UBC track sexual assault allegations

Ernest,

If you have a problem with people posting anonymously, why on earth are you on this site?

Aside from this, I have a few issues with your general philosophy.

Primarily, the Galloway case is not comparable to this one. UBC has been tight-lipped about the “RMT” (this little tidbit actually wasn’t shared in the article). Not to mention that Galloway was a world-renowned writer and academic, whereas the accused in this situation is a track coach. Call me a snob, but I feel as though within the hierarchy of life, Galloway was (and is) a little higher up the food chain.

Also, it is moronic to claim that people shouldn’t be emotional or support someone who believes they’ve been victimized. You’re right that justice is blind, but this comes down to a court room with a jury that has been specifically selected to preserve the rights of the accused. I doubt very much it will be hard to find a group of people who know nothing about running within the context of UBC. It’s not that big of a community and running itself is a fringe sport. Also, the accused is not Galloway. They have not written an award winning novel to my knowledge, and I’m doubtful that beyond useless running seminars with $5 budgets that their presence will be requested anywhere beyond a courtroom. To my knowledge, they’re still out running with their local community and doing just fine. Spitting all over let’s run about their rights being breached is just dumb.

Moreover, instead of keeping an online thesaurus handy and using strange and unnecessary jargon, I recommend reading a book. The Cellist of Sarajevo (written by Galloway) is a novel that thematically explores the dangers of treating groups of people who hold differences to you as “others” (hint, the city of Sarajevo was under siege for almost 4 years). Instead of “cool-headed conservatives” vs “emotional-liberals”, I encourage to dig deep and really reach for something called empathy. Perhaps you’ll expand your thought process so it can match your ridiculous use of elementary literary devices.

Also, acting as though you aren’t personally involved in this case is ridiculous. Your pretentious dialect isn’t fooling anyone.

Seriously, everyone should just ignore Ernest. He derailed the Steve Boyd / DST thread with his ravings. Don't let him ruin this one too.

Don't respond to his bile. It just encourages him.

There is a problem with guidance.

It means that you dont feel strongly enough about something to make it a rule.

It means something is allowed.

It means that the thing is only a probem when and if it causes harm.

Why is this sort of behaviour not objected to enough to make it a rule?

Do you really expect that the coach would invite the person who accused them of this to a zoom call where they explain their side of the story??! There was nothing illegal about that zoom call it was just a guy trying to tell his side of the story, a mans allowed to do that… This ain’t a communist regime where everyone is only allowed to hear the accusers side of the story

speedy Gonzalez222 wrote:

Survivor...of a massage?

To all the women who are actual survivors of sexual assault this minimizes their trauma.

This man spitting facts

Here is the thing there are, this coach was cleared legally to show his innocence in the report, a man should be able to show he’s innocent whether you like it or not, this ain’t a communist regime

Another elephant in the room is that this isn't the first we've heard of similar actions from the accused. Some people in the sport don't have a hard time believing the victim because one wouldn't have to dig too deep into the past of the coach in question to find rumours that fit this story, establishing a d*mning pattern of behaviour.

Straightener wrote:

Do you really expect that the coach would invite the person who accused them of this to a zoom call where they explain their side of the story??! There was nothing illegal about that zoom call it was just a guy trying to tell his side of the story, a mans allowed to do that… This ain’t a communist regime where everyone is only allowed to hear the accusers side of the story

Not if he signed an NDA. You can't claim to like rule of law and due process and then complain about how they are applied when it isn't to your advantage.

The main purpose of "telling your side of the story" after a decision has already been made but before it becomes public is to sway public opinion towards you. It's a very obvious tactic, and it's what Nike/Houlihan did. People are psychologically anchored to the first piece of information they hear on a topic, even if it is wrong or misleading. In this case, it was possibly also a violation of a legal contract.

I wouldn’t say “spitting facts”. Sexual assault is inappropriate touching. The alleged victim was 18, which is considered a child in BC, and many other places. This would mean any kind of inappropriate touching is technically molestation. Is it legally within a persons rights to fondle a child?

Dissecting this logical cadaver... "it is moronic to claim" "I doubt very much" " I’m doubtful that" "To my knowledge" "Call me a snob, but I feel as though" "I encourage to dig deep and really reach" "Spitting all over" "is just dumb" "using strange and unnecessary jargon" "your ridiculous use of elementary literary devices" "Perhaps you’ll expand your thought process" "acting as though you aren’t personally involved in this case is ridiculous" " I recommend reading a book" "Your pretentious dialect isn’t fooling anyone." These are not arguments. Nor facts. But speculation, moralising, weak modifiers, and anonymous ad hominen attack. Literacy shouldn't offend you. Nor should contrary views. What I'm getting here - anyone who doesn't agree with you is a reprehensible idiot.

Regarding the Boyd thread, my participation was minimal and late - mostly providing links to major news articles. My position is Boyd got a raw deal. I suppose that's "bile" and "derailing" if you that's how you see sharing information or expressing an alternative viewpoint. Boyd was (was) certainly vocal and shared opinions, was muzzled for expressing them, and then utterly "cancelled" for having exercised free speech - and because his views were mis-characterised as victim-blaming. Seeing some of that in this thread. Angry Woke Folks calling for censure and heads on pikes.

Reginald Dome wrote:

Seriously, everyone should just ignore Ernest. He derailed the Steve Boyd / DST thread with his ravings. Don't let him ruin this one too.

Don't respond to his bile. It just encourages him.

Oh my goodness, you're right. I was thinking of "fred." (His insane rants wound up running an initially decent discussion into the ditch.) My apologies.

Ernest wrote:

Regarding the Boyd thread, my participation was minimal and late - mostly providing links to major news articles.

My position is Boyd got a raw deal.

I suppose that's "bile" and "derailing" if you that's how you see sharing information or expressing an alternative viewpoint.

Boyd was (was) certainly vocal and shared opinions, was muzzled for expressing them, and then utterly "cancelled" for having exercised free speech - and because his views were mis-characterised as victim-blaming.

Seeing some of that in this thread.

Angry Woke Folks calling for censure and heads on pikes.

Reginald Dome wrote:

Seriously, everyone should just ignore Ernest. He derailed the Steve Boyd / DST thread with his ravings. Don't let him ruin this one too.

Don't respond to his bile. It just encourages him.

Not at all. I don’t believe that you’re an idiot, just lacking humility and debate skills.

Literacy does not offend me. As you’ll notice, I made a very good book recommendation. This book has won several awards, and was written by your man Galloway. I’m not intellectually stunted enough to reject someone’s work just because they don’t align with my moral compass or opinions!

Using pretentious vocabulary isn’t an indication of a well-read person. I could recommend a few more books if you’d like:)

Sincerely,

An anonymous, intellectual, literary-loving person

Hey Straightener

Please talk to a lawyer about what I am about to tell you. You sound super intelligent lol so surely in your circle of friends there must be someone in law school or who is already a lawyer.

NO ONE WAS CLEARED COMPLETELY. The report is one person's opinion and will not hold up in a court of law minus some of the evidence. It was a report for hire by the institution. A first step. The employee was let go so saying someone is completely and legally innocent is a huge stretch when the civil suit is the first legal process. NOW the civil courts can BEGIN a legal process. Instead the majority of your team jumped to conclusions months ago harming the survivor which is why there is support for them publicly. So instead of getting legal advice from the team, head on out into the big world and check your facts.

In fact, if you and your teammates (including some wannabe Olympians) would like to list your names here in support please do so. (Especially the wannabes) Just remember to include all the zoom activities, the viewings and offering of a confidential document to the general public and how you as a group from the team at the said institution feel the me too movement is out of control and all the other bizarre and inappropriate things said on this forum. Identify yourselves ( lots of people who empathize and understand how difficult this is for someone to come forward are doing that.) Your turn.

Galloway isn't "my man". Already said as much. And it was also already stated his case was mentioned only to demonstrate UBC already bungled a sexual misconduct investigation. One serious consequence being >5 million dollars enriching lawyers instead of benefiting students and programs. That should underscore related processes and people are fallible - and rights of the accused are not trivial. An offer to provide reading lists is condescending. And listing your touted strengths/virtues alongside my perceived shortcomings is irrelevant - and does not further discussion at hand.

Still carrots wrote:

Not at all. I don’t believe that you’re an idiot, just lacking humility and debate skills.

Literacy does not offend me. As you’ll notice, I made a very good book recommendation. This book has won several awards, and was written by your man Galloway. I’m not intellectually stunted enough to reject someone’s work just because they don’t align with my moral compass or opinions!

Using pretentious vocabulary isn’t an indication of a well-read person. I could recommend a few more books if you’d like:)

Sincerely,

An anonymous, intellectual, literary-loving person

No worries. A silver lining in the Boyd mess is Queens ended up with a solid coach - Bomba is da bomb.

Reginald Dome wrote:

Oh my goodness, you're right. I was thinking of "fred." (His insane rants wound up running an initially decent discussion into the ditch.) My apologies.

Ernest wrote:

Regarding the Boyd thread, my participation was minimal and late - mostly providing links to major news articles.

My position is Boyd got a raw deal.

I suppose that's "bile" and "derailing" if you that's how you see sharing information or expressing an alternative viewpoint.

Boyd was (was) certainly vocal and shared opinions, was muzzled for expressing them, and then utterly "cancelled" for having exercised free speech - and because his views were mis-characterised as victim-blaming.

Seeing some of that in this thread.

Angry Woke Folks calling for censure and heads on pikes.

bomp