bluto

I used to do a lot more physical stuff when I was younger. Until arthritis caught up with me as did surgeries in my right shoulder, both knees & both feet took away just about everything I used to do. Like a lot of fishing in the White Shell, Lake Of The Woods, Quesnel Lake at Caribou Lodge east of Bissett, MB (we just called it Caribou Lake back in the day), along the Winnipeg River at Pointe Du Bois & the Lake Manitoba Narrows. Then I moved to Calgary in 1990 & that was it for fishing for me. I never got into fly fishing.
Used to do a lot of curling in Manitoba at the Fort Rouge Curling Club. Curled here in Calgary at the Calgary Curling Club until I physically couldn't do it anymore because of arthrtitis. I haven't thrown a rock since 2009. Golf same. Not for at least 20 years. I loved to golf, fish & curl. I also used to run but that ******* arthritis took running from me too.
I do have some CFL collectibles. I'm trying to collect more much to my wife's angst as she keeps telling me I'm too old to do that we must downsize because once she retires in 4 years she wants to sell the house & buy a condo...
 

That's fine if you think that my post is dumb, HCB.
I have a similar opinion of being mandated to take an untested, unproven, known bad side effects, brand new technology and calling it the science. Or insisting that isn't blind faith.
Either way, you've the freedom to take as many of them as you please. But you don't have the freedom to use the word effective and expect to not hear some pretty obvious, elephant-in-the-room type of questions.

FDA approves new monovalent shot based on "manufacturers data" and no clinical trials. They also approved it for 12+ year-olds and authorized its use from 6 month to 11 years. 
I'll sit this one out. Good luck everyone and stay well.

It usually goes like this:
Q: Do you think that the C-19 shots are Safe & Effective.
A: Absolutely.
Q: So you got them?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever get Covid?
A: A few times.
Q: So they're Effective?
A: Yup.
Q: It works?
A: Yes, I may have gotten even more sick without it.
Q: Are you at all aware of this shot's side effect profile?
A: A bit.
Q: It doesn't concern you at all?
A: No, they must have tested it.
... OK, I'm out.

Looks like "safe & effective" is finally dead as a trope. From the NCI commissioners report (Sept 15):
 
“It is important to understand that the COVID-19 vaccines were never approved under the traditional approval process for drugs in Canada,” 
“Under the alternative authorization process, the necessity to establish the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines through an objective manner appears to have been set aside.”
“This cannot be an appropriate standard for approving a drug that the Government intends to administer to the entire population. It is difficult to conceive of a less-scientific test for drug authorization than that found in the Interim Order.”
“The result was that while chief medical officers across the country repeatedly assured Canadians that the COVID-19 vaccines were ‘safe and effective’—the general Canadian population had no understanding that their authorization process had not required objective proof of safety nor efficacy.”
“We all know there's a new vaccine that's coming around the corner, [a] new mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. And there's essentially no evidence for it, there's been no clinical trial done in human beings showing that it benefits people, there's been no clinical trial showing that it is a safe product for people. And not only that, but then there are a lot of red flags.”
 
https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/commissioners-report/

I am not so sure that a lot of those "anonymous inside quotes" weren't copied and pasted from some CFL fan forums. Not saying they all were, but I think some of them were.

Too late for that now, my dude.
And if the "investigation" yields no basis for the allegation, how does Kelly and the Argos get their reputation restored? Do they get to sue the Accuser? will they face civil or criminal charges? We know that they won't. It's a free hit as part of a civil wrongful dismissal case designed to produce a nice, easy settlement.

Mostly just that everyone is already proclaiming this guy is guilty because he’s got a reputation and if it were a Bomber, there would be cries of “let the process play out”
I wonder if anyone ever stopped to wonder if the reason this became public is because he has this reputation and the woman knew this would be effective.
Disclaimer: if he’s guilty of the claims, he’s a total piece of crap
I just see the double standard here for what it is and someone’s right to due process shouldn't depend on what team colours they wear 

Obvious syllogism between using accusations as leverage in lawsuits is obvious.

Obvious syllogism between using accusations as leverage in lawsuits is obvious.

I'm not dismissing it. Really. Just presenting the other side of the coin while  people gather up their torches and pitchforks.
I have no trouble at all believing that a pro athlete hit on a coworker and crossed a boundary. Especially in this day and age where boundaries for that are basically set at zero-tolerance by default (which I have no beef with).
And yeah, we know that he's a loon. But he's now been painted as a sexual harasser in national media. That's a different sort of reputational hit. And if it was because he asked a girl out at work, that's pretty harsh.

Too late for that now, my dude.
And if the "investigation" yields no basis for the allegation, how does Kelly and the Argos get their reputation restored? Do they get to sue the Accuser? will they face civil or criminal charges? We know that they won't. It's a free hit as part of a civil wrongful dismissal case designed to produce a nice, easy settlement.

We'd be saying Al Couture shouldn't have wore those tight pants.

Given the reaction to the Bombers suspending Lawler when his DUI happened was "good for them for being proactive", I suspect our reaction would be much the same.
My wife always says I am divorced from reality, does that count?

That was the first video I've watched today. I had to search for highlight reels of good plays before I felt sufficiently "up" so that I could leave the house.
 
There's no way I'm starting my day like that.
 

And yet, look how his final game turned out for him.
What a way to sign off.

And yet, look how his final game turned out for him.
What a way to sign off.

Are you trying to tell us that "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"  and that in happens in real life....  Noooooooooooooo waaay!  
 
 

Kelly has been conspicuous for his hard work and charitable hours and for the record, I don't recall ever scoffing... but then I don't ever recall attesting to any particular player's sainthood either.
I don't think I'm likely to taste any crow here based on a $50k add-on to a wrongful dismissal suit. But you never know.
 
Like I said earlier, ask Shawn Oakman about this stuff.
Or, as I trust that most people around here are men of middle age or more, I find it difficult to believe that nobody here has an acquaintance who went through an acrimonious divorce where allegations were made. These things happen in lawsuits. They are common leveraging tools. And the tell is that usually the civil suit is filed and no criminal one is. Because if there's a criminal suit, it always makes the civil one a tap-in. 

Big job ahead: Find the next Stiggers/Peters/Hendrix/Barlow/Pickett...

It's the Argo way. Not sure what you're scouts eat for breakfast...but I could do with some of it 

And when you have a son whose reputation and career options are torpedoed from a false allegation perhaps you'll understand why rushing to judgement can be ill advised. In that case, even when proven false, the damage is irreparable.

Excuse me, serious question: what victim? And who said that they ought to be shamed? This is a wrongful termination suit with a side of a sensationalized accusation to whip the press (and apparently internet forums) into a frenzy before evidence and judgement. And why would the accused be named and subjected to trial by press except for the purpose of shaming them into accepting a settlement (much as was done once before against the Argos)? 
This serves the accuser's legal strategy just fine, as was always the intent.
Give me a bit of credit for being a decent human please.
And your comment about the side of truth is just so offside here. And support what victim?
And this is why trial by media for a wrongful termination suit is ideal for the accuser.
Yahtzee.

Particularly because this isn't a criminal matter...

Just saying:
 
It's messed up how they can name Kelly but not the accuser.