Season 2 of CBC Someone Knows Something is a crazy missing girls story. The latest episode has Mike Richards on it. Was the host of the 1998 creepy video.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Season 2 of CBC Someone Knows Something is a crazy missing girls story. The latest episode has Mike Richards on it. Was the host of the 1998 creepy video.
I have been listening to this one. It has been a really good series so far, and I'm definitely hooked.
The first series was also good, but was pretty slow moving. It was a 40-year cold case, so that was to be expected. The second one, however, is really gripping because he is able to talk to so many people and the alleged killer is still out there. I'm hoping that he will agree to an interview, but I'm certain he won't.
Season 2 of CBC Someone Knows Something is a crazy missing girls story. The latest episode has Mike Richards on it. Was the host of the 1998 creepy video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang
I have been listening to this one. It has been a really good series so far, and I'm definitely hooked.
The first series was also good, but was pretty slow moving. It was a 40-year cold case, so that was to be expected. The second one, however, is really gripping because he is able to talk to so many people and the alleged killer is still out there. I'm hoping that he will agree to an interview, but I'm certain he won't.
Same here, I could not get into the first season but I'm really enjoying the second. I do find the host a little... dramatic... at times, but in general I think he's going an amazing job interviewing and narrating this case.
__________________ REDVAN!
The Following User Says Thank You to REDVAN For This Useful Post:
Same here, I could not get into the first season but I'm really enjoying the second. I do find the host a little... dramatic... at times, but in general I think he's going an amazing job interviewing and narrating this case.
Yeah - I quite like his style, actually. I believe that he's a documentary filmmaker as well. I like how he has included, or even emphasized, environmental sounds like doors closing, background noise, walking on gravel (more so in the first series), etc. It makes it quite interesting to listen to.
I just really hate the ending theme music. I can appreciate many types of music, but that one is like fingernails on chalkboard to me. I am surprised that Bob Wiseman had anything to do with it, or wants his name attached to it. At least they have minimized the use of it in this current season. I know that I can skip it, and I do, but still... /rant
I listed to Accused and found it quite good. Again, not overly thrilled with the host but the story kept me going. Amazing how poorly investigations/evidence can be handled.
I also liked Missing and Murdered: Who Killed Alberta Williams. Another feeling-bad-for-the-family story, but with increased attention maybe some more information will makes it way to the police/public.
Finally, I liked the first season of Detective. The second season didn't grip me as much as the first, and the interviewee had great storytelling about his days on the force.
__________________ REDVAN!
The Following User Says Thank You to REDVAN For This Useful Post:
Finally, I liked the first season of Detective. The second season didn't grip me as much as the first, and the interviewee had great storytelling about his days on the force.
I listened to the first season of Detective based on someone's recommendation in this thread, and it didn't disappoint. I could listen to Joe Kenda all day long. His voice, the way he tells stories, etc. Apparently he refuses scripts and ad libs everything as well. I was skeptical at first and expected it to be more sensational and over the top, but I was quickly proven wrong and found it to be very interesting, reflective, and personal.
The second season didn't grip me. The cop seemed like a good guy, somewhat interesting, etc. but it just didn't hook me.
Don't really listen to a lot of podcasts, but this one on JRE was amazing.
Thanks for posting that. Remarkable interview. Peterson can get a little over-heated at times, but intellectually he just nails the identity politics/ SJW mindset and its psychological underpinning. I particularly liked this exchange:
Rogan: "You're one of the first people that are sounding an alarm. That there's a real issue with controlling people. There's a real issue with controlling dialog, controlling the way people communicate. And that these ideologies, although seemingly innocuous, they can take you down very dangerous roads."
Peterson: "Yes well, seemingly innocuous ideology. Those words do not go together. There are no innocuous ideologies. They're all forms of pathological oversimplification... The advantage to me being in ideologue is I can explain everything. I can feel morally superior. And I know who my enemies are."
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Peterson is basically insane, though. He was wrong from a legal standpoint about what the bill he was complaining about actually purported to do, and he seems to think that reality is contingent on human perspectives, while morality is solely determined by whatever confers evolutionary advantage when generalized.
So... yeah, kinda nuts.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
May have to look into Crimetown. Also recently listened to a 10 parter on Charles Manson, from the 'You must remember this' podcast. Truly excellent and oh so bizarre: http://www.youmustrememberthispodcas...manson-murders
Peterson is basically insane, though. He was wrong from a legal standpoint about what the bill he was complaining about actually purported to do, and he seems to think that reality is contingent on human perspectives, while morality is solely determined by whatever confers evolutionary advantage when generalized.
So... yeah, kinda nuts.
Are you talking specifically about his claims regarding going to jail for not using the pronouns? I thought the consensus was that you could be found guilty by the ORHC, they couldn't technically jail you, just order you to undergo training, pay fines, etc..
But if you continue to be delinquent (i.e. refuse to pay the fine), can they jail you?
Peterson is basically insane, though. He was wrong from a legal standpoint about what the bill he was complaining about actually purported to do, and he seems to think that reality is contingent on human perspectives, while morality is solely determined by whatever confers evolutionary advantage when generalized.
That's an awesome blog post and really does a great job of going through the theoretical problem with the legislation.
However, I think he answers his own concern with the quote from National Bank of Canada v. Retail Clerks’ International Union et al. - in that case the Labour Relations Board imposed orders that compelled speech, which the Supreme Court held they had no power to do.
The basis for assuming that not referring to someone by their preferred pronoun constitutes discrimination comes from a Q and A session with the OHRC, which has absolutely no legislative force behind it whatsoever. If they proceed in that direction I would expect them to be slapped down rather quickly. That being said, idiocy of that sort is hardly new territory for the OHRC, so if you want to castigate them for that as you might for many other policies they put out, I've no objection.
Don't get me wrong, I'm appalled by what human rights tribunals have become in this country. But I think the alarmism over the supposedly totalitarian implications of this bill, which Peterson seems to treat as inevitable, is overblown.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
