We saw the same vid first, and here's what it looked like" that was all Gawker breaking the story left them.
Yet again: The Star reported as fact only what its reporters did, and what the images in the video looked like to them. Their names and words are on record, and anyone with a case can get their sworn testimony if it's germane. Speculating about what they might have said, but did not say, if events had been different than all the accounts describe is the strangest way imaginable of trying to defend Ford because so few facts are verifiable.
Your story was mildly amusing, but to raise any doubts, it has to be plausible. A tiny bit of mathematical probability does not measure up to that standard. Some Tyrannosauraus or other who wrote plays, once said, “If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction.” Pretty much covers your fantasy.
what happens now is the video either comes out, he is guilty and run out of office or the video doesn't come out and no one admits they were wrong and prints a retraction on the story and he is guilty in the court of public opinion and run out of office.
I have claimed no such thing. I merely said until the video surfaces (if it ever does... even Gawker has their doubts now...
), there is no proof. I never said they fabricated the story... I merely suggested they do no have any proof. And please don't talk to me about how the media blows everything WAY outta proportion, because that is done on a daily basis. Case in point: with headlines like this: "Mayor Rob Ford crack video scandal"
And the ball park is #1 Blue Jays Way, between Front and Bremner just east of Spadina.
Media Sensationalism is a daily occurrence, and this story, (it seems) is yet another example of it, until a video surfaces and is proven to be authentic.
(Disclaimer: I could care less if Ford or any other politician is on crack... I have nothing but disdain for politicians of every political affiliation...)
Really? This is what I read at your link. UPDATE-- MAY 27, 2013, 9:46 AM EASTERN EDT: We have had no further contact with the people we believe to have custody of this video since the last update.
IMPORTANT UPDATE: PLEASE GO HERE AND READ BEFORE YOU CONSIDER DONATING. Our confidence that we can consummate this transaction has diminished.
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smokes crack cocaine. Gawker is trying to purchase a video of Ford smoking crack cocaine. If we raise $200,000, the owners have promised to hand it over so we can publish it online. At the enclosed link, they had only about $145K. So, where is the $200k?
Ifs its legal,...it must be OK
The words of the TO Star.
Again,...two drug dealers tell the reporters that Ford was smoking crack,...and that's enough for them,...wow.
So its now OK to use the word "appears", sounds rather judgemental to me,...why not "appears" to be smoking something ???
"The TO Star appears to be run by big labour",...you heard it here,...so it must be true.
FAST
Rob Ford in 'crack cocaine' video scandal
The words of the TO Star.
Again,...two drug dealers tell the reporters that Ford was smoking crack,...and that's enough for them,...wow.
So its now OK to use the word "appears", sounds rather judgemental to me,...why not "appears" to be smoking something ???
"The TO Star appears to be run by big labour",...you heard it here,...so it must be true.
FAST
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/rob-ford-crackstarter
i clicked his link, i reposted the link. that link right above what i am typing here says the goal has been reached. in fact 200,681$ has been raised and still 7 hours to go. the warnings you posted are correct but your number amount is wrong.
I'll ignore your promise to ignore me and repeat what I said which you preferred not to quote above:
That a vanishingly small probability is only a mathematical reality, and that considering such an implausible scenario as anything like a real possibilty in this serious matter was foolish. Like imagining dinosaurs wrote Shakespeare, because there's a chance they could talk.
No agreement, not even a whole lot of respect, if you really think your invented fantasy advanced the discussion at hand. But yes, Phil, in the abstract world of probability theory, even a vanishingly small chance is—vanishingly—possible. As I already said in the post you quoted a bit from.
How sad to think anyone might think asserting such a tiny small chance of an implausibility would be somehow helpful to Ford or the City, or to anyone trying to get past this mess.
I tried to ignore you, but you keep following me around like the obsessed oldfart that you are
Stupid analogy.
Dinosaurs could never write a shakespeare book, but reporters do lie (and have lied in the past)
Good, I'm glad we agree
Read a report today that contributors are now canceling their previous donations. Seems when you called in, you provided a credit card..which was NOT TRANSACTED...and the deal was that once footage is located, the pledge goes through.
Given the diminishing likelihood of a video, people have begun canceling the credit card transaction, feeling duped. Wonder if that decreasing total will be reported on the Gawker website?
Given the diminishing likelihood of a video, people have begun canceling the credit card transaction, feeling duped. Wonder if that decreasing total will be reported on the Gawker website?
How silly of me to imagine a guy with more than 4,000 posts still needed someone to teach him how to use the Ignore function and actually do what he keeps promising to, but can't manage himself. It's as if you had an addiction you couldn't control Phil. I made no undertaking to ignore your foolishness when you post it for all to see. It's a bit paranoid—and very self-centred—to think of me hitting the Reply button as "following you".
Shakepeare actually didn't write a single book; I'm sorry the analogy didn't suit you. Let's just say it's good you raised such a tiny and faint possibility in the cause of The Star' Is The Villain. Because the effort was a waste, it's good it was a small one; it advanced no doubts, certainly nort reasonable ones, and I suspect not even vanishingly smallones. As part of the argument that Ford is being judged on insinuations without facts, asserting an unbelievable fantasy—without advancing an iota of proof—that the reporters have lied about what they saw is a truly bizarre tactic of debate.
I'm happy that you have been able to twist our exchange to a point where you say you're glad, so if you imagine that we agree on anything more relevant to the topic than 2=1+1, (or that you should keep your promise to ignore my posts), I won't trouble you to think again, even though it might do you good. You do seem to prefer fantasy worlds.
But in the real world of TERB, go to your personal account settings, and do add oldjones under Settiings>Edit Ignore List list, or stop with the empty promises; if you don't see my posts you won't be tempted to nonsense like the stuff you began your post with.
In fact they do. They have the independently corroborated notes of two different reporters, which are further corroborated by the notes from the Gawker guy.
Again, what standard of proof are you using? Is that proof that would be accepted in a physics experiment? No. In a criminal trial? No. Is it the standard of proof upon which 99.9% of the stories in the news rely? Hell yes.
Disputing it is kooky. If the ball park is at #1 Blue Jays Way, you are in East Timor.
so what you are saying is that you believe everything you are told without physical proof ? i actually thought a little more highly of you than that.
