The Unknown Poster

It sounds like they were planning to publicly harrass their "enemies" on social media and when this guy didnt want to go along with it, they did it to him and when he argued, they complained he was doing to them what they did to him and planned to do to others.

Can the Sedins be traded? Thats a big package deal to move...

If I recall, he was very good against a very young playoff rookie in Scheif. But not so much the next round. I think Kesler is the type of guy you want in the playoffs and his value is very high in that situation but over-all, its hard to justify paying that much for a "specialist". Yes, he can be a difference maker in the playoffs to a degree, but thats a lot of money and term for what he brings over-all. Unfortunately, due to Ladd's injury we didnt get to see what he can bring in the playoffs

The two women in this case should be ashamed of themselves. And they should be ostracized from whatever political active groups they are apart of. Unfortunately as is the case with these looney lobbies, everything is fair game as long as it's them doing the harassing. Im a believer in cleaning up the Internet to a reasonable degree. We've seen kids kill themselves over on-line bullying. This case is a slap in the face to legitimate cases. I hope they lose and I hope the guy sues them into oblivion. I was included in a group of people that were attacked online pretty hard. Not so much even me personally, but "someone" took facebook pics of guys' wives and gf's and posted them to an anonymous blog with extremely nasty comments. But this? Good lord. Shameful.

This case, from what I read, is ludicrous and a case of some sort of weird feminist victim card being played here. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech What’s believed to be the first case in Canada of alleged criminal harassment-via-Twitter is just a judge’s decision away from being over. After hearing closing submissions Tuesday from Chris Murphy, who represents 54-year-old Greg Elliott, Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan is expected to rule on Oct. 6. In the balance rides enormous potential fallout for free speech online. Elliott is charged with criminally harassing two Toronto female political activists, Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly, in 2012. Allegations involving a third woman were dropped. The graphic artist and father of four lost his job shortly after his arrest, which was well-publicized online, and if convicted, could go to jail for six months. These are astonishing repercussions given that it’s not alleged he ever threatened either woman (or any other, according to the testimony of the Toronto Police officer, Detective Jeff Bangild, who was in charge) or that he ever sexually harassed them. Indeed, Elliott’s chief sin appears to have been that he dared to disagree with the two young feminists and political activists. He and Guthrie, for instance, initially fell out over his refusal to endorse her plan to “sic the Internet” upon a young man in Northern Ontario who had invented a violent video game, where users could punch an image of a feminist video blogger named Anita Sarkeesian until the screen turned red. Guthrie Tweeted at the time that she wanted the inventor’s “hatred on the Internet to impact his real-life experience” and Tweeted to prospective employers to warn them off the young man and even sent the local newspaper in his town a link to the story about the game. Elliott disagreed with the tactic and Tweeted he thought the shaming “was every bit as vicious as the face-punch game”. Until then, the two were collegial online, with Elliott offering to produce a free poster for Guthrie’s witopoli (Women in Toronto Politics) group. As serious as the ramifications of a conviction could be for Elliott, so could they be dire for free speech online, Murphy suggested in his final arguments. He said the idea that all it takes to end up charged with criminal harassment is vigorous participation in online debate with those who will not brook dissent “will have a chilling effect on people’s ability to communicate, and not just on Twitter”. In fact, Murphy said that contrary to what Guthrie and Reilly testified to at trial, they weren’t afraid of his client — as suggested by both their spirited demeanour in the witness box and their deliberate online campaign to call Elliott out as a troll. Rather, Murphy said, they hated Elliott and were determined to silence him — not just by “blocking” his Tweets to them, but by demanding he cease even referring to them even in making comment about heated political issues. To all this, Guthrie pointed out once in cross-examination that feelings of fear, like all feelings, “develop over time”, and snapped that she was sorry she wasn’t “a perfect victim” who behaved like a conventional victim. The criminal harassment charge is rooted in the alleged victim’s perception of the offending conduct. The statute says if that conduct caused the alleged victims “reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety”, that’s good enough. Yet Guthrie and Reilly didn’t behave as though they were remotely frightened or intimidated: They convened a meeting of friends to discuss how Elliott should be publicly shamed; they bombarded their followers with furious tweets and retweets about him (including a grotesque suggestion from someone pretending she was a 13-year-old that he was a pedophile); they could and did dish it out. “They were not vulnerable,” Murphy said once. “They are very accomplished, politically savvy women. If they can’t handle being mentioned in the tail end of a political discussion (on Twitter), then they’re in the wrong business.” And, he said, of the meeting both women attended in August of 2012, to discuss how Elliott would be called out, “That was a conspiracy to commit a criminal offence … they were conspiring to go out and publicly shame Mr. Elliott.” Murphy said the case was akin to “a high school spat, except it’s adults on the Internet”, and said it is astonishing that the court should be acting as referee in an online political debate. “If anybody was being criminally harassed in this case,” Murphy told the judge, “it was my client, it was Mr. Elliott.” That Reilly, who was anonymous on Twitter and who directed her own volley of hateful tweets at Elliott, should come “to this court and the police and say she’s being criminally harassed is an abuse of the system.” Prosecutor Marnie Goldenberg made only the briefest remarks, and refused to provide Postmedia with a copy of her written arguments, saying it wasn’t her practice. National Post

That might be an over-payment for Kesler. But should make Ladd's agent happy. Younger, better offense, captain, top line. We'll see how much of a discount he gives for staying in a good situation. Or if the Jets add a year or two to bring the money down a bit.

I've long said I think the Jets could take a step back this season. One step back to hopefully take two steps forward.

Not only does it make no sense for the market but the arena was built long before the return of the NHL was even possible. So we're now talking build an 18,000 seat arena for the Moose. Was never going to happen.

I dont know the specific laws but I would think there are certain things covered under hate crimes. Wearing a Swastika probably just gets you scornful looks but spraypainting it on the side of a synagogue is going to be a problem above and beyond mere vandalism.

To a degree. Women can generally go topless now though few do so.

Why?

Sabres will be fun to watch this season, one way or another.

Germany has very strict laws about any Nazi symbolism. A few years ago, wrestler JBL goosewalked around the ring and was nearly arrested. The problem with using the swastika as an example is the many cultures that use it as a positive symbol. My personal opinion is if someone wants to wear it, or the battle flag, that is their right. But it doesnt preclude the rest of us from acknowledging their ignorance. Another interesting aspect is the social media presence. Many people I know have been "liking" or sharing stories of support for the battle flag. I hope none of them are applying for a job anytime soon...

No one said its a crime. You said no one is talking about banning it but obviously that's not true if Amazon banned it. No one here was talking about banning it. I was referring to us discussing removing the flag from government buildings and then responses being "Good grief, ban everything! Whats next!?" sort of thing... Its not really a banning so much as a private business deciding they dont want to sell racist symbols that are being used in hate crimes. I assume that will loosen up in time but so soon after several people were murdered, I can understand the sensitivity. They still have Dukes for sale, so thats good.

Amazon has the right to do so though. It's private business. Let me know when it's a crime to wear a battle flag t shirt.

Isnt it crazy how it takes this long for people to see change is needed. It's 2015! I guess people just get used to it.

Anything can be done if you're willing to spend the money. There was a lot of speculation about being able to raise the roof but here's why it will never happen: You'd be spending a lot of money to add the cheapest seats. The loge seating they are adding this year is a good example of what they'd do - adding seats in a fairly inexpensive way but those seats will generate high revenue. There was talk of adding luxury suites to the corners also. But realistically, they dont need to add any seats. They are sold out and have a long wait list, true. But they are also one of the most expensive tickets in the league. Keep supply lower, demand high and ticket prices high.

Who on earth said anything about banning a flag? People who think the battle flag is racist: "Dont ban the flag, but it is racist and should not fly on government property as a symbol of pride" People who think the battle flag isnt racist: "Everyone wants to ban everything, whats next? They will ban cookies and ice cream. This is an out rage." I mean really...

I generally find that doing events on a Thursday night dont run into the issue of needing to get home to bed. People are more willing to go out late on a Thursday and deal with being tired the next day because it's Friday and they likely intend to have lower productivity anyway...and can go home and enjoy the weekend.

One thing we noticed with the early start time was people eating a lot more. Now I dont attend a lot of games so this is what other people were telling me. Long lines and a run on hot dogs at one point. I assume people coming to the game after work and not having time to eat beforehand. Good idea! Would Thursday night games work better during July/August and then Saturday/Sunday after September long?

Im not sure what your point is. The confederate flag is okay because other symbols are worse? Do you think the issue with the battle flag is one of right vs left? Because I dont think being racist or prejudiced against a people is a right vs left issue. The left comes in for me when I see only certain issues being made 'issues'. Will it take a soviet sympathizer lunatic killing 12 people and waving the hammer/sickle for people to know it's not a symbol worry of promoting? For me it's not about banning a symbol. It's about people just being smart enough to choose to not use it. Im not a fan of banning every thing. Maybe it's a pipe dream. Lol. As for the civil war, no, it has little baring to the current argument other than pointing out it was about more than just freeing the slaves. The emancipation was used to destabilize the south when they were winning the war. I dont disagree with you. But the thing is, its not about "banning". I'd err on the side of letting stupid people do stupid things moreso than over-banning or over-censoring. I'm a "righty". To me the discussion is two things: 1) no government building should be flying the battle flag for several reasons not least of which is it was *not* an official confederate flag, it was used as a racist symbol etc 2) the idiocy of embracing it as some sort of southern culture symbol in this day and age, especially by Canadians who fancy themselves deep southerners because they live in rural Manitoba and like riding a quad. I call this the "point & laugh" scenario. I dont think the flag should be "banned". I do think anyone who flies it, wears it, supports it, embraces it is somewhere between uninformed and racist. But they shouldnt be banned from being uninformed, ignorant or racist as long as it doesnt infringe upon anyone else. So many of those people seem hellbent on convincing everyone else of the virtue of the battle flag though.

Im not sure what your point is. The confederate flag is okay because other symbols are worse? Do you think the issue with the battle flag is one of right vs left? Because I dont think being racist or prejudiced against a people is a right vs left issue.

Your blanket 'redneck' comments are laughable. Typical really. Someone disagrees Wih you they're redneck losers. You have some guts for an Internet tough guy. and you need an education in the real issues from the civil war. History is written by the winners. What does "internet tough guy" mean? Does it mean you disagree with me so you pretend like you'd want to fight over your beliefs if this wasnt a message board? It *is* a message board so chill out. You dont know me so you dont realise how silly it is to call me that. I forgive you though. ;-) And no, a person is not a redneck loser for disagreeing with me. They are a redneck loser for embracing a symbol of racism. Or is this another belief you have, that when the KKK hold up the confederate flag that everyone just misunderstands them and they are really just nice guys with a "different opinion"? I bet you're one of those people that I've seen re-tweeting the meme comparing the rainbow flag and the battle flag right? Because the application of common sense doesnt make the difference really apparent. Listen, you getting pissy aside, if you need to embrace a group of people who are at best misguided and at worse racists because you feel a kinship over your perceived persecution, that's your prerogative but it doesnt make the battle flag any less offensive. As for the civil war, this isnt a civil war debate so unless you want to provide a history lesson and turn it into one, we're only talking about a specific aspect of the civil war which is the misappropriated "truth" that the battle flag somehow represents southern pride because of its use as the confederate flag which ofcourse is incorrect. We can talk about the economic issues or states rights but I dont think that has much bearing on the current issue of the battle flag. But have at 'er hoss. I find the civil war very interesting but Im far from an expert. Feel free to educate us.

MTS Centre scorebord construction.

Hot as heck on a Friday night with people streaming to the cottage.