The Kane Show Discussion Thread

Anonymous
I don’t disagree with there being drama surrounding Kane, however, the majority of it is hearsay from other people (Natasha’s blog, Danni’s ‘book’ and Instagram, even people on here). Yet he doesn’t respond and goes about his business. It makes him look better than the other folks. It also doesn’t help that some of his detractors come off as pretty crazy themselves and seem to have drama with endless amounts of people.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I don’t disagree with there being drama surrounding Kane, however, the majority of it is hearsay from other people (Natasha’s blog, Danni’s ‘book’ and Instagram, even people on here). Yet he doesn’t respond and goes about his business. It makes him look better than the other folks. It also doesn’t help that some of his detractors come off as pretty crazy themselves and seem to have drama with endless amounts of people.


Sarah Fraser and Mel both left with little drama and have done little more than confirm the rumors. In Natasha's case before yesterday all the accusations were essentially heresay (like rehab) but everyone believed them and constantly used it to discredit her. Danni I agree seems as cray and unstable as Kane himself, which is probably why their blowout was the most sensationalized. Neither were capable of acting like adults.

Heresay is enough to convict the women (all of whom are telling the same story) but not the man (who almost no one has defended on the merits of the claim ie, 'my nephew knows him and he's such a nice person and could never have done something like that'). Everyone defends Kane by discrediting the women, not by defending him. And so the fight is always about whether the women are trustworthy instead of, 'is Kane in fact a giant dbag, is there anything to counter what Mel, Sarah, Sanni, Nat and Sammy (a man!) have implied or said outright about him. In addition to many industry insiders and previous interns who have posted and agreed he was not a particularly nice or decent guy. Does anyone have another explanation for why he has such acrimonious relationships with previous cohosts unlike say, Elliot who has been working with Diane since the beginning of time?

Defend Kane to me on his own merits and maybe I'll take you seriously. But I'm over him getting the benefit of the doubt when anyone who dares say anything against him gets torn to pieces.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t disagree with there being drama surrounding Kane, however, the majority of it is hearsay from other people (Natasha’s blog, Danni’s ‘book’ and Instagram, even people on here). Yet he doesn’t respond and goes about his business. It makes him look better than the other folks. It also doesn’t help that some of his detractors come off as pretty crazy themselves and seem to have drama with endless amounts of people.


Sarah Fraser and Mel both left with little drama and have done little more than confirm the rumors. In Natasha's case before yesterday all the accusations were essentially heresay (like rehab) but everyone believed them and constantly used it to discredit her. Danni I agree seems as cray and unstable as Kane himself, which is probably why their blowout was the most sensationalized. Neither were capable of acting like adults.

Heresay is enough to convict the women (all of whom are telling the same story) but not the man (who almost no one has defended on the merits of the claim ie, 'my nephew knows him and he's such a nice person and could never have done something like that'). Everyone defends Kane by discrediting the women, not by defending him. And so the fight is always about whether the women are trustworthy instead of, 'is Kane in fact a giant dbag, is there anything to counter what Mel, Sarah, Sanni, Nat and Sammy (a man!) have implied or said outright about him. In addition to many industry insiders and previous interns who have posted and agreed he was not a particularly nice or decent guy. Does anyone have another explanation for why he has such acrimonious relationships with previous cohosts unlike say, Elliot who has been working with Diane since the beginning of time?

Defend Kane to me on his own merits and maybe I'll take you seriously. But I'm over him getting the benefit of the doubt when anyone who dares say anything against him gets torn to pieces.

You’re an anon on a mommy blog, no one gives a f*ck if you take them serious. Those that believe Peter and those that believe Natasha are not here to change their minds.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t disagree with there being drama surrounding Kane, however, the majority of it is hearsay from other people (Natasha’s blog, Danni’s ‘book’ and Instagram, even people on here). Yet he doesn’t respond and goes about his business. It makes him look better than the other folks. It also doesn’t help that some of his detractors come off as pretty crazy themselves and seem to have drama with endless amounts of people.


Sarah Fraser and Mel both left with little drama and have done little more than confirm the rumors. In Natasha's case before yesterday all the accusations were essentially heresay (like rehab) but everyone believed them and constantly used it to discredit her. Danni I agree seems as cray and unstable as Kane himself, which is probably why their blowout was the most sensationalized. Neither were capable of acting like adults.

Heresay is enough to convict the women (all of whom are telling the same story) but not the man (who almost no one has defended on the merits of the claim ie, 'my nephew knows him and he's such a nice person and could never have done something like that'). Everyone defends Kane by discrediting the women, not by defending him. And so the fight is always about whether the women are trustworthy instead of, 'is Kane in fact a giant dbag, is there anything to counter what Mel, Sarah, Sanni, Nat and Sammy (a man!) have implied or said outright about him. In addition to many industry insiders and previous interns who have posted and agreed he was not a particularly nice or decent guy. Does anyone have another explanation for why he has such acrimonious relationships with previous cohosts unlike say, Elliot who has been working with Diane since the beginning of time?

Defend Kane to me on his own merits and maybe I'll take you seriously. But I'm over him getting the benefit of the doubt when anyone who dares say anything against him gets torn to pieces.

You’re an anon on a mommy blog, no one gives a f*ck if you take them serious. Those that believe Peter and those that believe Natasha are not here to change their minds.


If you don't care what I think than why argue with me?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t disagree with there being drama surrounding Kane, however, the majority of it is hearsay from other people (Natasha’s blog, Danni’s ‘book’ and Instagram, even people on here). Yet he doesn’t respond and goes about his business. It makes him look better than the other folks. It also doesn’t help that some of his detractors come off as pretty crazy themselves and seem to have drama with endless amounts of people.


Sarah Fraser and Mel both left with little drama and have done little more than confirm the rumors. In Natasha's case before yesterday all the accusations were essentially heresay (like rehab) but everyone believed them and constantly used it to discredit her. Danni I agree seems as cray and unstable as Kane himself, which is probably why their blowout was the most sensationalized. Neither were capable of acting like adults.

Heresay is enough to convict the women (all of whom are telling the same story) but not the man (who almost no one has defended on the merits of the claim ie, 'my nephew knows him and he's such a nice person and could never have done something like that'). Everyone defends Kane by discrediting the women, not by defending him. And so the fight is always about whether the women are trustworthy instead of, 'is Kane in fact a giant dbag, is there anything to counter what Mel, Sarah, Sanni, Nat and Sammy (a man!) have implied or said outright about him. In addition to many industry insiders and previous interns who have posted and agreed he was not a particularly nice or decent guy. Does anyone have another explanation for why he has such acrimonious relationships with previous cohosts unlike say, Elliot who has been working with Diane since the beginning of time?

Defend Kane to me on his own merits and maybe I'll take you seriously. But I'm over him getting the benefit of the doubt when anyone who dares say anything against him gets torn to pieces.


DP. He's a master at gaslighting.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t disagree with there being drama surrounding Kane, however, the majority of it is hearsay from other people (Natasha’s blog, Danni’s ‘book’ and Instagram, even people on here). Yet he doesn’t respond and goes about his business. It makes him look better than the other folks. It also doesn’t help that some of his detractors come off as pretty crazy themselves and seem to have drama with endless amounts of people.


Sarah Fraser and Mel both left with little drama and have done little more than confirm the rumors. In Natasha's case before yesterday all the accusations were essentially heresay (like rehab) but everyone believed them and constantly used it to discredit her. Danni I agree seems as cray and unstable as Kane himself, which is probably why their blowout was the most sensationalized. Neither were capable of acting like adults.

Heresay is enough to convict the women (all of whom are telling the same story) but not the man (who almost no one has defended on the merits of the claim ie, 'my nephew knows him and he's such a nice person and could never have done something like that'). Everyone defends Kane by discrediting the women, not by defending him. And so the fight is always about whether the women are trustworthy instead of, 'is Kane in fact a giant dbag, is there anything to counter what Mel, Sarah, Sanni, Nat and Sammy (a man!) have implied or said outright about him. In addition to many industry insiders and previous interns who have posted and agreed he was not a particularly nice or decent guy. Does anyone have another explanation for why he has such acrimonious relationships with previous cohosts unlike say, Elliot who has been working with Diane since the beginning of time?

Defend Kane to me on his own merits and maybe I'll take you seriously. But I'm over him getting the benefit of the doubt when anyone who dares say anything against him gets torn to pieces.


Mel had a little drama. She talked about it a little on her podcast (or maybe on her IG; I can’t remember now) how she had chosen not to renew her contract when it came time and Kane just made it seem like she stopped showing up to work and quit via Instagram.
Anonymous
I'm starting to believe some of what Kane said during his radio meltdown (about Natasha hitting things with the van/hiding it, not paying bills etc.) knowing now she was an addict at the time... (Kane asked Natasha for a divorce in May 2015 - She said she's been struggling with addiction for 6 years and in the recovery community for 4 of those years, so she was an addict -- not in recovery-- when he filed for divorce).

Lying about how she met her husband was also stupid. I just went back and re-read that post. "I can remember so many childhood camping trips in the Smokies where I’d spend hours exploring streams and trails, I truly loved it back then, so I figured maybe I could find the same joy in it now, which led to me joining a hiking group here in D.C. There was no way I could know that on that first hike on the Billy Goat Trail I would meet an amazing man..." Eeeeeeek. She should've just omitted how they met and focused on finding a good partner. This just makes her look fake and like she's willing to lie to get public opinion on her side.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to believe some of what Kane said during his radio meltdown (about Natasha hitting things with the van/hiding it, not paying bills etc.) knowing now she was an addict at the time... (Kane asked Natasha for a divorce in May 2015 - She said she's been struggling with addiction for 6 years and in the recovery community for 4 of those years, so she was an addict -- not in recovery-- when he filed for divorce).

Lying about how she met her husband was also stupid. I just went back and re-read that post. "I can remember so many childhood camping trips in the Smokies where I’d spend hours exploring streams and trails, I truly loved it back then, so I figured maybe I could find the same joy in it now, which led to me joining a hiking group here in D.C. There was no way I could know that on that first hike on the Billy Goat Trail I would meet an amazing man..." Eeeeeeek. She should've just omitted how they met and focused on finding a good partner. This just makes her look fake and like she's willing to lie to get public opinion on her side.


I mean, maybe it was a hiking group for sober people?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t disagree with there being drama surrounding Kane, however, the majority of it is hearsay from other people (Natasha’s blog, Danni’s ‘book’ and Instagram, even people on here). Yet he doesn’t respond and goes about his business. It makes him look better than the other folks. It also doesn’t help that some of his detractors come off as pretty crazy themselves and seem to have drama with endless amounts of people.


Sarah Fraser and Mel both left with little drama and have done little more than confirm the rumors. In Natasha's case before yesterday all the accusations were essentially heresay (like rehab) but everyone believed them and constantly used it to discredit her. Danni I agree seems as cray and unstable as Kane himself, which is probably why their blowout was the most sensationalized. Neither were capable of acting like adults.

Heresay is enough to convict the women (all of whom are telling the same story) but not the man (who almost no one has defended on the merits of the claim ie, 'my nephew knows him and he's such a nice person and could never have done something like that'). Everyone defends Kane by discrediting the women, not by defending him. And so the fight is always about whether the women are trustworthy instead of, 'is Kane in fact a giant dbag, is there anything to counter what Mel, Sarah, Sanni, Nat and Sammy (a man!) have implied or said outright about him. In addition to many industry insiders and previous interns who have posted and agreed he was not a particularly nice or decent guy. Does anyone have another explanation for why he has such acrimonious relationships with previous cohosts unlike say, Elliot who has been working with Diane since the beginning of time?

Defend Kane to me on his own merits and maybe I'll take you seriously. But I'm over him getting the benefit of the doubt when anyone who dares say anything against him gets torn to pieces.

You’re an anon on a mommy blog, no one gives a f*ck if you take them serious. Those that believe Peter and those that believe Natasha are not here to change their minds.

If you don't care what I think than why argue with me?

You’re talking to different people.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to believe some of what Kane said during his radio meltdown (about Natasha hitting things with the van/hiding it, not paying bills etc.) knowing now she was an addict at the time... (Kane asked Natasha for a divorce in May 2015 - She said she's been struggling with addiction for 6 years and in the recovery community for 4 of those years, so she was an addict -- not in recovery-- when he filed for divorce).

Lying about how she met her husband was also stupid. I just went back and re-read that post. "I can remember so many childhood camping trips in the Smokies where I’d spend hours exploring streams and trails, I truly loved it back then, so I figured maybe I could find the same joy in it now, which led to me joining a hiking group here in D.C. There was no way I could know that on that first hike on the Billy Goat Trail I would meet an amazing man..." Eeeeeeek. She should've just omitted how they met and focused on finding a good partner. This just makes her look fake and like she's willing to lie to get public opinion on her side.

I mean, maybe it was a hiking group for sober people?

Anything related to addiction, sobriety, rehab, would have brought criticism because of how little time she spent sober before jumping in a new relationship and having another baby.

The timeline is also interesting based on her DV claim. Probably part of the reason she did not want to end up pursuing the charges.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to believe some of what Kane said during his radio meltdown (about Natasha hitting things with the van/hiding it, not paying bills etc.) knowing now she was an addict at the time... (Kane asked Natasha for a divorce in May 2015 - She said she's been struggling with addiction for 6 years and in the recovery community for 4 of those years, so she was an addict -- not in recovery-- when he filed for divorce).

Lying about how she met her husband was also stupid. I just went back and re-read that post. "I can remember so many childhood camping trips in the Smokies where I’d spend hours exploring streams and trails, I truly loved it back then, so I figured maybe I could find the same joy in it now, which led to me joining a hiking group here in D.C. There was no way I could know that on that first hike on the Billy Goat Trail I would meet an amazing man..." Eeeeeeek. She should've just omitted how they met and focused on finding a good partner. This just makes her look fake and like she's willing to lie to get public opinion on her side.


I mean, maybe it was a hiking group for sober people?


NP here

Just because you're an addict, doesn't mean you hike. Because you are an addict, you seek an activity to help fill your soul and satisfy it. What she said about hiking is true, even in the context of choosing a hiking hobby while in rehab.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I can't wait to read everything that Kane has spent a ton of money trying hide!


She better write it fast while the courts are closed and his lawyer can't file any type of injunction.


The courts are closed ONLY to the public until at LEAST the beginning of June. The employees are still going to their offices, and lawyers can still file electronically at any time.


Judges are only hearing essential items. Not this.


I never said they were hearing cases, just that lawyers don't have to wait to file anything
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to believe some of what Kane said during his radio meltdown (about Natasha hitting things with the van/hiding it, not paying bills etc.) knowing now she was an addict at the time... (Kane asked Natasha for a divorce in May 2015 - She said she's been struggling with addiction for 6 years and in the recovery community for 4 of those years, so she was an addict -- not in recovery-- when he filed for divorce).

Lying about how she met her husband was also stupid. I just went back and re-read that post. "I can remember so many childhood camping trips in the Smokies where I’d spend hours exploring streams and trails, I truly loved it back then, so I figured maybe I could find the same joy in it now, which led to me joining a hiking group here in D.C. There was no way I could know that on that first hike on the Billy Goat Trail I would meet an amazing man..." Eeeeeeek. She should've just omitted how they met and focused on finding a good partner. This just makes her look fake and like she's willing to lie to get public opinion on her side.


Indeed. She has left a big part of the equation out of the end of her marriage and divorce. Oh he abused me, was a narcissist, controlling...but, I’ll not mention that I was addicted to pills, alcohol, whatever and possibly acted erratically a lot, even around the kids. She is telling a very one-sided story. Her addiction does not invalidate his actions at all, but he was not obligated to stay and be supportive of the path she was taking.

Kane, while divulging more on air than she should have, he should have said nothing, has been at the least classy enough to not mention her issues with substance abuse, since she clearly is embarrassed and ashamed. The couple divorcées that I know who divorced due to substance issues were vocal about their spouse’s issue.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t disagree with there being drama surrounding Kane, however, the majority of it is hearsay from other people (Natasha’s blog, Danni’s ‘book’ and Instagram, even people on here). Yet he doesn’t respond and goes about his business. It makes him look better than the other folks. It also doesn’t help that some of his detractors come off as pretty crazy themselves and seem to have drama with endless amounts of people.


Sarah Fraser and Mel both left with little drama and have done little more than confirm the rumors. In Natasha's case before yesterday all the accusations were essentially heresay (like rehab) but everyone believed them and constantly used it to discredit her. Danni I agree seems as cray and unstable as Kane himself, which is probably why their blowout was the most sensationalized. Neither were capable of acting like adults.

Heresay is enough to convict the women (all of whom are telling the same story) but not the man (who almost no one has defended on the merits of the claim ie, 'my nephew knows him and he's such a nice person and could never have done something like that'). Everyone defends Kane by discrediting the women, not by defending him. And so the fight is always about whether the women are trustworthy instead of, 'is Kane in fact a giant dbag, is there anything to counter what Mel, Sarah, Sanni, Nat and Sammy (a man!) have implied or said outright about him. In addition to many industry insiders and previous interns who have posted and agreed he was not a particularly nice or decent guy. Does anyone have another explanation for why he has such acrimonious relationships with previous cohosts unlike say, Elliot who has been working with Diane since the beginning of time?

Defend Kane to me on his own merits and maybe I'll take you seriously. But I'm over him getting the benefit of the doubt when anyone who dares say anything against him gets torn to pieces.

You’re an anon on a mommy blog, no one gives a f*ck if you take them serious. Those that believe Peter and those that believe Natasha are not here to change their minds.

If you don't care what I think than why argue with me?

You’re talking to different people.


I'm the person who wrote the comment you bolded and the person you responded to. So I don't think I'm talking to different people. Just that one person who responded to my post.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to believe some of what Kane said during his radio meltdown (about Natasha hitting things with the van/hiding it, not paying bills etc.) knowing now she was an addict at the time... (Kane asked Natasha for a divorce in May 2015 - She said she's been struggling with addiction for 6 years and in the recovery community for 4 of those years, so she was an addict -- not in recovery-- when he filed for divorce).

Lying about how she met her husband was also stupid. I just went back and re-read that post. "I can remember so many childhood camping trips in the Smokies where I’d spend hours exploring streams and trails, I truly loved it back then, so I figured maybe I could find the same joy in it now, which led to me joining a hiking group here in D.C. There was no way I could know that on that first hike on the Billy Goat Trail I would meet an amazing man..." Eeeeeeek. She should've just omitted how they met and focused on finding a good partner. This just makes her look fake and like she's willing to lie to get public opinion on her side.


I mean, maybe it was a hiking group for sober people?


NP here

Just because you're an addict, doesn't mean you hike. Because you are an addict, you seek an activity to help fill your soul and satisfy it. What she said about hiking is true, even in the context of choosing a hiking hobby while in rehab.


We're essentially saying the same thing. Everyone is hyper focused on her meeting him "in rehab" and not "in a hiking group" but what's to say it wasn't a group in the rehab who went hiking? She really doesn't/didn't owe anyone the specific explanation. Goes along with the narrative a pp said about just nitpicking the women to death over every detail.
Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture
Go to: