ESPN SPORTS TV
riaz uddin
1. Over 4500+ Live Streaming Full HD Quality TV Channels Including
More Bonus Premium Live Sports,Live Show,Movie,News TV Channels Local
and World-Wide with Unlimited Access.
2. Watch All Types of Sports Live Matches Online with TV Schedules.
3. Live Instant Sports Match Stream Online.
4. Enjoy the Latest Game Highlights Video Online.
5. Watch Multiple Games at Once!
6. 24/7 World-Wide Access and Support.
7. Stream Directly to your PC or Laptop or iPOD.
8. Support Any Operating Systems.
9. 1-3 Minutes Fast & Simple Instant Setup.
10. Simple User-Friendly Software Settings.
11.No Extra Hardware Required to Purchase to Install in Future.
12.No Additional Cost Required in Future.
13.No Monthly Fees/Charges/Bills.
14.Free Download Accelerator.
15.Free Digital Video Recorder and Viewer!
16.No Bandwidth Limits or Country Restrictions to Use from All Over
the World.
17.New Channels Added Daily.
18.Full HD Widescreen TV Playback Support.
19.No TV Restrictions / No Streaming Restrictions.
20. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed!
21. 7 Day Money Back Guarantee!
22. 100% Full Refund on Your Membership Fee!
http://www.espnsportstv.com/
Live Sports Category:
Football
Rugby
Golf
Tennis
Soccer
Baseball
Basketball
Fighting
Handball
Hockey
Boxing
Wrestling
MotorSports
OtherSports
http://www.espnsportstv.com/
sully
> Why You Stay with Us?
snip
> Live Sports Category:
> Football
> Rugby
> Golf
> Tennis
> Soccer
> Baseball
> Basketball
> Fighting
> Handball
> Hockey
> Boxing
> Wrestling
> MotorSports
Come back and pimp when you have rowing.
usbrit
Universal last night
picture quality was poor and as for the commentators........poorer I'd
say
Charles Carroll
Now, Mike!
We have to be a little serious about this. Can you think of one Rowing
Coach whose compensation is 3.5 million US per year? Or one crew that
is part of an athletic program with a 100 million dollar a year
budget?
Opps! I am wrong. OSU has crew! I just looked it up a minute ago.
So the OSU Crew must take a piece of that 100 million dollar budget. I
wonder how big a piece. For that matter, I wonder what Tom Madden's
annual compensation is? I wonder how it compares to what Jim Tressel
was making.
How many people actually care about the OSU crew? A mere handful, I
imagine, when compared with OSU football.
No! Crew just ain't a spectator sport on this side of the pond. You do
crew because you love rowing and sculling. Amateur comes from the
Latin "amator" lover, which comes from "amatus," which is the past
participle of "amare" to love. If you do crew, you better love it for
its own sake and be content with amateur status, because crew sure as
hell isn't going to lead you to riches and fame, not in this country
anyway. But why am I telling you something you know so much better
than I?
Anyway, it kinda makes you wonder why ESPN SPORTS TV would bother with
our little newsgroup.
Cordially,
Charles
sully
wrote:
At the IRA regatta at Natoma in 2009 the races were televised on a big
screen right
on the shore near the finish line, same with the SDCC this year. I
thought it made
the regatta 100 times better for spectating.
I find watching races as compelling as any sport, and really rowing
isn't my
#1 favorite sport! But I know some of the players, and who's who,
that makes
the drama for me.
I think a good production would be very watchable by the average
sports fan, just
invest as much time telling the fan who's who and what's what as they
do in other sports,
put a line on the races in Vegas, then off we go!!
Carl Douglas
Charles - this word "compensation"? Its the same weasel word used by
overpaid execs to pretend there's something different, special (apart
from its size) & almost non-monetary about their pay packets.
For what great, if imaginary, loss is someone merely doing a job getting
"compensated"? How is it different from other folks' wages? And what
about that other weasel word "emoluments". Well, there is a difference.
If average Joe screws up on his job, he gets the sack, but if the boss
runs the bank onto the rocks (& wrecks very many lives on the way), he
gets a fancy pension scheme, a huge lump sum (well, it was in his
contract after all, even though competence was also implied there too) &
goes on to a number of other directorships.
To coach a fine rowing program is not a task worthy of "compensation",
any more than it would be to conduct a great orchestra or run a fine
company. It is an honour (you would call it an honor) to do it, & to
get paid to do it is the icing on the cake.
All of which relates to my narrow-minded preference for plain words
carrying their meaning with clarity, whether when dissecting the rowing
action or paying the piper.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
usbrit
> Charles - this word "compensation"? Its the same weasel word used by
> overpaid execs to pretend there's something different, special (apart
> from its size) & almost non-monetary about their pay packets.
>
> For what great, if imaginary, loss is someone merely doing a job getting
> "compensated"? How is it different from other folks' wages? And what
> about that other weasel word "emoluments".
Carl
It's the bean counters. They like defining words ie
Wages - those paid by the hour
Salary - those paid monthly
Emolument - Payment made usually to a business owner
Compensation - A package of goodies; salary, bonus, share options, etc
etc
BTW - I volunteered to coach a small local college for the head season
at the end of 2010 and sprint racing for 2011
Loved doing it, felt good to putting something back into the sport
I was later told I'd be paid (dont get excited anybody - the
"compensation" :-) probably covered the fuel bill on my car for the
season)
I didnt and still dont care whether I'm paid or not - what now irks me
is that the college is really dragging its feet on actually making the
payment promised
sully
>
> Now, Mike!
>
> We have to be a little serious about this. Can you think of one Rowing
> Coach whose compensation is 3.5 million US per year? Or one crew that
> is part of an athletic program with a 100 million dollar a year
> budget?
>
> Opps! I am wrong. OSU has crew! I just looked it up a minute ago.
>
> So the OSU Crew must take a piece of that 100 million dollar budget. I
> wonder how big a piece. For that matter, I wonder what Tom Madden's
> annual compensation is? I wonder how it compares to what Jim Tressel
> was making.
>
> How many people actually care about the OSU crew? A mere handful, I
> imagine, when compared with OSU football.
Absolutely true. In the past two years, however, I finally 'caught a
clue' about the
value of football and other intercollegiate sports to a university.
It's all about the marketing.
If you are the chair of the Dept of Medicine at Major U., you'll have
a very good salary,
and perhaps a nice home on campus, but a pittance compared to the
football or basketball
coach.
When the prof won his nobel prize in medicine in 2002, it made the
newspapers either on
page 2, or in the "Local News" section, thousands of people will
learn about it and think:
Wow, pretty good for Major U to have that Nobel prize! Within two
years, most will have
forgotten what the prize was for and will have some nebulous idea that
Major U has nobel
prize winning faculty.
And that's pretty good.
In 2002, Major U went to the Rose Bowl and beat PRE-NFL Southern
Univ winning the BCS National Championship.
tens of millions of people all over the country hear about it. Every
year, run-ups to the next bowl games will feature
highlights of Crazy Legs Lattimore breaking through for a 50 yard
touchdown giving Major the National Title.
Major Major Major !!!!
Name recognition. Here's the tricky part. Every time Major U
gets on teevee, the NCAA will run a spot
on Major's academics. They'll point out that Major prof won a nobel
prize in 2002. Millions more ppl will
know about Major's Nobel through football than through the publicity
for the nobel itself, AND be reminded about
it year after year.
This is why the football coach gets millions in "compensation".
Carl Douglas
>>
>> Charles - this word "compensation"? Its the same weasel word used by
>> overpaid execs to pretend there's something different, special (apart
>>
>> For what great, if imaginary, loss is someone merely doing a job getting
>> "compensated"? How is it different from other folks' wages? And what
>> about that other weasel word "emoluments".
>
> Carl
>
> It's the bean counters. They like defining words ie
> Wages - those paid by the hour
> Salary - those paid monthly
> Emolument - Payment made usually to a business owner
> Compensation - A package of goodies; salary, bonus, share options, etc
> etc
>
> BTW - I volunteered to coach a small local college for the head season
> at the end of 2010 and sprint racing for 2011
> Loved doing it, felt good to putting something back into the sport
> I was later told I'd be paid (dont get excited anybody - the
> "compensation" :-) probably covered the fuel bill on my car for the
> season)
> I didnt and still dont care whether I'm paid or not - what now irks me
> is that the college is really dragging its feet on actually making the
> payment promised
Are you telling me that the upper echelons of business are luxuriating
in the 'compensation culture', in which everything is someone else's
fault? Surely not!
"Blessed are the bean counters" - but shall they inherit the earth? I
expect your college's bean counters were busy counting out the beans you
were promised, but their abacus broke under the strain. Sudden abacus
failure syndrome exempts the college from paying you.
Charles Carroll
> This is why the football coach gets millions in "compensation".
So that 3.5 million per year in compensation got you you, eh? ;)
Got to me , too!
But what about the 100 million per year figure for the OSU athletic
programs? That's a nice little piece of change.
Wonder what the price of a Linear Accelerator is these days.
Cordially,
Charles
sully
wrote:
> Mike,
>
> > This is why the football coach gets millions in "compensation".
>
> So that 3.5 million per year in compensation got you you, eh? ;)
Charles, I'm pretty dull-witted so this took a long time for me to
figure out why universities
pay that kind of money to a crotch scratcher...
>
> Got to me , too!
>
> But what about the 100 million per year figure for the OSU athletic
> programs? That's a nice little piece of change.
at ~ $35 million for football, that leaves a lot of money for rest of
dept.
Recruiting is very expensive.
>
> Wonder what the price of a Linear Accelerator is these days.
Next generation will be the ILC someday, around $7 bil. Economic
collapse of
2007 put plans on back burner.
Neither US or EU or China can afford that, it'll be a truly
international collaboration
and investment.
Charles Carroll
Hi Carl,
Why would they worry about inheriting something they already own?
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
> Wages - those paid by the hour
> Salary - those paid monthly
> Emolument - Payment made usually to a business owner
> Compensation - A package of goodies; salary, bonus, share options,
> etc
> etc
Almost but now quite.
Compensation is indeed a package of options -- including, but not
limited to, salary, cars, planes, travel expenses, Club membership,
etc.
Bonus is something paid in addition to compensation and is usually
tied to performance, or the perception thereof.. A football coach, for
example, has to win games and maybe secure an invitation to a bowl
game. A CEO of a corporation has to make money for shareholders. Etc.
Etc. Etc.
Sometimes in business actual salaries, i.e. compensation, can be very
small. I remember being quite surprised once to read how little the
compensation was for some of the most famous performers in the
financial markets. But then my cousin, who is a denizen of Wall
Street, told me that everything is in the bonus. It was a long time
ago that we had this discussion. But I'll throw out the numbers, as I
remember them, but without naming the person. The compensation was
quite modest, a $150,000 a year. But the bonus that year (again based
on performance) came to about 700 million. This person made a lot of
money, very serious money, for a number of people, and they felt that
he earned every penny of his bonus. There is no secret. Just make
people happy. That is all there is to it.
William Clark
"Charles Carroll" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Come back and pimp when you have rowing.
>
>
> Now, Mike!
>
> We have to be a little serious about this. Can you think of one Rowing
> Coach whose compensation is 3.5 million US per year? Or one crew that
> is part of an athletic program with a 100 million dollar a year
> budget?
>
> Opps! I am wrong. OSU has crew! I just looked it up a minute ago.
Indeed, OSU does have a varsity crew program, but it is for women only.
Men's crew is just a club sport, and not funded by the OSU Athletic
Department. Most of the Big Ten schools also have crew programs, for
reasons outlined below, as do many other major univerisites with large
football programs.
>
> So the OSU Crew must take a piece of that 100 million dollar budget. I
> wonder how big a piece. For that matter, I wonder what Tom Madden's
> annual compensation is? I wonder how it compares to what Jim Tressel
> was making.
Actually, it is quite a big piece, the reason being that when Title IX
became law, big universities needed a large enrollment female sport to
balance with male-only football. Crew was ideal, because you have a
variety of boats, at full and lightweight, together with novice crews.
Altogether I think there are close to 90 women on the OSU crew team. The
university, in cooperation with several local high schools (where the
sport is growing fast), and a local club or two, is in the process of
completing a major boathouse on the Scioto River that will be a
tremendous resource for rowing in this area.
>
> How many people actually care about the OSU crew? A mere handful, I
> imagine, when compared with OSU football.
Anything is a mere handful when compared to fan support for OSU football
- even OSU basketball. However, the OSU crew has ranked as high as #3 in
the country in recent years, and is a pretty solid top 10 fixture. Not
bad, given the winters we have here.
>
> No! Crew just ain't a spectator sport on this side of the pond. You do
> crew because you love rowing and sculling. Amateur comes from the
> Latin "amator" lover, which comes from "amatus," which is the past
> participle of "amare" to love. If you do crew, you better love it for
> its own sake and be content with amateur status, because crew sure as
> hell isn't going to lead you to riches and fame, not in this country
> anyway. But why am I telling you something you know so much better
> than I?
Indeed, but the Scioto River is a nice viewing venue, and with the
explosion of crew in high schools there are more folk watching regattas
than you might think.
William Clark
"Charles Carroll" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> > This is why the football coach gets millions in "compensation".
>
> So that 3.5 million per year in compensation got you you, eh? ;)
Indeed, but as you say his official university salary is somewhere
around #350,000 - the rest comes from sponsorships (Nike, for example,
has the rights to OSU's athletic gear), and other endorsements, together
with bonuses, which Tressel was picking up with monotonous regularity.
Still, it's nothing compared to the packages that many Wall street execs
receives, even as their banks were losing money. For an OSU coach,
losing would mean a quick exit, not the Wall Street opposite :-)
>
> Got to me , too!
>
> But what about the 100 million per year figure for the OSU athletic
> programs? That's a nice little piece of change.
Yes, and OSU is one of the few major schools that makes a net profit on
its athletic program. It returns money to the University's general funds
each year.
>
> Wonder what the price of a Linear Accelerator is these days.
I don't know, but there are a host of new buildings on the OSU campus in
the past few years, even as Ohio's economy struggles.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles
usbrit
wrote:
> > It's the bean counters. They like defining words ie
> > Wages - those paid by the hour
> > Salary - those paid monthly
> > Emolument - Payment made usually to a business owner
> > Compensation - A package of goodies; salary, bonus, share options,
> > etc
> > etc
>
> Almost but now quite.
>
> on performance) came to about 700 million. This person made a lot of
> money, very serious money, for a number of people, and they felt that
> he earned every penny of his bonus. There is no secret. Just make
> people happy. That is all there is to it.
Really? you think $150k is "modest"
sully
wrote:
> In article <95cujcFt0...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Mike,
>
> > > This is why the football coach gets millions in "compensation".
>
> > So that 3.5 million per year in compensation got you you, eh? ;)
>
> Indeed, but as you say his official university salary is somewhere
> around #350,000 - the rest comes from sponsorships (Nike, for example,
> has the rights to OSU's athletic gear), and other endorsements, together
> with bonuses, which Tressel was picking up with monotonous regularity.
>
> Still, it's nothing compared to the packages that many Wall street execs
> receives, even as their banks were losing money. For an OSU coach,
> losing would mean a quick exit, not the Wall Street opposite :-)
>
>
>
> > Got to me , too!
>
> > But what about the 100 million per year figure for the OSU athletic
> > programs? That's a nice little piece of change.
>
> Yes, and OSU is one of the few major schools that makes a net profit on
> its athletic program. It returns money to the University's general funds
> each year.
It's misleading to claim the athletic program nets a profit, but
indeed OSU is one
of a small handful of major universities where the athletic program
isn't a net drain
to the general fund. To balance their budget, they draw about $15
mil in fundraising,
and around another $9-10 million from interest income off endowments
and from
reserves. Payments back to the university are budget line items,
yes, and is
very politically astute to do so, but this money doesn't come from
football "income".
When I ran a college rowing program, I had to raise funds for us to
meet
our competitive goals, I always balanced our budget, but that
wouldn't classify
us as being profitable.
Charles Carroll
If I have offended anyone, I immediately apologize. I assure you that
no offense was intended. Would you be so kind as to allow me to write
this off as a failed attempt at irony?
Warmest regards,
Charles
Carl Douglas
Nearly half of the world population has to try to exist on <$1/day -
yes, <$365/year. They might very well consider anyone receiving
Ł150,000 a year ($411/day) to be rather better than 'modestly' paid.
Unless, of course, he were to share some of it with them.....
I keep hearing about a so-called trickle-down effect, whereby money
spent by the well-paid supposedly helps up the impoverished, but there
is precious little evidence that it works that way. I see hedge fund
managers buying up land in 3rd-world countries, thereby dispossessing
the locals of their means of feeding themselves & depleting the local
water resources to intensively grow flowers, veg & meat for us 1st-world
consumers. And I see the upwards manipulation of basic commodity
prices, by a small number of massive commodity traders & a growing
number of individual on-line speculators (some playing it almost as a
game), driving the really poor ever further into terminal poverty.
If you've lost your one arable plot to a vast commercial outfit, then
you can't even grow beans to feed yourself or your kids. But, looking
on the bright side, that does save you from having to engage a bean counter.
At least rowers still worry about fairness in competition.
Charles Carroll
But it would seem that the Oxford English Dictionary does not support
your contention that the word compensation is misused when it is used
to describe someone's salary or remuneration.
According to the OED compensation comes from the Latin "compensare to
weigh one thing against another, counterbalance, etc., f. com- +
pensare, frequent. of pendere to weigh."
The OED defines compensation in a second sense as "(2a) That which is
given in recompense, an equivalent rendered, remuneration, amends."
And it finds a derivative of this sense: "(2d) Salary or wages, esp.
of a public servant; payment for services rendered."
And then, very interestingly, the OED cites an 1887 usage, which it
takes from the U.S. Constitution (i §6) "The Senators and
Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services to be
paid out of the Treasury of the U.S."
I suppose, should you be so inclined as to continue the lament over
the state of compensation for people who engage in outrageous
skullduggery, you could add attributes to the word that would describe
that it more fully and definitely. For instance, you could talk about
dishonest compensation, or unfair compensation, or underhanded
compensation, or unscrupulous compensation, etc.
But, having glanced at the OED, I think it would be very hard to
maintain that the usage of compensation as remuneration is a
neologism.
Warmest regards,
Charles
Ps Please accept my apologies for this bit of pedantry.
Richard du P
I believe I've seen the "trickle-down" effect referred to
alternatively as "horse'n'sparrow economics" ..... the point being
that, if you feed the horse an amount of oats seriously excessive to
its needs, there will be enough unprocessed grain in its faeces, to
allow the stable-yard sparrow an adequate diet. I think that may work
better in the animal kingdom, than in human societies, but the image
seems horribly appropriate.
Richard du P
Charles Carroll
Did I actually write that the OED cites an 1887 usage? Try 1787!
Chris Kerr
> I keep hearing about a so-called trickle-down effect, whereby money
> spent by the well-paid supposedly helps up the impoverished, but there
> is precious little evidence that it works that way. I see hedge fund
> managers buying up land in 3rd-world countries, thereby dispossessing
> the locals of their means of feeding themselves & depleting the local
> water resources to intensively grow flowers, veg & meat for us 1st-world
> consumers. And I see the upwards manipulation of basic commodity
> prices, by a small number of massive commodity traders & a growing
> number of individual on-line speculators (some playing it almost as a
> game), driving the really poor ever further into terminal poverty.
How exactly do these 'massive commodity traders' manipulate prices upwards?
Looking at the recent gyrations of the banking system, I would have thought
that it was fairly obvious that 'upwards manipulation' was at best a
temporary expedient - and unlike the banks, none of these commodity traders
are "too big to fail". Prices follow the balance between demand and supply -
in this case, the reason that prices are rising is primarily that people in
some developing countries (e.g. China) are becoming richer and starting to
buy resource-intensive goods which previously only Westerners could afford.
Do you really think this is a bad thing?
Given that raw materials and commodities are the biggest export earners of
many developing countries, increased commodity prices mean more money going
to the developing world, not less. Admittedly, most of this money gets
creamed off by corrupt dictators and their bureaucrats, but you can hardly
blame the hedge funds for this.
>
> If you've lost your one arable plot to a vast commercial outfit, then
> you can't even grow beans to feed yourself or your kids. But, looking
> on the bright side, that does save you from having to engage a bean
> counter.
Hedge funds can only buy land that someone will sell them. Either this
hypothetical farmer sold willingly and for a fair price, in which case he
can e.g. invest the proceeds in equipment and materials to start a new
business and support his family that way, or he was dispossessed by a
corrupt government - either way, why blame the hedge funds?
The problem here isn't capitalism but the absence of democratic
accountability and the rule of law.
Carl Douglas
> Carl Douglas wrote:
>
>
>> I keep hearing about a so-called trickle-down effect, whereby money
>> spent by the well-paid supposedly helps up the impoverished, but there
>> is precious little evidence that it works that way. I see hedge fund
>> managers buying up land in 3rd-world countries, thereby dispossessing
>> water resources to intensively grow flowers, veg& meat for us 1st-world
>> consumers. And I see the upwards manipulation of basic commodity
>> number of individual on-line speculators (some playing it almost as a
>> game), driving the really poor ever further into terminal poverty.
>
> How exactly do these 'massive commodity traders' manipulate prices upwards?
> Looking at the recent gyrations of the banking system, I would have thought
> that it was fairly obvious that 'upwards manipulation' was at best a
> temporary expedient - and unlike the banks, none of these commodity traders
> are "too big to fail". Prices follow the balance between demand and supply -
> in this case, the reason that prices are rising is primarily that people in
> some developing countries (e.g. China) are becoming richer and starting to
> buy resource-intensive goods which previously only Westerners could afford.
> Do you really think this is a bad thing?
> Given that raw materials and commodities are the biggest export earners of
> many developing countries, increased commodity prices mean more money going
> to the developing world, not less. Admittedly, most of this money gets
> creamed off by corrupt dictators and their bureaucrats, but you can hardly
> blame the hedge funds for this.
>
Why not blame them? To acknowledge exactly what is happening, & then
say "not my problem", is like failing to render assistance to someone
being mugged or raped, or to try to prevent that assault, or even to
report it as a witness to the fact. In fact it amounts to direct
complicity - they know exactly what they are doing & what will be its
outcome. Blood can never be washed off guilty hands by any amount of
soft soaping.
In the cases covered by, for example, the Oakland Institute:
http://media.oaklandinstitute.org/
we see that it actually gets worse. In those cases, it is all of the
above, & the crime is then compounded by them going through the pockets
of the victim & taking his/her clothes.
But it is not just the hedge funds. It is also 1st-world governments
buying up vast tracts of other people's land to grow food for their own
nation's needs - to the permanent detriment of those thus displaced & of
those nations themselves.
You're right to note the gross corruption in governments of poorer
lands, but wrong to claim that the dispossessed necessarily profited
therefrom. Many are simply beaten off by agents of those corrupt
politicians & by the private armies of the business empires which will
henceforth farm that land (consider the activities of Shell in Nigeria).
This drives ever more desperate people into urban slums. It bears the
very same immoral stains as the Highland Clearances & the Irish Plantation.
>>
>> If you've lost your one arable plot to a vast commercial outfit, then
>> you can't even grow beans to feed yourself or your kids. But, looking
>> on the bright side, that does save you from having to engage a bean
>> counter.
>
> Hedge funds can only buy land that someone will sell them. Either this
> hypothetical farmer sold willingly and for a fair price, in which case he
> can e.g. invest the proceeds in equipment and materials to start a new
> business and support his family that way, or he was dispossessed by a
> corrupt government - either way, why blame the hedge funds?
>
> The problem here isn't capitalism but the absence of democratic
> accountability and the rule of law.
>
It is so convenient to blame someone else, especially the victim. I'm
frankly surprised, Chris, that you seem to have such a shallow knowledge
of what you appear to wish to defend.
Just supposing the farmer did sell his land, what choice had he or she
in the matter & was the price fair (if any price was indeed paid) or
just a token? I see that you don't see the hedge funds as benevolent.
In the West we have consumer protection laws to defend well-educated
people against the real or imagined depredations of commercial
enterprises, yet you expect a possibly illiterate subsistence farmer to
know what is being done to him, what is fair, & to be able to strike a
meaningful deal, or offer meaningful resistance to expropriation,
without the slightest legal support or means of redress?
To see how large corporations work to beat down & cripple little guys in
1st-world countries, where we supposedly have all manner of legal
protections, come much closer to home:
http://tinyurl.com/6kbp3l8
Or the infamous McLibel case - the world's longest libel trial - brought
by McDonalds (righteous & healthful (?) 2012 sponsors, bless 'em)
against 2 individuals for telling what was very largely the absolute truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_Case
Another way to view the food-resource expropriation by foreign
multinationals & governments is through the water balance. Many
developed nations are bleeding themselves short of water & face the real
prospect of food insecurity. Some under-developed nations appear to
have good water resources, & it is in effect these which are being
plundered. But it has nothing to do with benevolence & everything to do
with the devil taking the hindmost. The traders know exactly what they
do & the severe consequences for those they commercially colonise.
And you don't think that commodities traders manipulate markets? So
there are no cartels? So the prices of food grains should be rising as
they are, which most damages those on the lowest incomes? No
conglomerate ever collared a given commodity in the expectation of
profiting from the resulting shortage? It happens with every commodity
&, worse still, is actively encouraged on any number of online trading
sites which are nothing short of betting shops. Pepper may not be an
essential commodity, but see:
http://tinyurl.com/68so4ea
This is not the first time in my life that pepper - a compact,
high-value product - has been internationally manipulated. And compare
the price obtained by the grower with the profits made by the commodity
traders.
And, I suppose, someone will say OPEC is not a cartel? And that
elections in Uganda (or name your own under-developed autocratic state)
were free and fair, so the electorate have only themselves to blame?
This is (I hope) a huge way away away from rowing, but you did invite a
response :)
Charles Carroll
You seem perilously close to suggesting that all men who possess
capital and desire profit are bad and in their badness reign.
Consider the small community of people who build flat-water racing
shells. You have made your thoughts very clear about spurious claims
from firms such as CDRS and about boat builder's who steal designs for
hull geometry and fittings from fellow boat builders. But you also
have posted about how the large majority of your fellow boat builders
are ethical men.
Would you not extend a similar goodwill towards people who do business
in other areas? Should all men be judged by the badness of a few?
Warmest regards,
Charles
Charles Carroll
> firms such as CDRS
Opps! Did I really write CDRS? See how easy it is to make that misake!
I meant CRS (Cambridge Rowing Shells!) Not CDRS(Carl Douglas Rowing
Shells)!
Carl Douglas
No Charles, you are extrapolating from the few to the many. I did not.
The great majority trade & live in ways that do no harm to others. But
there are a few who trade & pursue their whims without the least concern
for others. Just as there are those who sell tea & coffee to thirsty
travellers, & those who sell addictive drugs to children.
Throughout history, decent people have striven to make decent livings.
And throughout history they have been preyed upon by a small, parasitic
minority with the manipulative talents to systematically dispossess or
disadvantage. One more extreme example of the latter was the slave
trade. Just because some white men thought of black families as no more
than chattels does not mean that we all think this, nor that we would
all, with half a chance, go out tomorrow to enslave others.
Cheers -
Walter Martindale
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)
Look at all this discussion - I've been clicking "report as spam" on
this thread on google groups every time I visit RSR...
Charles Carroll
> "report as spam" on this thread on google groups
> every time I visit RSR...
Walter,
I think that the "report as spam" function only works for posts you
try to read on google with the google groups newsreader. If you use
another newsgroup reader, you'll see all the posts.
So, for example, I have been playing with google groups on my android
phone. I have added it to Pulse, which is an app that collects news
from all over the net. For newsgroups, Pulse apparently uses a mobile
phone version of google groups as a newsgroup reader. As a result,
Pulse doesn't even list this thread (I suspect because you have
reported it as spam).
But if I use News.Individual.Net for my newsgroup reader, I see this
thread with (I suspect) all posts in tact.
I wonder if anyone can enlighten us on this.
Cordially,
Charles
Carl Douglas
I'd thought, until today, that one of the many great things about rowers
was the diversity of their interests & that they did not close their
eyes & ears to the rest of the world.
I'd also thought that we rowers are sufficiently discerning to be able
to ignore what we preferred to not hear about. And I didn't think we
were the sort of people who set about censoring what others could read.
Once people start assuming the right to censor what others can read, &
deliberately close their eyes to the plight of those less comfortable
than themselves, we are right in the land of the twitching curtain & but
a short distance from accepting the burning of books or, as the growth
in use of the e-book might suggest, using Kindles for kindling.
No, you cannot censor News.Individual.Net, so if you want to read what
Walter apparently wants to censor (if I read him aright), best use
News.Individual.Net rather than the self-appointed Google Groups set-up
for your news reader.
One of the good things about News.Individual.Net is that it is free of
the welter of obscene & irresponsible garbage which, I understand,
readers of RSR via Google find so off-putting & which drives readers
away from the self-policing RSR & onto the moderated nanny-ship of other
rowing newsgroups.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Walter Martindale
You sure jump on someone who wants to keep a rowing newsgroup rowing
oriented. I'm not after a nanny state that tells people what they can
look at - if someone wants to look at advertising for various stuff
they can go look at it. Hell, The POMS and Canadians are suffering
from nanny-statism with respect to a whole bunch of things, and I'm
not happy about that, either. Try being a licensed firearm owner in
the UK. Not quite so odious in Canada as in the UK, but still "guns
are evil" is the law. How about the UK law that puts a guy away for 5
years because he took a shotgun that had been dumped in his front yard
into the cops - he didn't have a license and "possessed" the gun, so
the judge gave him 5 years. For doing the right thing.
I've reported as spam all the "buy engineering books" and "hot asian
babes" stuff on the RSR newsgroup shown on google groups - is this
censoring? I'm not trying to take the crap off the internet - the
bozos who are spamming the newsgroups are hitting lots of other places
and reporting their spam as spam is not f_ing censorship, Carl, it's
reporting spam - I'm trying to keep blatant advertising for crap off a
rowing news group.
I haven't gone to news.individual.net so I don't know what it looks
like. Not overwhelmed with spare time these days so I'd rather not
have to look through reams of crap to get to things that interest me.
Carl Douglas
> On Jun 13, 7:24 am, Carl Douglas<c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 13/06/2011 03:02, Charles Carroll wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Look at all this discussion - I've been clicking
>>>> "report as spam" on this thread on google groups
>>>> every time I visit RSR...
>>
>>> Walter,
>>
>>> I think that the "report as spam" function only works for posts you try
>>> to read on google with the google groups newsreader. If you use another
>>> newsgroup reader, you'll see all the posts.
>>
>>> So, for example, I have been playing with google groups on my android
>>> phone. I have added it to Pulse, which is an app that collects news from
>>> all over the net. For newsgroups, Pulse apparently uses a mobile phone
>>> version of google groups as a newsgroup reader. As a result, Pulse
>>> doesn't even list this thread (I suspect because you have reported it as
>>> spam).
>>
>>> But if I use News.Individual.Net for my newsgroup reader, I see this
>>> thread with (I suspect) all posts in tact.
>>
>>> I wonder if anyone can enlighten us on this.
>>
>>> Cordially,
>>
>>> Charles
>>
>> I'd thought, until today, that one of the many great things about rowers
>> eyes& ears to the rest of the world.
>>
>> I'd also thought that we rowers are sufficiently discerning to be able
>> to ignore what we preferred to not hear about. And I didn't think we
>> were the sort of people who set about censoring what others could read.
>>
>> Once people start assuming the right to censor what others can read,&
>> deliberately close their eyes to the plight of those less comfortable
>> a short distance from accepting the burning of books or, as the growth
>> in use of the e-book might suggest, using Kindles for kindling.
>>
>> No, you cannot censor News.Individual.Net, so if you want to read what
>> Walter apparently wants to censor (if I read him aright), best use
>> News.Individual.Net rather than the self-appointed Google Groups set-up
>> for your news reader.
>>
>> One of the good things about News.Individual.Net is that it is free of
>> readers of RSR via Google find so off-putting& which drives readers
>> away from the self-policing RSR& onto the moderated nanny-ship of other
>> rowing newsgroups.
>>
>> Cheers -
>> Carl
>>
>
> You sure jump on someone who wants to keep a rowing newsgroup rowing
> oriented.
I certainly did not jump, Walter. I told you only that I'd thought
rowers could cope with, or of course they could openly criticise, a
digression about stuff which affects the daily lives of many millions
who will never get the privilege of joining our sport. And I told you
how surprised I was at you seeking to physically bar that discussion.
Usenet is about free speech, not censorship. We can each deal directly
with what we consider outrageous, either by ignoring it or saying why we
think it inappropriate, & RSR has been a good example of this.
The sex-based & other crap (my opinion) which has cluttered Google's
offering of RSR is what Google accepts. Other news providers filter it
out. Those of us who don't want it shoved in our faces use those
providers, just as those of who don't want to read it in our newpapers
use our brains & read the papers which also ignore such stuff. We
probably don't need the late Mary Whitehouse to tell us what we ought
not to see.
I'm not after a nanny state that tells people what they can
> look at - if someone wants to look at advertising for various stuff
> they can go look at it. Hell, The POMS and Canadians are suffering
> from nanny-statism with respect to a whole bunch of things, and I'm
> not happy about that, either. Try being a licensed firearm owner in
> the UK. Not quite so odious in Canada as in the UK, but still "guns
> are evil" is the law. How about the UK law that puts a guy away for 5
> years because he took a shotgun that had been dumped in his front yard
> into the cops - he didn't have a license and "possessed" the gun, so
> the judge gave him 5 years. For doing the right thing.
This is your chosen digression, but you're free to drag firearms into
RSR if you wish, Walter. And I'm happy to challenge you, but would
never dream of censoring you.
Having been a touch too close to the harm that can only be done to a
defenceless woman & her 2 girls by a gutless moron with a gun, & seen
how his fellow morons did nothing to curb him, & knowing how they then
said what a great guy he was, I can do without guns. In the UK only
farmers _need_ guns. Sadly, a depressed moron of a taxi driver with a
permitted armoury (he passed police checks, but why?) killed 12 &
injured 11, causing untold misery, before terminating his miserable self:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
That miserable, spineless turd could not have done that with a catapult,
could he? He needed nicely packaged kit which slings lumps of hot lead
at supersonic velocity, & the local fuzz let him have it. I'm very
happy that none of my neighbours (AFAIK) has such equipment. But, if
they can satisfy the legal requirements, a licence is still easy to get.
What, too, about the worthless worm who shot Ms Giffords & some others.
Could he have done that without a gun? Did any gun-holder intervene
to stop him with a lump of lead? No & no! A grandmother, thinking on
her feet, took his next magazine out of his hands. Others then woke up
enough to drag him to the floor. So much for the fantasy about holding
guns as defence against attack.
If you don't hold a licence, then to take possession of a gun is
strictly illegal. I know the case to which you refer:
http://tinyurl.com/3wf3gdc
The guy was cruelly hard done-by. I might well have fallen into the
same legal trap. Unfortunately, hard cases make bad law. In that case
the lack of scope for judicial discretion is the fundamental flaw. He
should never have been sentenced thus, but was caught by the rule that
ignorance of the law is no defence. The law should be changed, which is
why it is worth discussing, even on RSR. The cops could have exercised
discretion, I suspect, but something went wrong there. It seems like a
tragedy, & I don't know its outcome. But it has _nothing_ to do with
the insulting tripe which some of those rabid posters at the foot of
that article wrote about the state of this nation, nor with the imagined
source of its laws (the EU has nothing to do with it, but fools hate
facts which spoil their arguments). Those who argue thus only make
themselves ridiculous in the eyes of sane people, but clearly that story
has run & run among the supposedly threatened gun 'culture'.
>
> I've reported as spam all the "buy engineering books" and "hot asian
> babes" stuff on the RSR newsgroup shown on google groups - is this
> censoring? I'm not trying to take the crap off the internet - the
> bozos who are spamming the newsgroups are hitting lots of other places
> and reporting their spam as spam is not f_ing censorship, Carl, it's
> reporting spam - I'm trying to keep blatant advertising for crap off a
> rowing news group.
> I haven't gone to news.individual.net so I don't know what it looks
> like. Not overwhelmed with spare time these days so I'd rather not
> have to look through reams of crap to get to things that interest me.
You appear to miss the point, Walter. You tune a news browser (e.g.
Thunderbird) to download news from that news server. It costs about
$10/year. There is no crap to wade through. Couldn't be easier for a
savvy guy like you, & by lowering your blood pressure it should steady
your aim as well ;)
Cheer up, my friend, & let's enjoy our differences -
Kit
As is this one :)
http://www.bartcop.com/reagan-laugh-trickle.jpg
Walter Martindale
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)
sadly I appear to be not that savvy. it must not be important enough
to me. I think my attention span has declined when it comes to
coding, sorting out news readers, and my unwillingness to pay for
things like newsgroups. Guess it means I tolerate advertising and
effing spam.
The sample madman will always serve the elite as means to justify
clamping down the iron hand of unjust law on those who are neither mad
nor criminal. You can't legislate sanity, and you can't legislate the
willingness to abide by the law. You can, however, write bad law in
reaction to tragedy.
Charles Carroll
I have been reading posts to Google Newsgroups for years.
I cannot tell you the number of times I have been tempted to hit the
"report as spam" button. The only reason I haven't is because I know
some people who have been with Google almost from the start.
The reason I mention this is that I have been told that for quite a
long time now that Google has done next to nothing to manage
Newsgroups. Newsgroups have been a low priority for Google. And as a
result, hardly anyone goes to Google Groups to read Newsgroups. The
only reason I log on to Google Groups is for searches, which are
blindingly fast.
Well, things are changing and Google Groups is now getting attention.
But it is still very much a work in progress. The "report as spam"
button is a good example. In its current iteration it apparently gives
any individual the power the absolute censorship. Who could possibly
argue that giving everyone the ability to control what others read and
see is a rational idea? I just write it off to broken software.
But even so, I understand your not wanting to be inundated with spam.
So I cannot blame you for pressing that button. As I say, I have been
tempted many times to press it myself.
I also firmly believe that you never intended in any way to keep Carl
or me or anyone else on RSR from reading posts. You and I have been
discussing on RSR for years. And I can say that I do not know anyone
who is less in favor of censorship than you.
This whole thing about censorship was just an accident. And that is
how it should be taken.
And by the way, the "report as spam" button doesn't work all that well
anyway. But I am sure this is hardly a surprise. I found the posts
this feature was supposed to have blocked just by going into Options
and changing how I display posts.
Sometimes you just can't win ... :^) And that's when it is time to get
out on the water!
Warmest regards,
Charlesb