<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 2012 NMAs: Arts and Entertainment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pioro.net/2012/05/2012-nmas-arts-and-entertainment.shtml/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pioro.net/2012/05/2012-nmas-arts-and-entertainment.shtml</link>
	<description>a quill dripping pixel ink</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:50:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Muneeba</title>
		<link>http://www.pioro.net/2012/05/2012-nmas-arts-and-entertainment.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-100635</link>
		<dc:creator>Muneeba</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:50:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pioro.net/?p=524#comment-100635</guid>
		<description>Jay, I generally agree with your above comuln. Several excellent insights. Personally, I quit watching Cherry years ago. I enjoy conversations on TV not rants. Particularly Don Cherry&#039;s rants. That&#039;s why I quit watching Hockey Night in Canada altogether. I switched to baseball.But I disagree with you a bit in a few key areas.What makes the situation with Don Cherry and his irritating, outrageous nonsense different from a typical  free speech  issue is this:1.  Don Cherry&#039;s on CBC national television with several million viewers coast-to-coast, who are interested in watching our extremely popular, de facto national sport. The 800-K-a-year-plus-expenses Don Cherry is not ranting on a street-corner or bus stop about our beloved national sport;2. CBC is a publicly funded broadcaster;3. Television viewers are actively encouraged to express their pleasure or displeasure regarding content to broadcasters ~ radio, TV and Internet ~ even more so when the broadcaster is publicly funded. This too constitutes free expression;4. During Don Cherry&#039;s latest brain cramp, he&#039;s clearly entered the costly zone of the (Ontario) Libel and Slander Act by combining (reportedly) incorrect information with extreme personal attacks ~ on upstanding ex-hockey players who not only appear to care about the future direction of hockey, while also generating some of their current income from their respective hockey prestige and connections. Damages to reputation? Absolutely. Think  pukes,   hypocrites  and  turncoats.  Plus the incorrect statements by Don Cherry about past positions of the three defamed.********************************************************Don&#039;s had his day. I adored the guy in the late 1970s and the 1980s. I&#039;ve since matured somewhat. Don hasn&#039;t. And yes I&#039;ve written to the CBC. Twice. I pay taxes. I also care about the future direction of our national sport. I also want to become a fan again. Don Cherry&#039;s in the way. Don&#039;s, what, 77? Time for Don to retire.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jay, I generally agree with your above comuln. Several excellent insights. Personally, I quit watching Cherry years ago. I enjoy conversations on TV not rants. Particularly Don Cherry&#8217;s rants. That&#8217;s why I quit watching Hockey Night in Canada altogether. I switched to baseball.But I disagree with you a bit in a few key areas.What makes the situation with Don Cherry and his irritating, outrageous nonsense different from a typical  free speech  issue is this:1.  Don Cherry&#8217;s on CBC national television with several million viewers coast-to-coast, who are interested in watching our extremely popular, de facto national sport. The 800-K-a-year-plus-expenses Don Cherry is not ranting on a street-corner or bus stop about our beloved national sport;2. CBC is a publicly funded broadcaster;3. Television viewers are actively encouraged to express their pleasure or displeasure regarding content to broadcasters ~ radio, TV and Internet ~ even more so when the broadcaster is publicly funded. This too constitutes free expression;4. During Don Cherry&#8217;s latest brain cramp, he&#8217;s clearly entered the costly zone of the (Ontario) Libel and Slander Act by combining (reportedly) incorrect information with extreme personal attacks ~ on upstanding ex-hockey players who not only appear to care about the future direction of hockey, while also generating some of their current income from their respective hockey prestige and connections. Damages to reputation? Absolutely. Think  pukes,   hypocrites  and  turncoats.  Plus the incorrect statements by Don Cherry about past positions of the three defamed.********************************************************Don&#8217;s had his day. I adored the guy in the late 1970s and the 1980s. I&#8217;ve since matured somewhat. Don hasn&#8217;t. And yes I&#8217;ve written to the CBC. Twice. I pay taxes. I also care about the future direction of our national sport. I also want to become a fan again. Don Cherry&#8217;s in the way. Don&#8217;s, what, 77? Time for Don to retire.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
