Dube

[clemonsonroots]

We could probably skip all of this debate over morality and just look at it like this...Dube was a so-so third fourth line type who had some potential. He missed a while and at this point, probably isn't any better than what we already have locked in on our team and what is coming up in our system. I think adding a dube is just blocking a bergy, carbs, kaski, or finley and I think I would just rather go with those guys at this point. We really do not need him. He did well for us in the minors, and he likely will get a shot somewhere because of it. Let someone else deal with the morality question as we are good at what he would bring. Much bigger moves and decisions coming than this.

[Walter Sobchak00]

The court/judge did not just find that that the crown failed to prove is case beyond a reasonable doubt. It also found the the complainant exaggerated her intoxication level, filled memory gaps with assumptions and gave false testimony in direct contradiction with video evidence

I think you're falling into trap of [partially] your own making. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, regardless, the girl was not on trial. She was testimony, evidence. The Judges's comments indicate strongly that the veracity of her testimony was questionable and it did not tip the scales to conviction of the defendants. At that point, it's over. Everyone walks away, her and the defendants, unless she tries to sue them in a civil suit. Criminally, the players are innocent. Morally? Who knows. Those points were not litigated beyond the criminal trial and the various institutional investigations and reports. They all walk away, go on with their lives as best as they can. In the real world there isn't always certainty of knowledge or closure to everyone's satisfaction.

I have never argued that anyone involved was morally innocent. Quite the opposite actually.

The only trap I'm falling in is arguing with fools.

The foolish part was me wasting my time trying to convince you of something you obviously don't have.. morals.

[skilles]

The court/judge did not just find that that the crown failed to prove is case beyond a reasonable doubt. It also found the the complainant exaggerated her intoxication level, filled memory gaps with assumptions and gave false testimony in direct contradiction with video evidence

I think you're falling into trap of [partially] your own making. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, regardless, the girl was not on trial. She was testimony, evidence. The Judges's comments indicate strongly that the veracity of her testimony was questionable and it did not tip the scales to conviction of the defendants. At that point, it's over. Everyone walks away, her and the defendants, unless she tries to sue them in a civil suit. Criminally, the players are innocent. Morally? Who knows. Those points were not litigated beyond the criminal trial and the various institutional investigations and reports. They all walk away, go on with their lives as best as they can. In the real world there isn't always certainty of knowledge or closure to everyone's satisfaction.

I have never argued that anyone involved was morally innocent. Quite the opposite actually.

The only trap I'm falling in is arguing with fools.

The foolish part was me wasting my time trying to convince you of something you obviously don't have.. morals.

lol Yes you keep finding things to be outraged about to convince your self your A super duper person. I'm comfortable enough with my action and contributions to society that I don't feel the need to do that.

[Walter Sobchak00]

The court/judge did not just find that that the crown failed to prove is case beyond a reasonable doubt. It also found the the complainant exaggerated her intoxication level, filled memory gaps with assumptions and gave false testimony in direct contradiction with video evidence

I think you're falling into trap of [partially] your own making. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, regardless, the girl was not on trial. She was testimony, evidence. The Judges's comments indicate strongly that the veracity of her testimony was questionable and it did not tip the scales to conviction of the defendants. At that point, it's over. Everyone walks away, her and the defendants, unless she tries to sue them in a civil suit. Criminally, the players are innocent. Morally? Who knows. Those points were not litigated beyond the criminal trial and the various institutional investigations and reports. They all walk away, go on with their lives as best as they can. In the real world there isn't always certainty of knowledge or closure to everyone's satisfaction.

I have never argued that anyone involved was morally innocent. Quite the opposite actually.

The only trap I'm falling in is arguing with fools.

The foolish part was me wasting my time trying to convince you of something you obviously don't have.. morals.

lol Yes you keep finding things to be outraged about to convince your self your A super duper person. I'm comfortable enough with my action and contributions to society that I don't feel the need to do that.

You're not comfortable enough to have this conversation in public and I've never once said I was a super duper anything..

Says a lot more about you than it does me you're more upset about my words than you are about the actions of the 5 of them

[skilles]

The court/judge did not just find that that the crown failed to prove is case beyond a reasonable doubt. It also found the the complainant exaggerated her intoxication level, filled memory gaps with assumptions and gave false testimony in direct contradiction with video evidence

I think you're falling into trap of [partially] your own making. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, regardless, the girl was not on trial. She was testimony, evidence. The Judges's comments indicate strongly that the veracity of her testimony was questionable and it did not tip the scales to conviction of the defendants. At that point, it's over. Everyone walks away, her and the defendants, unless she tries to sue them in a civil suit. Criminally, the players are innocent. Morally? Who knows. Those points were not litigated beyond the criminal trial and the various institutional investigations and reports. They all walk away, go on with their lives as best as they can. In the real world there isn't always certainty of knowledge or closure to everyone's satisfaction.

I have never argued that anyone involved was morally innocent. Quite the opposite actually.

The only trap I'm falling in is arguing with fools.

The foolish part was me wasting my time trying to convince you of something you obviously don't have.. morals.

lol Yes you keep finding things to be outraged about to convince your self your A super duper person. I'm comfortable enough with my action and contributions to society that I don't feel the need to do that.

You're not comfortable enough to have this conversation in public and I've never once said I was a super duper anything..

Says a lot more about you than it does me you're more upset about my words than you are about the actions of the 5 of them

I think I'll let you find someone else to enable your virtue signaling.

[Walter Sobchak00]

The court/judge did not just find that that the crown failed to prove is case beyond a reasonable doubt. It also found the the complainant exaggerated her intoxication level, filled memory gaps with assumptions and gave false testimony in direct contradiction with video evidence

I think you're falling into trap of [partially] your own making. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, regardless, the girl was not on trial. She was testimony, evidence. The Judges's comments indicate strongly that the veracity of her testimony was questionable and it did not tip the scales to conviction of the defendants. At that point, it's over. Everyone walks away, her and the defendants, unless she tries to sue them in a civil suit. Criminally, the players are innocent. Morally? Who knows. Those points were not litigated beyond the criminal trial and the various institutional investigations and reports. They all walk away, go on with their lives as best as they can. In the real world there isn't always certainty of knowledge or closure to everyone's satisfaction.

I have never argued that anyone involved was morally innocent. Quite the opposite actually.

The only trap I'm falling in is arguing with fools.

The foolish part was me wasting my time trying to convince you of something you obviously don't have.. morals.

lol Yes you keep finding things to be outraged about to convince your self your A super duper person. I'm comfortable enough with my action and contributions to society that I don't feel the need to do that.

You're not comfortable enough to have this conversation in public and I've never once said I was a super duper anything..

Says a lot more about you than it does me you're more upset about my words than you are about the actions of the 5 of them

I think I'll let you find someone else to enable your virtue signaling.

Whatever helps you get to sleep at night..

[Lets_Clinch]

Dillon Dube grew up in Golden, British Columbia. A small town where his dad worked for A cheese company and his grandmother taught him how to skate and his grandparents were heavily involved in his upbringing. This does not seem to at all be a matter of a privileged/poor upbringing.

That's missing the point entirely. The issue here is the system that exists which perpetuates, enables, and covers up these scandals. Team Canada had a slush fund to cover these things. Not all of them were cases of consensual buggery. This is a decades and decades old problem. Is there a contradiction with teenage behavior and society's norms? Absolutely. What we need addressed is the culture and system built up around the sport which enables this sort of thing. We can't control or alter teenage brains, we absolutely can control and alter the environment which they are socialized into as part of being an athlete.

I'm gonna bet they were absolutely almost 100% "cases of consensual buggery"

They only difference between them and a lot of teen males is woman say yes more often.

I mean seriously what do you think is more likely?

1. Five elite male hockey players that have no problem finding hook ups but are all into gang raping women instead happen to be hanging out together

2. One female happen to be ok with hooking up with 5 elite star athletes?

Keep in mind I'm not assuming she lied or accusing her of it....the female judge did that not me.

Of course they have to have a fund to cover these things, they are trucking teenage boys around the world partying it up. I'm sure they cause all kinds of trouble.

I grew up with some guys that ended up having a very popular band, the only difference between them and most teeage/early 20s guys was women wanted to do crazy immoral things with them.

That is the problem with the star athlete "culture" women let them.

Women do immoral things to.

The problem is women let them? That's what you think the problem is? No agency for structural change or responsibility just blame the dumb kids biology and not only that continue to cover it up and don't even question the slush fund because ya know, nature? Yikes.

You think sexual assault is about being able to find willing partners? Another yikes.

I'm no longer engaging with you on this, massive respect loss though. You are part of the problem.

100% he’s really shown everyone who he really is in these 5 pages.

He’s really come off as a “she deserved because of what she’s wearing” type.

Ive not said anything of that nature what so ever. I don't think she deserved to be assaulted, I don't think assault is ok, and I don't think she was assaulted at all.

Which is also what the courts, the NHL, and the Blues seem to believe unless you think they believe they really assaulted this girl and are just ok with it.

You 100% said she wanted it. Multiple times. You said she asked for it.

You have done nothing but defend the actions of those players all so your favorite hockey team can have a 3C.

You’re disgusting and everyone has seen it.


And yeah, I think Armstrong is probably ok with what happened. He strikes me a lot like you do. Holier than thou, boys will be boys type.

As usual, you are absolutely full of sheet. He has explained time and again about how he has not dismissed the bad decisions. I have 3 daughters-one has made some very poor decisions. When I was told of a story by the one who made poor decisions, I reacted as a Father and a Veteran, all the sudden her story changed when I was about to do something very stupid by listening to my daughter and the person I was I thought I could trust. Skilles has said time and again how he feels. I have worked at the same place for 31 years. I am very high up in the Company. I can tell you the young people lie and lie poorly much more than the older ones just as my 6 children did when they were younger. I am not picking a side. I am just trying to help you with some perspective and I can't stand you, so I am really trying hard to be kind whether you deserve it or not.