The Kane Show (Part 4)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The KANE Show
6 hrs ·
You come out from the mall on a nice Saturday afternoon & see someone has parked like this against your car. Do u leave a note? Just drive away? Something else? I won't judge, just curious..



Scott Dano You wake up on a nice Monday morning & hear someone is missing from your favorite morning show. Do u leave a note? Just drive away? Something else? I won't judge, just curious..
Unlike · Reply · 117 · 3 hrs

Number of likes Kane got on this photo: 212
Number of likes Scott's comment got: 241

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On Sarah's podcast this week she said the reason why she left TKS was because Kane secretly recorded audio of her and hid it for 7 months. When she discovered it he said it was accidental. She then left bc she didn't trust him. Very shady. Think he was waiting to blackmail her when an opportune moment came up?

This is entirely creepy and inappropriate.

DC is a "one party consent" law, which means so long as one person in the conversation (Kane) consents, he can record. I don't know how that applies if he was recording her in a conversation with someone else, but the whole thing stinks.

Kane has serious issues with women.

I don't know if it matters (don't know what MD's laws are), but the recording was probably happening at their studios in MD, not DC proper.

ETA: looks like MD is a two-party consent state.. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

So Sarah busted Kane and he claims it was an "accident." Sure it was. She can't prove it otherwise, I'd guess. He's a creep.

Reminds me of a PP's argument that anyone could've registered the domain of Mel's name with Kane's info. Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened. His need for control is alarming.

It makes you wonder what he has on Nat. If he was doing it at work, he was doing it at home.

Kane has said before that he had a comprehensive video surveillance system at his house. You can even see some of the screen grabs on his social media (one time IJ mooned one of the cameras). He said it was for security, but he probably looked at the cameras to check up on Natasha, too. He said in his divorce announcement that he pulled the camera footage and saw Natasha's friend come over to help her leave.

Didn't he say at some point that she had covered the cameras? I think it was when the alarm went off and she wasn't answering his calls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On Sarah's podcast this week she said the reason why she left TKS was because Kane secretly recorded audio of her and hid it for 7 months. When she discovered it he said it was accidental. She then left bc she didn't trust him. Very shady. Think he was waiting to blackmail her when an opportune moment came up?

This is entirely creepy and inappropriate.

DC is a "one party consent" law, which means so long as one person in the conversation (Kane) consents, he can record. I don't know how that applies if he was recording her in a conversation with someone else, but the whole thing stinks.

Kane has serious issues with women.

I don't know if it matters (don't know what MD's laws are), but the recording was probably happening at their studios in MD, not DC proper.

ETA: looks like MD is a two-party consent state.. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

So Sarah busted Kane and he claims it was an "accident." Sure it was. She can't prove it otherwise, I'd guess. He's a creep.

Reminds me of a PP's argument that anyone could've registered the domain of Mel's name with Kane's info. Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened. His need for control is alarming.

It makes you wonder what he has on Nat. If he was doing it at work, he was doing it at home.

Kane has said before that he had a comprehensive video surveillance system at his house. You can even see some of the screen grabs on his social media (one time IJ mooned one of the cameras). He said it was for security, but he probably looked at the cameras to check up on Natasha, too. He said in his divorce announcement that he pulled the camera footage and saw Natasha's friend come over to help her leave.

Didn't he say at some point that she had covered the cameras? I think it was when the alarm went off and she wasn't answering his calls.

if that's the case, it sounds like she knew he watched the cameras.

[Anonymous]

John is tweeting up a storm about Laura looking for makeup companies to sponsor her. Her makeup in the pics looks way, way too heavy in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:John is tweeting up a storm about Laura looking for makeup companies to sponsor her. Her makeup in the pics looks way, way too heavy in my opinion.

NOOOO LAURA! She has a college degree and I believe has a job as a teacher. i really hope she isn't planning on sitting around making YouTube videos and mooching off of John.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John is tweeting up a storm about Laura looking for makeup companies to sponsor her. Her makeup in the pics looks way, way too heavy in my opinion.

NOOOO LAURA! She has a college degree and I believe has a job as a teacher. i really hope she isn't planning on sitting around making YouTube videos and mooching off of John.

I mean, to be fair, teachers make a shit salary, so it could be safe to assume she may just want to do videos on the side and potentially make extra money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John is tweeting up a storm about Laura looking for makeup companies to sponsor her. Her makeup in the pics looks way, way too heavy in my opinion.

NOOOO LAURA! She has a college degree and I believe has a job as a teacher. i really hope she isn't planning on sitting around making YouTube videos and mooching off of John.

I mean, to be fair, teachers make a shit salary, so it could be safe to assume she may just want to do videos on the side and potentially make extra money.

That's true. I like Laura and I hope this is the plan. (Op here)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:John is tweeting up a storm about Laura looking for makeup companies to sponsor her. Her makeup in the pics looks way, way too heavy in my opinion.

Ok, come on. I'm all about gossip, but I just went to look at his Twitter, and he literally has 2 tweets in which he mentions one makeup company (Nyx) because it just opened at their mall, and only one of those tweets was asking for a sponsor for Laura, the other one was just the fact that it was opening and they were waiting in line. I hardly call that "tweeting up a storm".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John is tweeting up a storm about Laura looking for makeup companies to sponsor her. Her makeup in the pics looks way, way too heavy in my opinion.

NOOOO LAURA! She has a college degree and I believe has a job as a teacher. i really hope she isn't planning on sitting around making YouTube videos and mooching off of John.

I mean, to be fair, teachers make a shit salary, so it could be safe to assume she may just want to do videos on the side and potentially make extra money.

That's true. I like Laura and I hope this is the plan. (Op here)

I like Laura too! And I don't think her makeup looked too heavy in the pictures I saw on IJ's Twitter either, it looked like she did a dark lip, but nothing crazy on her eyes. I personally think the people in here are way too critical of women's makeup, when there are so many other things to be critical about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John is tweeting up a storm about Laura looking for makeup companies to sponsor her. Her makeup in the pics looks way, way too heavy in my opinion.

NOOOO LAURA! She has a college degree and I believe has a job as a teacher. i really hope she isn't planning on sitting around making YouTube videos and mooching off of John.

I mean, to be fair, teachers make a shit salary, so it could be safe to assume she may just want to do videos on the side and potentially make extra money.

That's true. I like Laura and I hope this is the plan. (Op here)

I like Laura too! And I don't think her makeup looked too heavy in the pictures I saw on IJ's Twitter either, it looked like she did a dark lip, but nothing crazy on her eyes. I personally think the people in here are way too critical of women's makeup, when there are so many other things to be critical about.

Ugh, and I just realized reading that back to myself that EVERYONE is going to accuse me of being Laura now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John is tweeting up a storm about Laura looking for makeup companies to sponsor her. Her makeup in the pics looks way, way too heavy in my opinion.

Ok, come on. I'm all about gossip, but I just went to look at his Twitter, and he literally has 2 tweets in which he mentions one makeup company (Nyx) because it just opened at their mall, and only one of those tweets was asking for a sponsor for Laura, the other one was just the fact that it was opening and they were waiting in line. I hardly call that "tweeting up a storm".

There are 4 tweets about this makeup company/store (if you include 1 retweet he did). He also tweeted a pic a couple weeks ago tagging that same makeup company telling them that Laura "has 22k followers..just sayin"

Unfortunately I don't think there's a technical definition for tweeting up a storm, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John is tweeting up a storm about Laura looking for makeup companies to sponsor her. Her makeup in the pics looks way, way too heavy in my opinion.

Ok, come on. I'm all about gossip, but I just went to look at his Twitter, and he literally has 2 tweets in which he mentions one makeup company (Nyx) because it just opened at their mall, and only one of those tweets was asking for a sponsor for Laura, the other one was just the fact that it was opening and they were waiting in line. I hardly call that "tweeting up a storm".

There are 4 tweets about this makeup company/store (if you include 1 retweet he did). He also tweeted a pic a couple weeks ago tagging that same makeup company telling them that Laura "has 22k followers..just sayin"

Unfortunately I don't think there's a technical definition for tweeting up a storm, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

There actually is a technical definition for "up a storm", it's an idiom, "a great amount with fury or intensity". I see 3 tweets total if you're not including the one where he's holding her bag and didn't even @ Nyx. And you even said yourself it was the same company that he apparently tweeted weeks ago, so then he's really only trying to get one particular makeup company to sponsor her. I just don't consider 3 or 4 tweets to be overly excessive, and even if it was, he's her boyfriend and obviously just wants to support her.

[Anonymous]

^cmon guys, this is stupid. Can we get back to discussing Danni's man? I don't mean to judge someone off their social networks, but he doesn't seem the type who'd be interested in a mom of two young kids.

[Anonymous]

^^ my point about there being no technical definition was that, to my knowledge, there is no measurable value for "a great amount with fury or intensity." What may seem like a great amount to me may not seem that way to you. It seems excessive to me to tweet multiple times about the same thing. I understand and accept that that is not excessive in your view. Again, agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^cmon guys, this is stupid. Can we get back to discussing Danni's man? I don't mean to judge someone off their social networks, but he doesn't seem the type who'd be interested in a mom of two young kids.

I hear you, but we don't ALWAYS have to discuss Danni. Or hey, we can always discuss Danni and another person at the same time. We're always arguing against trolls how much we talk about everyone else, but constantly trying to steer the conversation back to Danni kind of disproves that. Why can't we just have multiple discussions going?