...

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.

I took, or take, his statements to mean he prefers to hire "competent people" to mange, properly, the tier below them. Which implies a middle management tier. I don't know the internal structure, but there is no way a company that large, especially now, can operate effectively under the flat model. I can see where Pegula might prefer a flat executive structure, but, again, way too large for that to work below the executive level.

The corporate side of things is always top-down. We don't need to go into detail on what that implies, right, I mean in terms of the corporate culture and its efficiency (or lack thereof)? To expand upon SDS's statement, the Pegulas probably, and simply, liked what Brandon's corporate culture is like over Black's. Pegula is a big on top-down management, he's outlined his preferences during public statements over time. It could be a whole bunch of little things adding up to a whole: inefficiencies within the corporate structure, communication break downs, losing good hires, making poor hires, spending discrepancies (within reason, I'm not implying fraud).

I would love to play net but I suck at skating. Must be pretty cool to play at the Harbour Centre.

A legit question. First, though, I don't buy that the SALT treaties are actually being adhered to word for word. Thankfully, so far, we have yet to test that theory. As far as a solution goes, at this point, there is no solution. IMHO, the real solution is to let it all play out. If it turns out badly, then the West has learned a hard-earned lesson - again. We'll plummet into a second Dark Age, hopefully to emerge and head straight into a second Age of Enlightenment. Seems people only learn lessons and evolve intellectually and spiritually the hard way. I can see where it might be hoped that cultural exchange might help to spark another attempt at a revolution within Iran. I find this exceptionally unlikely now. 50 years ago, yes, I would say that stood a decent chance. But with technology as it is, and the lack of fortitude within the West to help internal forces organize and act, there is little hope that can happen with the regime that exists there. The last best hope for a shorter-term "solution" where the West was directly involved was the Iraq War, which, was derailed a week after it started. Another solution I have is probably one I shouldn't type on an internet forum because the government is very touchy. But, unfortunately, it makes a lot of sense.

Point 1: To you...to YOU. That's pretty selfish to think that if you find something has no value, then it has no value universally. Point 2: Do you realize how much history can (and will) be made in a century's time? Iran is as militant of a country as there has ever been, and countries of that ilk don't tend to make "peace treaties". This is akin to Chamberlain's Munich conference. Here, amuse yourself with a great list of treaties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties

You think it's asinine. What about what I think about it? If you dislike my comment, and I like my comment, then we negate each other. But, this is the political forum, where we can roam free and make all sorts of asinine comments. How about this: I find 90% of the comments in this entire thread asinine...how about all of you remove yourselves from this thread. By your logic, that should work. Doh! Funny! Har har.

Nice having a "discussion" with you, too bad you had to exit it early, would have been interesting to toss around things like how the Combatant Clergy Association might make for a ruling party here in this country. I'm sure they'll be as tolerant as Obama and liberals are.

Whoopee. Really, is that your measure of truth? Dog sh*t delivered in a pretty box with bows and confetti is still dog sh*t.

For the record, no.

I'm sorry, am I spoiling the moment for you?

You might want to export whatever it is you're smoking to Iran and Cuba (well, Cuba might be a depot for whatever is you're getting, anyway) but if you think Iran and Cuba "trust and admire" the USA, you're far more whacked out than Ringo Starr was during the Beatles psychedelic hey-day.