The Unknown Poster

I think if their plan was to create a scenario where pedestrians dont cross at grade level, then they'd just go with what they have now, which is pedestrians not crossing at grade level...ie. underground.

He had previously agreed to fight Fedor so it wouldnt shock me. It will be interesting because WWE would certainly want him to win and even UFC will want him to win (for future potential deals) unless its someone who can be *made* by beating him. But Brock always been someone who wants to fight guys that are tough...never wanted "easy" fights. So will he take an easy fight knowing his age and rust works against him? Not sure about that...

Id be less surprised if it was confirmed many of the Anti Trump crowd were professional protestors. Although I love when they stick mic's in the faces of morons and get them vowing to shut Trump up while claiming it's their right to freedom of expression. @Iso I agree the actual campaign will be a big test for him but Im not sure he will lose much support from his core. Thats really his major decision - to remain the same tone and keep that base or try to be more reasoned and "traditional" to attract more interest and risk losing that core. I suspect he plays the same game until he's losing, then he begins reaching out in a more reasoned way. I bet he chooses a more tradtional, popular VP who will try to reach the more traditional voter. I would bet on Hilary especially once Bill and Obama start campaigning more but never under estimate her unlikeability factor.

Again, other cities with larger intersections and heavier traffic figure it out. If crossing is the biggest hurdle, thats great news because its completely not insurmountable. Regarding the roundabout, I agree. But Winnipeg uses those super tiny roundabouts that are moronic in their design and usage. The larger ones, like on Lakewood, are great. That one in particular drastically improved the intersection.

If I recall all but one of the stakeholders agreed to remove the barriers and the last hold out publicly mentioned (thought not officially) that they had no opposition. I would suspect they'd want it to coincide with the opening of their new tower and at-grade entrance/features for the Square. I imagine they feel the people living above would drive business to the underground and if people could cross freely at grade, they might generate more foot traffic and that would generate more potential customers.

Whoops yes I knew I was forgetting someone lol. Could actually be Connor-Pearreault- lowry(Dano) and then your fourth line is some combo of Copp, Burmi, armia, Thorburn, Dano(Lowry) Rumor is Trouba wants 6x6. Since we dodged that bullet with Ladd perhaps we should give it to him

But Mackinnon would cement the Jets' centre position for the next 10+ years. Moves Little to wing potentially. Theres a risk in upsetting Little. But I could also see the Jets being the kind to say to Buff and Little and Wheeler we need you guys to be the veterans on this team who are schooling the kids...the elder statesmen of the team. And I think there is a chance they'd embrace that if the team was winning. Ehlers - Schief - Wheeler Laine - Mackinnon - Little Connor - Lowry - Dano

It would surprise me only because I don't see the Jets as seeing their future being built on weakening the D to strengthen the O. But if they have faith in Morrissey it would mean Toby/Buff & Morrissey/Myers as the top four and you can probably fill out the bottom two.

It doesn't matter what the victim wants. If a 13 year girl is raped and says she doesn't want the guy to go to jail, the DA can't base a decision on no persecuting on that fact. Its a relevant consideration in choosing to proceed on the basis of strength of the case without the victim's cooperation but its not reliant on that cooperation. There is an obligation for the DA to seek justice. In this case, its moot because Polanski admitted it. Its possible he wasn't going to be sentenced to prison or just the remaining 48 days of his previously agreed upon 90 day stint. But the judge also is not obligated to agree with plea agreements. Plus now you have the issue of his fleeing which is a crime. I don't know the penalty involved but once they have him back its possible they say fine we accept the plea deal on the sex crime...but hey now you're going to prison for fleeing.

Ofcourse you're entitled to your opinion even when it's wrong. All I will say in closing, is if you ever want to explore it more deeply, do some research. As I said, I used to see it the same way as you and had my mind changed. Good discussion. No hard feelings.

If not for the legal requirement of the Wpg Square stake holders to approve, the barriers would already be down.

Yeah but you can't trust the comments section lol I guarantee the hope is for synergy between Forks and Downtown as part of the proposed Forks development. Its not that far away really. Imagine waling from MTSC to Goldeyes park. Its not that far. But currently, its not a enjoyable walk. But if there are way more people, shops, restaurants, and an ability to cross portage, then it becomes something more likely to happen. If all these projects get off the ground there will be tons more people living and playing in that area.

I wouldn't be so quick to call Trump a whack job. When he announced, people said he's nuts and has no chance. When he was a front runner, people said he's nuts and he has no chance. When he became presumptive nominee, people said he was nuts and had no chance. He has a chance and his numbers are due to his style. And I think he;s very intelligent and shrewd.

Mark Hunt floating around as the potential opponent but probably not a good idea. Mir would have been good but he's suspended

Weird development. Brock is going to lose. Word is Brock has been training for UFC since April, probably was reached out to when Connor and UFC blew up. As Goalie said many presume this is to get Connor or Ronda for WWE. On the other hand, some are saying this is WWE paying back the favour they owe UFC for letting Ronda appear at Mania in Santa Clara last year Also talk that Brock's WWE contract allowed one UFC fight because the talk was he was going to fight Fedor a couple of years ago. The assumption is WWE will want Brock to face someone he can beat. But there is so much risk in this. Its really crazy. I guess its a massive pay day for Brock because he previously said he was done.

There are a lot of people who strongly believe in freedom of expression....as long as your opinion is the same as theirs.

I would say most people want them open actually. And I think it makes all the sense in the world. The traffic thing is a red herring. Other larger cities with larger intersections have pedestrian crossings. It can be done. Wpg Square will benefit from more people in the area of the city and local business make it desirable to be there. If I recall the only business against opening was 360 main and they said when announcing their new building that they had no issue with re opening. The idea is the development feeds the underground. And you have to make the underground more desirable too. When the Forks development happens and you see more synergy between forks and downtown then the intersection becomes even more of a key location with more people there tear down these walls.

They would then need D help but Chevy said on 1290 he for sure expects to be active in free agency.

Caught a cool of Bob Mackenzie on 1290 but not paying attention. Something about potential Trouba situation. Sounds like he said "I'm not saying Trouba will for sure be traded but..." anyone know the story?

Remember when we were so excited to get Myers and how every expert out there assumed Myers was just a trade and flip by the Jets because no one could believe a player of his calibre would readily want to play here?

He spent 42 days of a 90 day assignment to prison for purposes of an evaluation which he agreed to in an effort to get off. It was part of his plea deal to avoid significant prison time. The 42 days were not a sentence on the crime. He was released early. The issue is the judge said he felt Polanski deserved to at least serve the remainder of the 90 days he had agreed to. Polanski didn't think he should do any time at all since, you know, the child wanted it. Regarding the victims opinion, its important but not almighty. Many examples in domestic abuse of women who don't want their partner's arrested but they are anyway. In this case, the child co-operated fully initially. And for years. And years later sued...so she still wanted justice then. She got paid and now doesn't want to proceed. And while her opinion is relevant in the sentencing phase, it doesn't preclude the public interest (by way of the role of the DA) to consequence Polanski. Not to mention he still could be charged for fleeing, which she has no relevancy in.

Thing is Rich, I know that. I even said that ti ISO in an earlier post. But my point in continuing the discussion is that he won't answer the very simple question in regards to how he can say someone is a pedo with not only no evidence to support it, but plenty of evidence to counter it...and how that is worth using as comparison against Polanski? A much better comparison would be Bill Cosby. He still never plead guilty to anything and didn't rape a child but he admitted to drugging women for the purpose of sex. And public opinion on Cosby is similar to Polanski (bad). The difference is Hollywood is mostly against Cosby but supports Polanski. We can guess as to why.

You didn't read my post then because it sad nothing about a rich guy paying people off. It was about a slime ball trying to extort a celebrity who actually refused to pay the extortion which is why the allegations were made public. You can't say Jackson abused a child. You simply can't. There is no evidence and he was never found guilty. Polanski admitted it. Again, how are they the same?

Not every disagreement is pointless. Sometimes differences of opinion within a discussion are enlightening. Feel free to split it off to its own thread and then only people who want to read and or take part can do so. Quite honestly I think it's pretty wild for someone to assume a guy is a sick pedo with no evidence to support that. But as I said I assumed Jackson was guilty too....until I bothered to look into it more. And I've helpfully detailed the first accusation and why it was clearly bogus. So while I agree ISO isn't likely to change his mind (I said the same thing earlier) I was hoping he'd read the supporting facts and admit that perhaps there was more to the story than he thought. Regrdless it's very different than Polanski who admitted he did it, said she was into it and then fled to avoid jail. He's a sleaze.

Well I don't know you're a pedo either but I wouldn't just assume you were. You don't know Jackson was but you assume he was? Do you assume everyone is until you have solid evidence to the contrary? I assume you didn't even bother reading what I wrote. Again, how is Jackson like Polanski? One was acquitted and there was overwhelming evidence he was extorted. The other admitted freely that he did it and fled the country to avoid jail time. What don't you understand? I think child rapists should be consequenced. I think people who are not child rapists shouldn't be. Pretty simple really. Here is some details about the Polanski case: According to Geimer's testimony to the grand jury, Polanski had asked Geimer's mother (a television actress and model) if he could photograph the girl as part of his work for the French edition of Vogue,[13] which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. Geimer testified that she felt uncomfortable during the first session, in which she posed topless at Polanski's request, and initially did not wish to take part in a second, but nevertheless agreed to another shoot. This took place on 10 March 1977, at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles. At the time the crime was committed, Nicholson was on a skitrip in Colorado, and his live-in girlfriend Anjelica Huston who was there, left, but later returned while Polanski and Geimer were there. Geimer was quoted in a later article as saying that Huston became suspicious of what was going on behind the closed bedroom door and began banging on it, but left when Polanski insisted they were finishing up the photo shoot.[14] "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there."[15] In a 2003 interview, she recalled that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and described how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".[16] Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,[17] and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,[18][19] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. Polanski stated that he did not drug Geimer, that she "wasn't unresponsive", and that she did not respond negatively when he inquired as to whether or not she was enjoying what he was doing.