Do you normally base your opinions on a split second camera pan or knowing an event lasted 10 minutes, would you assess someone's character based on the whole of their actions?
What we are talking about here is that you believe anyone who doesn't share your beliefs is open to have their character defamed. Both your examples clearly illustrate that.
It was not a split second camera pan....so are you now claiming that you did not watch the tape or the game?
How many times do I have to say the same thing....it is not a belief system we are talking about....it is a respect issue....he was disrespectful in his actions....I have clearly illustrated that I stick to the issues that are being debated....you have clearly communicated that you make it personal.
Burke needs to remove himself from the spotlight and let the players be the ones people care about. He's overshadowing them because of his antics and his ego. Let them be the ones that face the music because of their play, good and bad, and stop being the most recognized Leaf!
Burke needs to remove himself from the spotlight and let the players be the ones people care about. He's overshadowing them because of his antics and his ego. Let them be the ones that face the music because of their play, good and bad, and stop being the most recognized Leaf!
Maybe he doesn't want his players facing the music..
Burke needs to remove himself from the spotlight and let the players be the ones people care about. He's overshadowing them because of his antics and his ego. Let them be the ones that face the music because of their play, good and bad, and stop being the most recognized Leaf!
So many cool stories around these parts. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Try to keep up.
Well it was on topic as I thought that the Topic was about Burke and the way he communicates.....
Nope. Topic is about Burke complaining to CBC about Cherry. Nothing to do with him being in the spotlight as he did it in private and did not bring it to the media. There are plenty of threads to bash Burke. Smarten up, I'm guess sick of all the window lickers.
It was not a split second camera pan....so are you now claiming that you did not watch the tape or the game?
How many times do I have to say the same thing....it is not a belief system we are talking about....it is a respect issue....he was disrespectful in his actions....I have clearly illustrated that I stick to the issues that are being debated....you have clearly communicated that you make it personal.
The event lasted many minutes. In your own words it was a "camera pan". Imagine for an instance that you were being judged by a jury of your peers for a crime and they had a ten minute video, 9 minutes and 57 seconds of which potentially exonerrated you but the jury was only shown 3 seconds that had the potential to display the situation as something other than it was. Would you like that?
You can say the same thing all you want, no matter how you paint it, it is YOUR BELIEF against which you are judging someone. YOU BELIEVE that if someone doesn't support the military (of which you have next to no proof) that it is fair game to attack that person's character because YOU BELIEVE they should respect the military as that is a value YOU HOLD.
The funniest thing about this is I am probably one of the few people in here who has actually served his country's military, as a former officer. As an ex military member, IF someone didn't agree with the military machine, I have no problem with them abstaining from applauding. Completely their right. I would also never call them names because of it. It's a personal opinion and as someone who keeps going on about how much you value opinion and debate and deplore personal attacks, it boggles my mind how you could possibly support Cherry's actions in this regard. He's doing exactly what you purport to deplore and you are supporting it. I'm one of the people who signed MY life on the line to die to protect the very rights YOU are proposing to remove from somebody. To this day I continue to serve as a volunteer search and rescue air navigator through CFB Greenwood and assist in training people from Trenton, Winnipeg, you name it. If someone burned a flag or something, you'd have a case about disrespect.
I was referring to Cherry's petty and whiny behavior that started this whole thing.
The funny thing in all of this, is that Leaf Nation loved Cherry, until he said something negative about Burkie...now Leaf Nation thinks Grapes is an old senile man...priceless...
The funny thing in all of this, is that Leaf Nation loved Cherry, until he said something negative about Burkie...now Leaf Nation thinks Grapes is an old senile man...priceless...
The funny thing in all of this, is that Leaf Nation loved Cherry, until he said something negative about Burkie...now Leaf Nation thinks Grapes is an old senile man...priceless...
There's lots of things I like about Don. A lot of it has to do with what his job entails, which is talking about hockey (such as player safety). He's bang on when it comes to much of that.
That doesn't give him the right to go after someone's character in the manner he did, especially when it was done with a knowing intent that he built up for a long time. Just like it wasn't right when he called the enforcers "pukes". I didn't have a big problem with him calling them out as in at least 2 of 3 cases there was media proof of what he was alluding to but he needs to learn where those lines are. Similarly, if Burke calls someone names or denegrates their character unjustifiably, he too should accept what comes back at him. Fair is fair.
going to the cbc and the board about coach's corner makes burke look even more of a failure than he already has been as the gm for the leafs.
don is spot on with his no ontario boys rant too, although that has been a problem that goes back prior to burke's tenure here.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you want without someone telling you what you can and can't say.
el oh el.
[Edit: Look, playing the "freedom of speech" card to 'defend' Cherry's comments is just a silly stance to take. He's not getting censored by the government, nor was his employer being asked to censor him. He's also not going to face criminal prosecution unless, as you note below, his acts are actually defamatory (they were not).
His employer received a complaint from a member of the public about one of their employees making incorrect (but not yet defamatory or illegal) comments about another member of the public on a national stage. That's as far as it went. If I'm working for a company, and I call a customer an idiot, another customer isn't outside of their rights to complain about my tone and actions and ask my employer to consider appropriate action, be it a) a polite conversation asking me to not be so rude or blunt, b) a formal warning that my conduct is not in line with what my employer wants from its employees, c) dismissal, or d) telling me about it and laughing it off because, that customer, he so crazy!
Stop trying to spin this as some sort of grandiose crusade for freedom of speech when it really is not. You might have a case if we still had false news or false information laws, and they were being employed to try and criminalize this incident and get Cherry jailed, but a) we don't and b) they aren't.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busher Jackson
You get sued for defamation which is making a false claim about a person that injures their reputation.
Well, you got this half of your post correct at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theguru
don is spot on with his no ontario boys rant too, although that has been a problem that goes back prior to burke's tenure here.
I don't think there's a facepalm big enough to reply to the content of this post.
[Edit: Look, playing the "freedom of speech" card to 'defend' Cherry's comments is just a silly stance to take. He's not getting censored by the government, nor was his employer being asked to censor him.
His employer received a complaint from a member of the public about one of their employees making incorrect (but not yet defamatory or illegal) comments about another member of the public on a national stage. That's as far as it went. If I'm working for a company, and I call a customer an idiot, another customer isn't outside of their rights to complain about my tone and actions and ask my employer to consider appropriate action, be it a) a polite conversation asking me to not be so rude or blunt, b) a formal warning that my conduct is not in line with what my employer wants from its employees, c) dismissal, or d) telling me about it and laughing it off because, that customer, he so crazy!
The complaint about Wilson not clapping for the troops and Tortrella and Zettler did? That is just a fact. Understanding what a fact is important to future.
And Burke is perfectly within his rights to go to the CBC and try to silence Grapes. And CBC, a beacon of free speech, responded appropriately by revealing Burke's actions. Of course actions have consequences. And the consequence of Burke's action is to reveal his low moral character and self-aggrandizement.
Obviously you do not understand facts and the concept of freedom of speech. Again Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you want without someone telling you what you can and can't say. Burke was telling the CBC what Grapes can't say, he doesn't want Grapes pointing out the facts about Wilson. Of course as it turns out Grapes was correct about Wilson and Burke fired him.
Last edited by Busher Jackson: 03-10-2012 at 09:56 AM.
The complaint about Wilson not clapping for the troops and Tortrella and Zettler did? That is just a fact. Understanding what a fact is important to future.
And Burke is perfectly within his rights to go to the CBC and try to silence Grapes. And CBC, a beacon of free speech, responded appropriately by revealing Burke's actions. Of course actions have consequences. And the consequence of Burke's action is to reveal his low moral character and self-aggrandizement.
Obviously you do not understand facts and the concept of freedom of speech.
I hope that Cherry believes like you do, that he has freedom of speech, and says something that does get him fired.
Chances are that he will cross that line eventually.
I hope that Cherry believes like you do, that he has freedom of speech, and says something that does get him fired.
Chances are that he will cross that line eventually.
Say that, Cherry crosses the line. He gets fired. Great. No more Coaches Corner. Please explain how that makes the Leafs any better? How does that make Brian Burke a better Gm? It doesn't.
I hope that Cherry believes like you do, that he has freedom of speech, and says something that does get him fired.
Chances are that he will cross that line eventually.
The problem is that Cherry has already crossed the line several times but his employers just make too much money off his jingoism to care. The other problem is that Cherry's form of freedom of speech involves riling up a lynch mob.
Say that, Cherry crosses the line. He gets fired. Great. No more Coaches Corner. Please explain how that makes the Leafs any better? How does that make Brian Burke a better Gm? It doesn't.
Nobody said it did, you just made up the connection right now.
The complaint about Wilson not clapping for the troops and Tortrella and Zettler did? That is just a fact. Understanding what a fact is important to future.
I don't know at what point you assumed I thought Wilson not clapping was not a fact. Fortunately, that 'fact' does not exist in a vacuum, and is not the point of contention here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busher Jackson
And Burke is perfectly within his rights to go to the CBC and try to silence Grapes. And CBC, a beacon of free speech, responded appropriately by revealing Burke's actions. Of course actions have consequences. And the consequence of Burke's action is to reveal his low moral character and self-aggrandizement.
Are we talking about the same CBC that tries to keep its internals secret and whose president went to Quebecor to file a formal complaint about a work of a Sun Media writer (whoa, it's like, deja vu) drawing attention to their spending habits and lack of accountability, among other things?
Definitely a beacon of free speech and not a corporation out to protect their own interests and the interests of their employees. Definitely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busher Jackson
Obviously you do not understand facts and the concept of freedom of speech. Again Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you want without someone telling you what you can and can't say. Burke was telling the CBC what Grapes can't say, he doesn't want Grapes pointing out the facts about Wilson. Of course as it turns out Grapes was correct about Wilson and Burke fired him.
That opening sentence is an adorable personal attack, but you're missing the boat on what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech as a concept has to do with criminality (particularly as it relates to the government and government censorship) and how saying what you want in any channel you want, with exceptions, is not illegal.
For whatever reason, people tend to turn this into some sort of "I can say whatever I want, wherever I want, and nobody can doing anything about it" stance. This is especially the case in the United States, where people assume that freedom of speech applies everywhere when it does not apply in the private world (a moderator editing or deleting your post on HFBoards is not censorship or a violation of your right to free speech).
Filing a complaint about what someone has said is not some form of oppression of freedom of speech. It's filing a complaint with an employer about the conduct of their employee. You can get fired for saying something stupid. In this case, the CBC did not support the merits of the complaint. It doesn't mean Burke is a censor or a bully for filing it, and it doesn't make the CBC some crusader for the glory of free speech by not acting on it.
The problem is that Cherry has already crossed the line several times but his employers just make too much money off his jingoism to care. The other problem is that Cherry's form of freedom of speech involves riling up a lynch mob.
The only goodwill Cherry has with the CBC by now is his fanbase and I guess that we will see if that trumps everything.
Nobody said it did, you just made up the connection right now.
Well, in that case....I couldn't care less about Don Cherry. I often watch him just to see how much of an ass he could make of himself. It doesn't mean I always disagree with him. Just like I don't like Burke but sometimes he's right too. My point was, why do so many fans care about who is right vs. wrong in the Cherry vs. Burke debate. It will have no impact on the success or failures of the TML. Isn't that the only thing that matters to us fans?
I'm pretty sure that Burke does these things to deflect attention away from the real matters at hand. He is smarter than the average bear. One big smokescreen. If only he could translate his cunningness with the media to his primary job as GM.....maybe the Leafs would be a playoff team by now.
Well, in that case....I couldn't care less about Don Cherry. I often watch him just to see how much of an ass he could make of himself. It doesn't mean I always disagree with him. Just like I don't like Burke but sometimes he's right too. My point was, why do so many fans care about who is right vs. wrong in the Cherry vs. Burke debate. It will have no impact on the success or failures of the TML. Isn't that the only thing that matters to us fans?
I'm pretty sure that Burke does these things to deflect attention away from the real matters at hand. He is smarter than the average bear. One big smokescreen. If only he could translate his cunningness with the media to his primary job as GM.....maybe the Leafs would be a playoff team by now.
The discussion is mostly because of people who hate Burke and hate Wilson and hate everything to do with the team and see no good whatsoever and spend their time spreading misery among Leaf fans loved it when Cherry took his shots at Wilson.
Stating that Burke made this a public spectacle is one of their favourite mistruths to help propagate it all.
