...

The obvious one for LTS is LSD. You people, sometimes I don't know where your heads are at.

I guess I could call some craft beers I've had swill, or, at least, refer to them as "craft beers". Speaking of, I finally had some Otter Creek recently. Not that I would call it swill, but it didn't really leave me wanting to buy more. This is the thread that keeps on giving...I didn't know about Gordon Biersch, that they make a good lager, and that there's one down the highway. I love lagers. I used to take swigs of my grandmother's beer, and that's what she drank. Anyway, fast forward to sometime in the past decade, I had Great Lake's Dortmunder Gold. I have yet to find a better lager, but, to be honest, I've been caught up in IPAs.

I like Mighty. But, maybe, like once or twice a year. It is truly awful "Mexican" food, though.

I assume the lawyers involved can somehow suppress the release of information until both sides formally agree (or disagree) on the next step. If, say, they're working on a settlement, the release of any information prior to agreeing on a settlement could harm one or more of the parties involved. In other news, I just heard WBEN call Kane a suspect, which I would think at this point is premature and perhaps worthy of a call from Kane's legal team.

As long as it takes to allow all sides to figure out what the next move will be.

Well, I think some people are acting like all girls under 18 are repulsed and traumatized by "having sex", which isn't true. So, the fact that there are girls out there who are looking and makes it difficult for younger men to make an appropriate judgment makes matter cloudy, IMHO. And I'm not talking about Kane at this point, it seems we've moved beyond talking about his situation specifically. Anyway, clearly I understand and respect the law as it is, however there can be situations, like anything in life, where conforming to the law isn't in reality a black and white, cut and dry matter. Without having any research to back up the thought, it would seem to me that perhaps one reason female jurors could be hard to convince in cases like this is because they know what it's like to be that age and female, and that not all females walk the line right down the middle. Just like, as a male, I know exactly what it was like to be in my late teens and, honestly, I don't know how much of the benefit of the doubt I could give a dude. Did society freak out when Fast Times at Ridgemont High was released? I was too young.

There are girls under 18 who like to have sex and look older than 18.

What? I'm making a prediction, not trying to dictate anything. How can you possibly infer otherwise? Right! Thank you.

It doesn't mean that "she" was, either. And, again, what is that something? Frankly, I have a scenario in my head that would cause this thread to explode, maybe, but is perfectly reasonable and logical - as much as logic can be applied to a narrative along these lines. But I don't wish to cause the thread to explode. When there are details, when (or if) the police, or whatever official body, confirm that the complaint has merit, that there is enough evidence to charge the accused, then the tenor of this thread will change. But for now we have a story made up of small fragments some of which we can not even reasonably accept as true, yet. The so-called victim is nothing right now but a construct of this thread. All of that may change, but, for now it's conjecture; the person you have empathy for may not exist.

WHO?

Color me shocked at the lack of reason here. A "verified complaint" is nothing more than that - the police have a piece of paper with words on it that read as an accusation against someone. The investigation is about verifying whether the complaint has merit and whether there are grounds for charges. Even at that point, the "victim" is technically an "alleged victim" until the court determines whether the accused is guilty of the charges or not. Then, and only then, does the "alleged victim" become a "victim" in a technical sense. There is a long and sordid history of why the legal system is set up this way.

Then you're denying a possible reality.

Who, specifically, is being disparaged?

Do we have that detail? Do we know if it was a woman or a girl, and do we know who filed the complaint? Oh, and do we know that the complaint is valid? I think it would need to be verified as a valid complaint before we start assigning the victim label to anyone, right? Or wrong? Or are we victims just because we have enough brain power to complain about something, regardless of the veracity of the complaint?

In the context of discussing the law, there has to be a line. You can devise as many anecdotes as you wish, it doesn't serve the discussion, but, rather, derails it. In fact, it's this type of utopianism that feeds someone like dark, for whom it seems nothing is good unless it's absolutely perfect. Let's transport this case to Iran and evaluate which government/society handles the case in a more agreeable manner.

There has to be line drawn somewhere, otherwise we're all victims of something.

Can I still accuse people of being a witch? Because, when the masses believed in witch-craft, once you were accused, the burden of proving you're not a witch was on the accused. One way to prove the accusation was false was to sink to the bottom of a pond and drown. You were guilty if you floated or swam. Maybe Kane should jump in the lake and we can find out if he's guilty. Maybe he should be accused of racism - that's the new witch-craft.

Pot, meet kettle. The TRUTH is, until there is a formal charge, there is no victim. Therefore, there is no one to disparage. Hence, all of the discussion you two seem to object to is theoretical. That's like saying one should merely accept the existence of God, and not contemplate God's existence.

If the girl/woman is under-aged, then the accusation of rape is lodged by the parents, because the girl (then) is, indeed, under-aged. Not because it wasn't so-called consensual. If there wasn't consent, then we would also have some sort of kidnapping accusation as well, which we don't as far as I know. If it was an of-age rape in his home, we'd likely be seeing accusations of unlawful imprisonment to accompany the rape accusation. If he's charged, we'll have a lot more to go on, obviously.

Let's be thankful that TPegs isn't so stubborn that he can learn his lessons. Thankful in a "it's only sports" way, at least.

I wonder what the rest of the staff feels like over there. It can't be fun times, right now, in the business offices, unless you're a Brandon crony.

Right, but I distinctly recall him discussing this and mentioning something to the effect of wanting competent people to lead at the top, or some such. The reason I have this in my head is because the idea you state above, which I absolutely do not deny he said, seemed (and seems) too flowery and unrealistic. So when he mentioned the competency thing it put it into perspective that he was strictly referring to the executive level. Which, in my mind, based on my own understanding (gotten the same way as you, apparently) is not really a flat structure. I've worked under truly flat structures and hierarchal models, and PSE is definitely not a flat structure not matter how large the executive tier is, in my estimation, at least.

I don't have an MBA, so I'm more than likely speaking beyond my ability to understand or express, but my understanding of a flat structure is the exact thing defined by Wikipedia: "A flat organization (also known as horizontal organization or delayering) is an organization that has an organizational structure with few or no levels of middle management between staff and executives. The idea is that well-trained workers will be more productive when they are more directly involved in the decision making process, rather than closely supervised by many layers of management." When I say top-down, apparently I should be saying hierarchal, which, as I have said earlier, simply must be the structure at Pegula Sports Entertainment. Maybe my lack of a proper business education is at play here, but I don't see how PSE can function using a truly flat model. Perhaps what you are saying is "flat" is actually a hybrid-flat, where the executive tier is wider than usual. But, really, just posting some thoughts maybe showing my complete ignorance on the subject. And I'm okay with that. I hope y'all are, too.

So, what I'm suggesting, is that when it came for Black to have answers, solutions, strategies, and whatever else was being asked of him when they were all sitting at the executive table together, Black couldn't produce because of his management style. Maybe ad buys were late, or they couldn't get the same kind of media discounts the Bills do. Maybe when the Pegulas strolled the building, and had asked Black to address building and/or branding issues X, Y, and Z, Black was unable to meet the demands in the time needed in the way that they wanted them done.

At the executive level, sure, but, each executive has to have tiers below them. Could you imagine Brandon having to deal with Juan on the nightshift of the custodial staff? A flat structure would stall everything.