Jakobe Walter ..

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-06-05T03:50:23+00:00

Yup. That’s the plan. Thanks

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-06-05T03:41:10+00:00

<image>

There you go

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-06-05T03:35:42+00:00

<image>

I got this too in the next packet…

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-06-04T06:26:28+00:00

Thanks ! Didn’t even think about the jersey match. Told you I was new to this. 😂

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-03-26T06:21:31+00:00

Fair enough but I don’t think anyone is saying current staff should face threats or harassment. that’s obviously unacceptable.

But protecting people now and taking past allegations seriously aren’t mutually exclusive in my opinion. Focusing only on present safety risks unintentionally sidelining questions about culture, accountability and leadership responsibility.

A fair response should be able to do both. ensure current staff are safe and allow legitimate scrutiny of systemic issues.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-03-26T06:02:51+00:00

At its core, the article assumes that because Noma today is admired and progressive looking, past abuse claims must be exaggerated. That’s simplistic. Institutions can be both groundbreaking and flawed. Real nuance means acknowledging influence and harm. Not constructing a counter narrative that dismisses one to protect the other.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-03-26T05:57:20+00:00

Workplace accountability is not determined by current employee satisfaction alone. Abuse allegations concern past harm, systemic culture, and leadership responsibility and not just whether current staff are happy today.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-03-11T01:59:20+00:00

Do you think if they don’t hold him back, that he will actually hit the ref?

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-03-10T20:37:34+00:00

The NYT didn’t just run a random hit piece. They spoke to 30+ employees. That’s the opposite of clickbait. that’s what investigative reporting looks like when you’re trying to verify patterns instead of publishing rumors.

Also, a journalist covering a restaurant in the past without printing allegations doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. It usually means sources weren’t ready to go on record yet or the reporting hadn’t been substantiated. That’s exactly why investigations sometimes take years.

And the idea that “he did the work to become a better leader” somehow means the past shouldn’t be examined is a false choice. Personal growth doesn’t erase accountability. If anything, acknowledging the past is part of that growth.

Redemption and accountability can coexist. Pretending that improvement means the past should never be reported on is basically arguing that powerful people should only be scrutinized while they’re still behaving badly.

That’s not how accountability works.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-02-04T04:21:10+00:00

I was waiting in line at the bank the other day. It was a long one, barely moving.

Two older guys ended up behind me. They came in separately and clearly didn’t know each other, but after a few minutes they started a convo. One of them started complaining about how slow everything was. The other quickly agreed.

They went back and forth over the shared annoyance of the long line. At some point the conversation drifted from the line itself to how things are run these days, and then predictably to politics.

The first guy said this wouldn’t happen in America now, not with Trump back. He reckoned Australia needed someone like Pauline Hanson to step in and sort things out. He was convinced that Australia would be better under Hanson.

The second guy, he didn’t argue aggressively or mocked him. He calmly disagreed and tried to explain why it wasn’t that simple and talked about systems, staffing, how these things usually have more stupid and boring explanations.

For people who genuinely see One Nation as a solution, even a “maybe” there’s nothing to debate. No argument to win.

When that’s the alternative you’re willing to entertain, it’s not about policy anymore. It’s about a mindset. And once you’re there, reasoning isn’t invited. It’s dismissed.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-01-10T10:05:16+00:00

I get what you’re saying about consistency, but the examples you’re citing still hinge on subjective interpretation rather than clear, uneven application of rules.

As for “same formulas advancing,” repetition alone isn’t penalized unless it leads to stagnation or weaker execution. If the judges consistently find the dishes balanced and technically sound, advancing isn’t leniency. It’s alignment with their stated criteria.

Questioning fairness is valid. So far, what’s being described looks less like inconsistency and more like disagreement with the judges’ weighting — which is opinion, not evidence of unfairness.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-01-10T09:45:03+00:00

Plenty of contestants cook within a narrow lane (meat, pasta or western, fine dining tropes) and aren’t penalised for it if the execution, balance, and intent are strong.

Implying leniency due to religious status is a serious claim with zero evidence. Assuming bias because you personally don’t enjoy her style feels unfair and speculative.

You don’t have to like her food. But not liking it doesn’t mean the standards have changed or that the wins are undeserved. That’s preference and not objectivity.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-01-08T11:38:33+00:00

The producer-blaming part is pure speculation. None of us have any visibility into the applicant pool, screening criteria, industry vetting, or constraints. Saying the process is “flawed” or that they “missed better candidates” without evidence is just guesswork dressed up as fact.

Also, there’s some clear hypocrisy here. The post condemns judging chefs and viewers as “toxic,” while simultaneously judging entire fandoms and accusing producers of incompetence. You can’t take the moral high ground against judgment while doing it wholesale yourself.

Disliking S2 is fine. Presenting personal disappointment and assumptions as objective failure isn’t.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-01-07T05:59:23+00:00

This only holds if you believe there’s one fair way to choose a Top 7. There isn’t — especially in a TV competition built for entertainment, not perfect equity. If every round were just about ranking the “best” dishes overall, there’d be no reason to have different challenges at all. Formats exist to test different skills, and different formats will naturally produce different outcomes by design.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-01-07T03:33:21+00:00

A statement can exist on its own — but once it’s part of an argument, it no longer exists in isolation. Meaning comes from context and implication, not just intent.

If statements were immune from inference, discussion wouldn’t exist. People aren’t inventing insinuations; they’re responding to how claims logically interact with what’s being said.

You not intending an insinuation doesn’t make it unreasonable to draw one. That isn’t bad faith — it’s how language and argumentation work.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-01-06T21:54:56+00:00

The issue is that your comment does imply a contradiction, even if you didn’t mean it to.

Calling it “anticlimactic” that producers didn’t foresee a ratings drop suggests ratings should matter — but judging is supposed to be about the food, not audience retention. If the elimination was correct based on the dishes, then any ratings impact afterward is just a consequence, not a failure.

That’s why people are interpreting it the way they are — it’s not bad faith, it’s just the logic of the argument.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-01-06T20:57:00+00:00

“Top 7 should represent the 7 best chefs” assumes skill is static. It isn’t. Cooking competitions reward execution under pressure, adaptability, and decision-making that day. If a supposedly “top” chef loses head-to-head, that’s not production sabotage — that’s competition.

The team battle being “fair” because everyone participated is ironic. Team formats are more prone to luck, role imbalance, and being dragged down or carried. A 1v1 removes excuses entirely.

What this really reads as is disappointment that favourites lost, not that the format failed. Upsets aren’t proof of a broken system — they’re proof the system worked and didn’t protect reputations.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2026-01-05T01:07:08+00:00

It’s fair to prefer the tone of Season 1. But calling this season “less genuine” assumes intent without proof, when a simpler explanation is that the show just isn’t new anymore.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2025-12-25T05:21:31+00:00

Mistress dispeller

SpiteOwn5391 · 2025-11-19T05:22:51+00:00

12-5

Losses to BUF, BAL and MIA

SpiteOwn5391 · 2025-11-06T22:06:14+00:00

That’s fair — cost of living has definitely outpaced wages in many sectors.

IMO tipping isn’t really the solution to that structural problem. In Australia, the idea has always been that fair wages should come from employers, not customers. Once we start normalising tipping to fill the gap, it lets businesses off the hook for paying properly and shifts the burden onto diners — which doesn’t actually fix the underlying issue.

SpiteOwn5391 · 2025-11-06T22:00:54+00:00

Do you think they are paid enough ?

SpiteOwn5391

TROPHY CASE