[Shadowfax]

Still with the bickering? Both of you to your rooms for a time out! Everybody else, stop baiting the trolls.

[Shadowfax]

Still with the bickering? Both of you to your rooms for a time out! Everybody else, stop baiting the trolls.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, don’t think for a moment that basketball fans are the ones paying the bloated salaries of these athletes (and entertainers of any kind). It’s the consumers who buy the products that are being advertised during the games, and those who buy the products being advertised by the athletes, themselves. If athletes (and everyone in the entertainment industry) were dependent only on fans who bought their tickets or who paid for exclusive channels, they would make a tiny fraction of what they do under the current model. And don’t say we have a choice to not buy the advertised products. I’ve actually tried to list all the advertisers during games, to see how easy it would be to avoid them, and it would be almost impossible. Try it sometime.[/quote]

And many of the products we buy come from a consortium of companies owned by one or a small number of mega-corporations. Does anyone remember the Beatrice adds, where virtually every product imaginable is flashed on screen with the nice lady’s voice repeating “Beatrice.” Anti-trust doesn’t seem to appy. P&G owns a ton of brands at the grocery store, so while the array of goods is mind-boggling (most being things that people don’t really need) there are only a handful of owners of those brands and the decisions they make are hard to avoid (see thread on “Whole Foods”). So choices are limited in that regard.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, don’t think for a moment that basketball fans are the ones paying the bloated salaries of these athletes (and entertainers of any kind). It’s the consumers who buy the products that are being advertised during the games, and those who buy the products being advertised by the athletes, themselves. If athletes (and everyone in the entertainment industry) were dependent only on fans who bought their tickets or who paid for exclusive channels, they would make a tiny fraction of what they do under the current model. And don’t say we have a choice to not buy the advertised products. I’ve actually tried to list all the advertisers during games, to see how easy it would be to avoid them, and it would be almost impossible. Try it sometime.[/quote]

And many of the products we buy come from a consortium of companies owned by one or a small number of mega-corporations. Does anyone remember the Beatrice adds, where virtually every product imaginable is flashed on screen with the nice lady’s voice repeating “Beatrice.” Anti-trust doesn’t seem to appy. P&G owns a ton of brands at the grocery store, so while the array of goods is mind-boggling (most being things that people don’t really need) there are only a handful of owners of those brands and the decisions they make are hard to avoid (see thread on “Whole Foods”). So choices are limited in that regard.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, don’t think for a moment that basketball fans are the ones paying the bloated salaries of these athletes (and entertainers of any kind). It’s the consumers who buy the products that are being advertised during the games, and those who buy the products being advertised by the athletes, themselves. If athletes (and everyone in the entertainment industry) were dependent only on fans who bought their tickets or who paid for exclusive channels, they would make a tiny fraction of what they do under the current model. And don’t say we have a choice to not buy the advertised products. I’ve actually tried to list all the advertisers during games, to see how easy it would be to avoid them, and it would be almost impossible. Try it sometime.[/quote]

And many of the products we buy come from a consortium of companies owned by one or a small number of mega-corporations. Does anyone remember the Beatrice adds, where virtually every product imaginable is flashed on screen with the nice lady’s voice repeating “Beatrice.” Anti-trust doesn’t seem to appy. P&G owns a ton of brands at the grocery store, so while the array of goods is mind-boggling (most being things that people don’t really need) there are only a handful of owners of those brands and the decisions they make are hard to avoid (see thread on “Whole Foods”). So choices are limited in that regard.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, don’t think for a moment that basketball fans are the ones paying the bloated salaries of these athletes (and entertainers of any kind). It’s the consumers who buy the products that are being advertised during the games, and those who buy the products being advertised by the athletes, themselves. If athletes (and everyone in the entertainment industry) were dependent only on fans who bought their tickets or who paid for exclusive channels, they would make a tiny fraction of what they do under the current model. And don’t say we have a choice to not buy the advertised products. I’ve actually tried to list all the advertisers during games, to see how easy it would be to avoid them, and it would be almost impossible. Try it sometime.[/quote]

And many of the products we buy come from a consortium of companies owned by one or a small number of mega-corporations. Does anyone remember the Beatrice adds, where virtually every product imaginable is flashed on screen with the nice lady’s voice repeating “Beatrice.” Anti-trust doesn’t seem to appy. P&G owns a ton of brands at the grocery store, so while the array of goods is mind-boggling (most being things that people don’t really need) there are only a handful of owners of those brands and the decisions they make are hard to avoid (see thread on “Whole Foods”). So choices are limited in that regard.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, don’t think for a moment that basketball fans are the ones paying the bloated salaries of these athletes (and entertainers of any kind). It’s the consumers who buy the products that are being advertised during the games, and those who buy the products being advertised by the athletes, themselves. If athletes (and everyone in the entertainment industry) were dependent only on fans who bought their tickets or who paid for exclusive channels, they would make a tiny fraction of what they do under the current model. And don’t say we have a choice to not buy the advertised products. I’ve actually tried to list all the advertisers during games, to see how easy it would be to avoid them, and it would be almost impossible. Try it sometime.[/quote]

And many of the products we buy come from a consortium of companies owned by one or a small number of mega-corporations. Does anyone remember the Beatrice adds, where virtually every product imaginable is flashed on screen with the nice lady’s voice repeating “Beatrice.” Anti-trust doesn’t seem to appy. P&G owns a ton of brands at the grocery store, so while the array of goods is mind-boggling (most being things that people don’t really need) there are only a handful of owners of those brands and the decisions they make are hard to avoid (see thread on “Whole Foods”). So choices are limited in that regard.

[Shadowfax]

What is up with you two and the pissing contest over neighborhoods? You’ve both proven that one won’t convince the other, can we move on? Or at least move this debate to PMs? I don’t see how this adds to this discussion thread. (I am guilty of it too but I usually give up after the first or second round.)

[Shadowfax]

What is up with you two and the pissing contest over neighborhoods? You’ve both proven that one won’t convince the other, can we move on? Or at least move this debate to PMs? I don’t see how this adds to this discussion thread. (I am guilty of it too but I usually give up after the first or second round.)

[Shadowfax]

What is up with you two and the pissing contest over neighborhoods? You’ve both proven that one won’t convince the other, can we move on? Or at least move this debate to PMs? I don’t see how this adds to this discussion thread. (I am guilty of it too but I usually give up after the first or second round.)

[Shadowfax]

What is up with you two and the pissing contest over neighborhoods? You’ve both proven that one won’t convince the other, can we move on? Or at least move this debate to PMs? I don’t see how this adds to this discussion thread. (I am guilty of it too but I usually give up after the first or second round.)

[Shadowfax]

What is up with you two and the pissing contest over neighborhoods? You’ve both proven that one won’t convince the other, can we move on? Or at least move this debate to PMs? I don’t see how this adds to this discussion thread. (I am guilty of it too but I usually give up after the first or second round.)

[Shadowfax]

I like it! What time is “church?” haha.

One of my complaints with most religions is exactly what he mentions, that adherents won’t engage in meaningful debate. To do that they have to admit 1) the story was written by an infallible human and 2) that there are holes in their story and 3) that there are things they don’t know. (some zealous political adherents are the same way) Faith is frequently cited as the great gap-filler, but I think that is sometimes intellectually dishonest and lazy.

I also like his stated goal of applying the elements of science to belief systems to carve out the ridiculous (my word choice, not his) and to continue exploring and experimenting and measuring to try to get to more information.

I have always hated the religious types who are so arrogant as to believe that they “know it all” or that “it’s true because god says so.” It is such a narrow, subjective stance and discounts the other 100% (minus their presence) of the rest of the universe.

It is gratifying to see someone so smart and well spoken eloquently state one’s own beliefs….

[Shadowfax]

I like it! What time is “church?” haha.

One of my complaints with most religions is exactly what he mentions, that adherents won’t engage in meaningful debate. To do that they have to admit 1) the story was written by an infallible human and 2) that there are holes in their story and 3) that there are things they don’t know. (some zealous political adherents are the same way) Faith is frequently cited as the great gap-filler, but I think that is sometimes intellectually dishonest and lazy.

I also like his stated goal of applying the elements of science to belief systems to carve out the ridiculous (my word choice, not his) and to continue exploring and experimenting and measuring to try to get to more information.

I have always hated the religious types who are so arrogant as to believe that they “know it all” or that “it’s true because god says so.” It is such a narrow, subjective stance and discounts the other 100% (minus their presence) of the rest of the universe.

It is gratifying to see someone so smart and well spoken eloquently state one’s own beliefs….

[Shadowfax]

I like it! What time is “church?” haha.

One of my complaints with most religions is exactly what he mentions, that adherents won’t engage in meaningful debate. To do that they have to admit 1) the story was written by an infallible human and 2) that there are holes in their story and 3) that there are things they don’t know. (some zealous political adherents are the same way) Faith is frequently cited as the great gap-filler, but I think that is sometimes intellectually dishonest and lazy.

I also like his stated goal of applying the elements of science to belief systems to carve out the ridiculous (my word choice, not his) and to continue exploring and experimenting and measuring to try to get to more information.

I have always hated the religious types who are so arrogant as to believe that they “know it all” or that “it’s true because god says so.” It is such a narrow, subjective stance and discounts the other 100% (minus their presence) of the rest of the universe.

It is gratifying to see someone so smart and well spoken eloquently state one’s own beliefs….

[Author]

Posts