betaylored wrote:

I'm not a political etiquette expert so I have no idea if this moment during Jerry Agar's show was out of the ordinary.

It went something like this. Deb Hutton interviews Chrystia Freeland on the Jerry Agar show this morning. Deb then interviews Doug Ford and during this interview plays a voice message from Chrystia Freeland for Doug Ford. Doug sounds pleased and makes a point of saying he's not going to say anything about the election but thinks Ms. Freeland is a fine person or words to that effect.

This positive response from the Premier could seem like an oblique show of support for Chrystia Freeland to the listeners.

No big deal right?

Ford has declared his respect and friendship with Freeland many times in the past.  Carney is a shoo-in, and always was.
 

RadioActive wrote:

betaylored wrote:

I didn't catch who'll be taking over the first two hours of the afternoon drive instead of Deb but wouldn't mind if it was Scott or Mark.

John Moore revealed on Monday that John Tory will be taking Hutton's regular shift this week.

Don't listen to Agar, don't listen to Hutton, and certainly won't listen to Tory.  640 wins again. 
 

newsguy1 wrote:

Also I don't think Bell ever did anything on Mike Bullard when he faced harassment charges against his ex girlfriend, even though his behavior was the result of mental illness.
They just fired him and abandoned him.
Yes what he did was criminal behavior, but if Bell was serious about addressing mental problems you'd think they would somehow mention something that happened with one of their very prominent stars.


 

Mike?  Mike who?
 

Those shows were interesting to 12 year old boys in the 1960s (I was one of them), but are boring, unwatchable nonsense now.  Who would want to see them again?

Listening to that thing is bad enough, but viewing it should come with a dose of Gravol. 

torontostan wrote:

Walter wrote:

torontostan wrote:

In terms of player legacy, Crosby has. In terms of cultural supremacy, McDavid might've just tied him.

Crosby and McDavid are fantastic, and have done their country proud, to be sure.  In 1972, Canada has never been so united, and proud, something it could sorely use now.  Henderson delivered that euphoria.  Henderson should be in the HHOF, side by side with Sid and Connor.
 

Not disagreeing, I think Paul Henderson certainly belongs in the HHOF, however 2010 easily surpasses what you've described ("Canada has never been so united, and proud"). '72 is remembered with heavy bias by the baby boom generation because they were all in school at the time watching and listening to the game. The Vancouver 2010 final had 100% of the country watching that could, we'll never see anything like that again, the pride was immeasurable by all ages coast-to-coast. 

Agreed.  It helps if you were young and excited during the great moments you remember.  I must assume you are too young to remember the 72 summit series.  I've never seen the nation so unified behind one event, including the great 2010 final.
 

Dale Patterson wrote:

I still say Paul Henderson should be in the Hockey Hall of Fame. He scored the winning goal in all of the last three games of the Summit Series. He scored 236 goals in the NHL and another 140 in the WHA for a total of 376. He has been inducted (twice) into the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame and the International Ice Hockey Federation Hall of Fame. Received the Order of Canada in 2013.

Been saying for decades that Henderson should be in the HHOF.  In fact, he should have his own room.  That's how important he is to Canadian hockey.  Nobody will ever beat what he did in 72.
 

What's next?  Bill Carroll shilling?  No, wait...

RadioActive wrote:

betaylored wrote:

newsguy1 wrote:

In the Spence Diamond ads Fiona is the older, wiser one who seems to be able to tell the two male businessmen what to do without having any apparent experience in the diamond business. 

and the latest Spence ad finishes with Fiona whose Scottish? accent has morphed yet again, asking the two "boys" to bend down so she can pat them on the head, patronizing pun notwithbending.

And the latest almost incomprehensible version with Fiona makes absolutely no sense at all. It's about a pendant that "you just know what it means by looking at it." Huh? 

But the most baffling part comes at the end where Fiona says it costs "$99 199." Is that $99. $199? $99,199? At no time does she say "$99 TO $199." I have no idea what they're talking about or how much this thing actually costs. Talk about keeping you in sus-Spence. 

What a poorly written dumb spot. As so many of them are. 

And the monkeys banging away at typewriters and throwing their excrement against the wall spent at least a year building up the whole 'Michael loves Sarah' nonsense, which has disappeared, at least for now.  Excruciatingly awful.
 

Chrisphen wrote:

Let's talk about all the great ideas we'll adopt from McKinsey. Let's face it, we're not Jean Monty.

But close to Monty Python.
 

As a regular Oakley listener, I'll give her a shot in the host's chair, mostly because what is over on 1010 during that time is just awful.

Chrisphen wrote:

He is a purulent little twat. Anyone giving him the time of day needs their head examined.

But how do you feel about Lilley?