| PURE EPI | 12-14-2001 04:17 PM |
The SWRT colors may stay the same!!!
scope this!!
[url]http://www.rally-live.com/2001/en/headlines/news/detail/011214214856.shtml[/url]
looks like Marlboro is staying put!!!:D
[url]http://www.rally-live.com/2001/en/headlines/news/detail/011214214856.shtml[/url]
looks like Marlboro is staying put!!!:D
| Porter | 12-14-2001 04:42 PM |
It never ceases to amaze me that a cigarette company based in Richmond, VA spends millions of dollars every year on a racing series that most Americans are not familiar with.
Kudos to Marlboro for their support of rally, it's nice to see American companies putting $$ to work. There are a thousand other venues that they could be advertising in, but they choose to spend their money on rally competition. That's pretty awesome.
Kudos to Marlboro for their support of rally, it's nice to see American companies putting $$ to work. There are a thousand other venues that they could be advertising in, but they choose to spend their money on rally competition. That's pretty awesome.
| PurePower | 12-14-2001 05:11 PM |
Probably cause the majority of europeans smoke or have at some time.
| Idjiit | 12-14-2001 05:32 PM |
Are you implying that Marlboro's support of rally is some benevolent, un-selfish act? You think Marlboro gives two sh|t's about the success of the sport as a whole?
They care about making money, that's it. Any place they can put their name on something without getting sued, they're there.
No offense, but your comment makes you sound <b>extremely</b> naive.
They care about making money, that's it. Any place they can put their name on something without getting sued, they're there.
No offense, but your comment makes you sound <b>extremely</b> naive.
| PURE EPI | 12-14-2001 08:22 PM |
Well......
If you think about it... Marlboro Belbum is the one that sponsored Freddi Loinx and when he went to Mitsubishi, they sponsored the whole team. The fact that they are staying with the Ralliart firm even after Freddi's depature, surprises me. I'm just glad to see that, for now, Subaru will keep their current Team colors and scheme.
| Jaxx | 12-14-2001 09:56 PM |
well yeah but Scott USA (which is a SWRT sponcer) is based in ketchem (sun valley) Idaho
[quote]It never ceases to amaze me that a cigarette company based in Richmond, VA spends millions of dollars every year on a racing series that most Americans are not familiar with.
[/quote]
[quote]It never ceases to amaze me that a cigarette company based in Richmond, VA spends millions of dollars every year on a racing series that most Americans are not familiar with.
[/quote]
| MrSwede | 12-14-2001 10:45 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Idjiit [/i]
[B]Are you implying that Marlboro's support of rally is some benevolent, un-selfish act? You think Marlboro gives two sh|t's about the success of the sport as a whole?
They care about making money, that's it. Any place they can put their name on something without getting sued, they're there.
No offense, but your comment makes you sound <b>extremely</b> naive. [/B][/QUOTE]
Very true, a lot of people in Europe smoke Marlboro, and they want to sell a lot of cigarettes...nuff said.
[B]Are you implying that Marlboro's support of rally is some benevolent, un-selfish act? You think Marlboro gives two sh|t's about the success of the sport as a whole?
They care about making money, that's it. Any place they can put their name on something without getting sued, they're there.
No offense, but your comment makes you sound <b>extremely</b> naive. [/B][/QUOTE]
Very true, a lot of people in Europe smoke Marlboro, and they want to sell a lot of cigarettes...nuff said.
| Seeing StaRS | 12-15-2001 04:06 AM |
Long live Subaru Blue & Yellow!!!!!
| WRX Fan | 12-15-2001 08:13 AM |
I would think that since the World Rally Blue Pearl is Subaru's signature colour that it would be next to impossible for them to want to change.
It would be like if IBM sponsored Ferrari F1 and asked them to paint the cars blue. Possible yes, likely, no.
It would be like if IBM sponsored Ferrari F1 and asked them to paint the cars blue. Possible yes, likely, no.
| Lightning Jack | 12-15-2001 09:30 PM |
making me sick thnkin' of other colors than Blue
Rally Blues Forever!!!:D
Rally Blues Forever!!!:D
| jlyttle | 12-16-2001 09:22 AM |
I have nothing against Marlboro for wanting to sponsor and advertise. Their motives are no different from any other company that sponsors or advertises: Make money.
| Porter | 12-16-2001 05:02 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Idjiit [/i]
[B]Are you implying that Marlboro's support of rally is some benevolent, un-selfish act? You think Marlboro gives two sh|t's about the success of the sport as a whole?
They care about making money, that's it. Any place they can put their name on something without getting sued, they're there.
No offense, but your comment makes you sound <b>extremely</b> naive. [/B][/QUOTE]
You may consider my comments in any light that you wish. Consider that there are MANY other venues in which Marlboro could advertise. Just as many people smoke Camels or other brands in Europe compared to Marlboro, but I don't see them sinking millions of dollars into promoting World Rally.
Powerboat racing certainly doesn't reach MILLIONS of viewers, but we certainly see Budweiser sinking MILLIONS of dollars into the programs. They support the sport by their involvement.
Marlboro is no different. I certainly don't see huge companies like IBM or General Electric lined up to throw money at Rally! I don't see beer sponsorship in Rally! It's blatantly obvious that SOMEONE in charge at Marlboro has an interest in the sport above and beyond its usefulness as an advertising vehicle.
Certainly they are promoting Rally in order to advertise their product. It's a very good venue in which to advertise considering the large European viewership. However, since the FIA rule change that caused the removal of the word "Marlboro" from the vehicles, Marlboro has continued to invest in the program. If they were ONLY in it for the rolling billboard effect, they would have pulled their sponsorship when that happened.
Call me naive if you wish, but I think I have a valid point. Your own personal prejudices about tobacco may be leading you to a somewhat warped concept of Marlboro's intentions.
NOT EVERY ACTION TAKEN BY A TOBACCO COMPANY IS INHERENTLY EVIL.
-Porter
[B]Are you implying that Marlboro's support of rally is some benevolent, un-selfish act? You think Marlboro gives two sh|t's about the success of the sport as a whole?
They care about making money, that's it. Any place they can put their name on something without getting sued, they're there.
No offense, but your comment makes you sound <b>extremely</b> naive. [/B][/QUOTE]
You may consider my comments in any light that you wish. Consider that there are MANY other venues in which Marlboro could advertise. Just as many people smoke Camels or other brands in Europe compared to Marlboro, but I don't see them sinking millions of dollars into promoting World Rally.
Powerboat racing certainly doesn't reach MILLIONS of viewers, but we certainly see Budweiser sinking MILLIONS of dollars into the programs. They support the sport by their involvement.
Marlboro is no different. I certainly don't see huge companies like IBM or General Electric lined up to throw money at Rally! I don't see beer sponsorship in Rally! It's blatantly obvious that SOMEONE in charge at Marlboro has an interest in the sport above and beyond its usefulness as an advertising vehicle.
Certainly they are promoting Rally in order to advertise their product. It's a very good venue in which to advertise considering the large European viewership. However, since the FIA rule change that caused the removal of the word "Marlboro" from the vehicles, Marlboro has continued to invest in the program. If they were ONLY in it for the rolling billboard effect, they would have pulled their sponsorship when that happened.
Call me naive if you wish, but I think I have a valid point. Your own personal prejudices about tobacco may be leading you to a somewhat warped concept of Marlboro's intentions.
NOT EVERY ACTION TAKEN BY A TOBACCO COMPANY IS INHERENTLY EVIL.
-Porter
| gargleblaster | 12-16-2001 05:32 PM |
One of the factors that caused Penske to move from CART to IRL was a request to do so from Philip Morris. Why? Because they were not pleased with the increasing number of races outside the US that CART was putting on the schedule. PM wanted US exposure for Marlboro from CART, since foreign exposure was already high with the Ferrari F1 and Mitsu WRC sponsorships.
Now, with all of CART's management and other problems, losing Penske to IRL is probably the beginning of the end for the series. Certainly, PM's desires weren't the only factors in Penske's decision. But, if PM was genuinely concerned with the health of CART, as Porter contends, why would they encourage the most successful team in the series to switch? The answer is clear - profits.
Now, with all of CART's management and other problems, losing Penske to IRL is probably the beginning of the end for the series. Certainly, PM's desires weren't the only factors in Penske's decision. But, if PM was genuinely concerned with the health of CART, as Porter contends, why would they encourage the most successful team in the series to switch? The answer is clear - profits.
| SubaFastR | 12-16-2001 05:41 PM |
The Impreza did look pretty cool in red, oh well.
| Porter | 12-16-2001 05:50 PM |
:mad: :mad: :mad:
Look, I'm not saying that Marlboro is sponsoring Mitsubishi as some benevolent community outreach program!
What I am saying is that there are BETTER venues in which to advertise considering their name isn't even allowed on the car anymore. Marlboro's decision to continue supporting ANY motorsports program shows that SOMEONE making decisions at Phillip Morris has a PERSONAL INTEREST in motorsport!
Saying "they're only in it for the money, those grubby bastards" is pretty much a cop-out. Don't forget that Subaru wouldn't have the kind of WRC presence they now have if it wasn't for the millions of dollars pumped into the program by 555. They wouldn't even be blue!
Funny how when Compaq sponsors F1 people say, "Wow, that's cool that Compaq is spending LOTS of money to allow these guys to PLAY WITH CARS FOR A LIVING!", but when a cigarette company sponsors someone, the response is "DAMN THEM! Those evil tobacco companies are only in it for their own evil prurient interests! They can take their money and shove it, we don't want any!!"
But oh, I guess that's me being naive again. Silly me, I must be a ****ing idiot!
Look, I'm not saying that Marlboro is sponsoring Mitsubishi as some benevolent community outreach program!
What I am saying is that there are BETTER venues in which to advertise considering their name isn't even allowed on the car anymore. Marlboro's decision to continue supporting ANY motorsports program shows that SOMEONE making decisions at Phillip Morris has a PERSONAL INTEREST in motorsport!
Saying "they're only in it for the money, those grubby bastards" is pretty much a cop-out. Don't forget that Subaru wouldn't have the kind of WRC presence they now have if it wasn't for the millions of dollars pumped into the program by 555. They wouldn't even be blue!
Funny how when Compaq sponsors F1 people say, "Wow, that's cool that Compaq is spending LOTS of money to allow these guys to PLAY WITH CARS FOR A LIVING!", but when a cigarette company sponsors someone, the response is "DAMN THEM! Those evil tobacco companies are only in it for their own evil prurient interests! They can take their money and shove it, we don't want any!!"
But oh, I guess that's me being naive again. Silly me, I must be a ****ing idiot!
| johnfelstead | 12-16-2001 06:40 PM |
Come on guys, stop being so USA centric. There is a big world outside the USA that has far more interest in WRC than the good ole US of A.
Some countries on the WRC schedule dont allow tobaco advertising, the countries in Europe dont. Plenty do though.
In the countries where it isnt allowed the colour scheme on the cars is so well known with the branding styles that everyone makes a connection to the cigarette brand anyway.
Untill cigarettes are banned then it's a complete joke to criticise the companies for advertising. They are doing nothing illegal. The biggest growth market for these companies is not the USA or Europe anyway, it's the far east, africa and other 3rd world nations.
Some countries on the WRC schedule dont allow tobaco advertising, the countries in Europe dont. Plenty do though.
In the countries where it isnt allowed the colour scheme on the cars is so well known with the branding styles that everyone makes a connection to the cigarette brand anyway.
Untill cigarettes are banned then it's a complete joke to criticise the companies for advertising. They are doing nothing illegal. The biggest growth market for these companies is not the USA or Europe anyway, it's the far east, africa and other 3rd world nations.
| jlyttle | 12-16-2001 09:36 PM |
You can say anything youwant about the motives of Marlboro. If you are going to say bad things about them for doing it though, don't forget to include every other company that sponsors anything. See all those Tag Hauer commercials during F1 event? Damn watch companies. :rolleyes:
| AngelT | 12-16-2001 10:05 PM |
Porter
Porter said [i](excerpts in italics)[/i]
[i] ... there are MANY other venues in which Marlboro could advertise.[/i]
It certainly varies by country/region, but in many countries , thanks to legal and health sanctions, the number of venues in which they can still advertise is decreasing. Thus tobacco companies feel pressure to keep advertising in whatever venues/areas that remain.
[i] Just as many people smoke Camels or other brands in Europe compared to Marlboro, but I don't see them sinking millions of dollars into promoting World Rally.[/i]
None of their budgets is unlimited. Marlboro brand has a bigger sales base and a bigger ad budget, so can appear in more venues.
[i].... but we certainly see Budweiser sinking MILLIONS of dollars into the programs. They support the sport by their involvement.[/i]
Not sure what you are trying to say. Anheuser-Busch's Bud strategy is to be ubiquitous -- to adevertise/sponsor in many different series. Their sales figures (for a damned unremarkble beer) suggest that this strategy works, but I would not be amazed if fully 50% of the price of each beer is consumed by advertising. It is all advertising.
[i]Marlboro is no different. I certainly don't see huge companies like IBM or General Electric lined up to throw money at Rally! [/i]
The target demographic of single males age 14-26 who are forming their consumer tastes do not buy mainframe computers or jet aircraft engines.
[i]I don't see beer sponsorship in Rally! [/i]
Perhaps they are busy spending their budgets on football teams or huge round-the-world racing sailboats. Companies have a limited budget and have to pick the advertising vehicles that seem to provide the most bang for the buck (for their target).
[i]It's blatantly obvious that SOMEONE in charge at Marlboro has an interest in the sport above and beyond its usefulness as an advertising vehicle.[/i]
It would help if you provided some information to back this up other than your own wishful thinking. Still, I'm not sure if it would matter if there are a bunch of motorsports nuts at Bud, marlboro or Compag if they couldn't demonstrate through marketing studies how their involvemnet would build brand identity and loyal -- deliver customers. It's advertising.
[i]Certainly they are promoting Rally in order to advertise their product. It's a very good venue in which to advertise considering the large European viewership.[/i]
- You got it.
[i] However, since the FIA rule change that caused the removal of the word "Marlboro" from the vehicles, Marlboro has continued to invest in the program. If they were ONLY in it for the rolling billboard effect, they would have pulled their sponsorship when that happened.[/i]
Not so. Anybody can still look at that Mitsu and say "Duh! marlboro", so PM is still achieving some of the advertising effect they want. Aside from that, they are trying to keep up the pressure to retain advertising abilities at the edges of the EU. They don't want that "anti-tobacco" disease to spread. Witness that they still have the ability to put whole F1 events in jeopardy by threatening to pull sponsorship.
[i]Call me naive if you wish, but I think I have a valid point. Your own personal prejudices about tobacco may be leading you to a somewhat warped concept of Marlboro's intentions.[/i]
"Your own personal prejudices about tobacco" LOL! Are you bucking for a career in comedy -- or in propaganda?
Would you care to list any "personal prejudices about tobacco" that any people here might be harboring? What is it we think about tobacco and tobacco companies that is unfounded, unfair or unjustified?
[i]NOT EVERY ACTION TAKEN BY A TOBACCO COMPANY IS INHERENTLY EVIL.[/i]
Hey, I have it from reliable sources that Usama Bin Laden drinks a glass of water and takes a whiz every day. Those acts aren't inherently evil, are they?
[i]-Porter[/i]
After reading your post/s, I have formed the following impressions:
1) You are from tobacco country
2) Putting a lot of effort into convincing someone (yourself?) that tobacco isn't as heinous as it really is.
Angel
[i] ... there are MANY other venues in which Marlboro could advertise.[/i]
It certainly varies by country/region, but in many countries , thanks to legal and health sanctions, the number of venues in which they can still advertise is decreasing. Thus tobacco companies feel pressure to keep advertising in whatever venues/areas that remain.
[i] Just as many people smoke Camels or other brands in Europe compared to Marlboro, but I don't see them sinking millions of dollars into promoting World Rally.[/i]
None of their budgets is unlimited. Marlboro brand has a bigger sales base and a bigger ad budget, so can appear in more venues.
[i].... but we certainly see Budweiser sinking MILLIONS of dollars into the programs. They support the sport by their involvement.[/i]
Not sure what you are trying to say. Anheuser-Busch's Bud strategy is to be ubiquitous -- to adevertise/sponsor in many different series. Their sales figures (for a damned unremarkble beer) suggest that this strategy works, but I would not be amazed if fully 50% of the price of each beer is consumed by advertising. It is all advertising.
[i]Marlboro is no different. I certainly don't see huge companies like IBM or General Electric lined up to throw money at Rally! [/i]
The target demographic of single males age 14-26 who are forming their consumer tastes do not buy mainframe computers or jet aircraft engines.
[i]I don't see beer sponsorship in Rally! [/i]
Perhaps they are busy spending their budgets on football teams or huge round-the-world racing sailboats. Companies have a limited budget and have to pick the advertising vehicles that seem to provide the most bang for the buck (for their target).
[i]It's blatantly obvious that SOMEONE in charge at Marlboro has an interest in the sport above and beyond its usefulness as an advertising vehicle.[/i]
It would help if you provided some information to back this up other than your own wishful thinking. Still, I'm not sure if it would matter if there are a bunch of motorsports nuts at Bud, marlboro or Compag if they couldn't demonstrate through marketing studies how their involvemnet would build brand identity and loyal -- deliver customers. It's advertising.
[i]Certainly they are promoting Rally in order to advertise their product. It's a very good venue in which to advertise considering the large European viewership.[/i]
- You got it.
[i] However, since the FIA rule change that caused the removal of the word "Marlboro" from the vehicles, Marlboro has continued to invest in the program. If they were ONLY in it for the rolling billboard effect, they would have pulled their sponsorship when that happened.[/i]
Not so. Anybody can still look at that Mitsu and say "Duh! marlboro", so PM is still achieving some of the advertising effect they want. Aside from that, they are trying to keep up the pressure to retain advertising abilities at the edges of the EU. They don't want that "anti-tobacco" disease to spread. Witness that they still have the ability to put whole F1 events in jeopardy by threatening to pull sponsorship.
[i]Call me naive if you wish, but I think I have a valid point. Your own personal prejudices about tobacco may be leading you to a somewhat warped concept of Marlboro's intentions.[/i]
"Your own personal prejudices about tobacco" LOL! Are you bucking for a career in comedy -- or in propaganda?
Would you care to list any "personal prejudices about tobacco" that any people here might be harboring? What is it we think about tobacco and tobacco companies that is unfounded, unfair or unjustified?
[i]NOT EVERY ACTION TAKEN BY A TOBACCO COMPANY IS INHERENTLY EVIL.[/i]
Hey, I have it from reliable sources that Usama Bin Laden drinks a glass of water and takes a whiz every day. Those acts aren't inherently evil, are they?
[i]-Porter[/i]
After reading your post/s, I have formed the following impressions:
1) You are from tobacco country
2) Putting a lot of effort into convincing someone (yourself?) that tobacco isn't as heinous as it really is.
Angel
| AngelT | 12-16-2001 10:28 PM |
jlyttle:
jlyttle said:
[QUOTE]I have nothing against Marlboro for wanting to sponsor and advertise. Their motives are no different from any other company that sponsors or advertises: Make money.[/QUOTE]
I think your rationale is logically weak. Let's try this:
"I have nothing against La Cosa Nostra for wanting to bribe judges and for whacking that jerk Tony. Their motives are no different from any other outfit that is trying to move some product: Make money."
Angel
[QUOTE]I have nothing against Marlboro for wanting to sponsor and advertise. Their motives are no different from any other company that sponsors or advertises: Make money.[/QUOTE]
I think your rationale is logically weak. Let's try this:
"I have nothing against La Cosa Nostra for wanting to bribe judges and for whacking that jerk Tony. Their motives are no different from any other outfit that is trying to move some product: Make money."
Angel
| jlyttle | 12-16-2001 10:49 PM |
Are you actually trying to say that Marlboro, as a free and legal company, has no right to do what any other company in any other market can do? Advertise? Make a profit? Can you be taken seriously if this is true? Are you against free and open markets? Do you want to selectively restrict company actions based on your own views on what are good products? Are you American?
Let's just come out in the open and admit that you are a smoke Nazi, and that your views on tobacco and personal hate for tobacco companies prevent you from using reason and logic and applying them to this discussion?
I think that tobacco is bad. I smoked cigarettes for 9 years and quit 15 months ago. I never held Marlboro responsible for my choice to smoke. I knew it was unhealthy and I did it anyway. I quit to be more healthy. People that choose to smoke have every right to. Tobacco use is still legal. Advertising is too. Some people think that tobacco companies are out to get us all. That is fine. But if you want to start a society where the people that want to protect us from ourselves, take away personal choice and rights to fit their own view of what the world should be, god help us. Do you also want every car speed-limited to 55? Or should people be able to make their own decisions? We are adults and we can make our own choices.
Let's just come out in the open and admit that you are a smoke Nazi, and that your views on tobacco and personal hate for tobacco companies prevent you from using reason and logic and applying them to this discussion?
I think that tobacco is bad. I smoked cigarettes for 9 years and quit 15 months ago. I never held Marlboro responsible for my choice to smoke. I knew it was unhealthy and I did it anyway. I quit to be more healthy. People that choose to smoke have every right to. Tobacco use is still legal. Advertising is too. Some people think that tobacco companies are out to get us all. That is fine. But if you want to start a society where the people that want to protect us from ourselves, take away personal choice and rights to fit their own view of what the world should be, god help us. Do you also want every car speed-limited to 55? Or should people be able to make their own decisions? We are adults and we can make our own choices.
| AngelT | 12-16-2001 10:56 PM |
More ciggies...
(I am not trying to set some serial post record, but -- dang -- yer putting a lot of stuf out there that requires a response!)
Porter (in italics here) said:
[i]Look, I'm not saying that Marlboro is sponsoring Mitsubishi as some benevolent community outreach program![/i]
Thanks for that!
[i]What I am saying is that there are BETTER venues in which to advertise considering their name isn't even allowed on the car anymore. Marlboro's decision to continue supporting ANY motorsports program shows that SOMEONE making decisions at Phillip Morris has a PERSONAL INTEREST in motorsport![/i]
Again it would help if you produced one shred of real information to back this up, but even then, I don't think it matters much.
[i] Don't forget that Subaru wouldn't have the kind of WRC presence they now have if it wasn't for the millions of dollars pumped into the program by 555. [/i]
I don't have any particular interest in knocking Volkswagen (or BMW) at this point in history or in drawing some moral equivalence, but - just for the purposes of pointing out the weakness of your ratuionale -- this statement makes me want to translate it to:
"Don't forget that VW wouldn't have the kind of market presence they now have if it wasn't for the millions of dollars pumped into the program by Adolf Hitler."
[i]Funny how when Compaq sponsors F1 people say, "Wow, that's cool that Compaq is spending LOTS of money to allow these guys to PLAY WITH CARS FOR A LIVING!", but when a cigarette company sponsors someone, the response is "DAMN THEM! Those evil tobacco companies are only in it for their own evil prurient interests! They can take their money and shove it, we don't want any!!"[/i]
Well, Compaq computers have been know to have a useful place in society, haven't proven addictive, they don't kill 10 times as many people as car accidents, and Compaq executives haven't been known to try to cover up the negative health effects of their computers. I've never seen anybody cough up blood for a few years then die due to a Compaq computer.
[i]But oh, I guess that's me being naive again. Silly me, I must be a ****ing idiot![/i]
....
Angel
Porter (in italics here) said:
[i]Look, I'm not saying that Marlboro is sponsoring Mitsubishi as some benevolent community outreach program![/i]
Thanks for that!
[i]What I am saying is that there are BETTER venues in which to advertise considering their name isn't even allowed on the car anymore. Marlboro's decision to continue supporting ANY motorsports program shows that SOMEONE making decisions at Phillip Morris has a PERSONAL INTEREST in motorsport![/i]
Again it would help if you produced one shred of real information to back this up, but even then, I don't think it matters much.
[i] Don't forget that Subaru wouldn't have the kind of WRC presence they now have if it wasn't for the millions of dollars pumped into the program by 555. [/i]
I don't have any particular interest in knocking Volkswagen (or BMW) at this point in history or in drawing some moral equivalence, but - just for the purposes of pointing out the weakness of your ratuionale -- this statement makes me want to translate it to:
"Don't forget that VW wouldn't have the kind of market presence they now have if it wasn't for the millions of dollars pumped into the program by Adolf Hitler."
[i]Funny how when Compaq sponsors F1 people say, "Wow, that's cool that Compaq is spending LOTS of money to allow these guys to PLAY WITH CARS FOR A LIVING!", but when a cigarette company sponsors someone, the response is "DAMN THEM! Those evil tobacco companies are only in it for their own evil prurient interests! They can take their money and shove it, we don't want any!!"[/i]
Well, Compaq computers have been know to have a useful place in society, haven't proven addictive, they don't kill 10 times as many people as car accidents, and Compaq executives haven't been known to try to cover up the negative health effects of their computers. I've never seen anybody cough up blood for a few years then die due to a Compaq computer.
[i]But oh, I guess that's me being naive again. Silly me, I must be a ****ing idiot![/i]
....
Angel
| Porter | 12-16-2001 11:06 PM |
Re: Porter
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AngelT [/i]
[B]After reading your post/s, I have formed the following impressions:
1) You are from tobacco country
2) Putting a lot of effort into convincing someone (yourself?) that tobacco isn't as heinous as it really is.
[/B][/QUOTE]
My, aren't you a total smartass.
A) No I don't live in tobacco country, nor would I give a flying **** one way or another if I did.
B) I don't smoke.
C) I have lost several members of my family to smoking-related cancer. I'm the last person you could possibly meet who would be pro-tobacco.
D) I never said tobacco wasn't a harmful product. You can think whatever you want to think about it, but people have a right to smoke cigarettes if they want to. I seriously doubt anyone who's not already smoking would go out to the store and buy a pack of cigarettes just because they saw red and white coloring on a damn CAR on TV! Who's naive now? You really think some schmuck sitting at home is watching WRC on Speedvision is suddenly going to get the urge to start a smoking habit because Tommi's wearing a red suit?
Look here, this is me, LAUGHING IN YOUR FACE.
I don't like your attitude, and I don't like your snide ******* comments. And despite your insinuation that I should get a job in comedy, I'M NOT LAUGHING. I'd follow up with you on IM or ICQ instead of the board, but I notice you've conveniently omitted any contact information from your profile.
DAMN! What started as a simple post with no ulterior motive whatsoever has turned into a colossal waste of my time. You guys feel free to sit in here and twist my words around to whatever intentions you feel like I should have. You're doing a great job of it already.
-PORTER :mad: :mad: :mad:
[B]After reading your post/s, I have formed the following impressions:
1) You are from tobacco country
2) Putting a lot of effort into convincing someone (yourself?) that tobacco isn't as heinous as it really is.
[/B][/QUOTE]
My, aren't you a total smartass.
A) No I don't live in tobacco country, nor would I give a flying **** one way or another if I did.
B) I don't smoke.
C) I have lost several members of my family to smoking-related cancer. I'm the last person you could possibly meet who would be pro-tobacco.
D) I never said tobacco wasn't a harmful product. You can think whatever you want to think about it, but people have a right to smoke cigarettes if they want to. I seriously doubt anyone who's not already smoking would go out to the store and buy a pack of cigarettes just because they saw red and white coloring on a damn CAR on TV! Who's naive now? You really think some schmuck sitting at home is watching WRC on Speedvision is suddenly going to get the urge to start a smoking habit because Tommi's wearing a red suit?
Look here, this is me, LAUGHING IN YOUR FACE.
I don't like your attitude, and I don't like your snide ******* comments. And despite your insinuation that I should get a job in comedy, I'M NOT LAUGHING. I'd follow up with you on IM or ICQ instead of the board, but I notice you've conveniently omitted any contact information from your profile.
DAMN! What started as a simple post with no ulterior motive whatsoever has turned into a colossal waste of my time. You guys feel free to sit in here and twist my words around to whatever intentions you feel like I should have. You're doing a great job of it already.
-PORTER :mad: :mad: :mad:
| jlyttle | 12-16-2001 11:11 PM |
I agree it is too bad this had to happen, but these people pop up everywhere. This thread should probably be closed, as it is now serving no other purpose than to be a smoking debate. Not needed here. Anyway, we now know where AngelT stands, and we don't need to know any more than that. AngelT, move to Cuba or China, they are still non-free societies. ;)
| AngelT | 12-16-2001 11:31 PM |
Hah!
jlyttle:
[QUOTE]Are you actually trying to say that Marlboro, as a free and legal company, has no right to do what any other company in any other market can do? Advertise? Make a profit? Can you be taken seriously if this is true? Are you against free and open markets? Do you want to selectively restrict company actions based on your own views on what are good products? Are you American?[/QUOTE]
This response is laughable. You have been reading Atlas Shrugged or maybe listening to too much Rush, but your attempt at bombastic "Are you American?" is not even up to his sorry-ass standards.
On this planet called Earth there are many countries. One of them is called the United States of America -- The U.S.A. None of the governments or political systems of these many countries is perfect -- some of them are more good, some of them less good -- many of them have checkered pasts. In each of these countries -- even in the "good" ones -- you can find a certain variety of opinion among citizens, but even then those varied citizens are accorded the appelation of their country -- Indonesian, Brazilian, Belgian, American and so forth.
Some of these countries have constitutions guaranteeing some degree of free expression. Even then -- guarantees of free expression notwithstanding -- the most free countries don't generally allow citizens to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theaters for fear that the lives of other citizens could be placed in jeopardy.
Between the 1960s and 1980s, as the frightening consequences of tobacco use were finally revealed in a scientific manner, many countries' health authorities (including [b]American[/b] Surgeons General) abridged the putative rights of free speech of tobacco companies and mandated that they place warning in their advertisements in order to protect the lives of citizens. In the following years, not a few national, regional and local governments (including [b] American[/b] governments -- that Communistic King County, Washington comes to mind) passed laws abridging the rights of tobacco companies to express their glowing opinions of their deadly products in baseball stadiums and elsewhere --- in order to protect the lives of their citizens, often impressionable teenage children who didn't have the ability yet to figure out what tobacco might mean to their lives.
You might be surprised to hear that I am not a prohibitionist. Whether it comes to alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or heroin, if somebody really wants them, they are going to get them (Hell, I might even have to track down a couple of hashish bon-bons before I go see the Fellowship of the Rings!). Efforts to prohibit any of these in any society have proved to be very sadly counterproductive. That being said, does this mean that my local government can't pass a law restricting you from advertising tobacco or shooting up at the table next to me in a restaurant?
In the end, jlyttle, blowing this "Are you American?" horn is a crock. You did nothing to respond to my challenge to your weak, corrupt argument.
Angel
[QUOTE]Are you actually trying to say that Marlboro, as a free and legal company, has no right to do what any other company in any other market can do? Advertise? Make a profit? Can you be taken seriously if this is true? Are you against free and open markets? Do you want to selectively restrict company actions based on your own views on what are good products? Are you American?[/QUOTE]
This response is laughable. You have been reading Atlas Shrugged or maybe listening to too much Rush, but your attempt at bombastic "Are you American?" is not even up to his sorry-ass standards.
On this planet called Earth there are many countries. One of them is called the United States of America -- The U.S.A. None of the governments or political systems of these many countries is perfect -- some of them are more good, some of them less good -- many of them have checkered pasts. In each of these countries -- even in the "good" ones -- you can find a certain variety of opinion among citizens, but even then those varied citizens are accorded the appelation of their country -- Indonesian, Brazilian, Belgian, American and so forth.
Some of these countries have constitutions guaranteeing some degree of free expression. Even then -- guarantees of free expression notwithstanding -- the most free countries don't generally allow citizens to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theaters for fear that the lives of other citizens could be placed in jeopardy.
Between the 1960s and 1980s, as the frightening consequences of tobacco use were finally revealed in a scientific manner, many countries' health authorities (including [b]American[/b] Surgeons General) abridged the putative rights of free speech of tobacco companies and mandated that they place warning in their advertisements in order to protect the lives of citizens. In the following years, not a few national, regional and local governments (including [b] American[/b] governments -- that Communistic King County, Washington comes to mind) passed laws abridging the rights of tobacco companies to express their glowing opinions of their deadly products in baseball stadiums and elsewhere --- in order to protect the lives of their citizens, often impressionable teenage children who didn't have the ability yet to figure out what tobacco might mean to their lives.
You might be surprised to hear that I am not a prohibitionist. Whether it comes to alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or heroin, if somebody really wants them, they are going to get them (Hell, I might even have to track down a couple of hashish bon-bons before I go see the Fellowship of the Rings!). Efforts to prohibit any of these in any society have proved to be very sadly counterproductive. That being said, does this mean that my local government can't pass a law restricting you from advertising tobacco or shooting up at the table next to me in a restaurant?
In the end, jlyttle, blowing this "Are you American?" horn is a crock. You did nothing to respond to my challenge to your weak, corrupt argument.
Angel
| AngelT | 12-16-2001 11:46 PM |
Free expression...
jlyttle:
[QUOTE]I agree it is too bad this had to happen, but these people pop up everywhere. This thread should probably be closed, as it is now serving no other purpose than to be a smoking debate. Not needed here. Anyway, we now know where AngelT stands, and we don't need to know any more than that. AngelT, move to Cuba or China, they are still non-free societies.[/QUOTE]
Ah, the wonderful [b] American [/b] free expression from jlyttle: Close the thread.
Funny, this discussion doesn't really seem OT WRT the original issue -- will SWRT fly tobacco company colors -- it just magically turned OT when Porter and jlyttle throw a few lame -- tobacco companies have rights! -- arguments onto the fire and expect the world to just eat them and burp quietly.
Jlyttle, there seems to be a much more [b]American[/b] way to deal with threads that you think have gone astray: Ignore them.
Are you American?
Porter, if South carolina isn't tobacco country, I stand humbly corrected. Those were the impressions I formed. I really can't figure out otherwise how you arrived at your opinion of the marlboro folks.
Angel
(No, I don't ICQ. Tough. I'm a crummy typist and people hate it. get over it)
[QUOTE]I agree it is too bad this had to happen, but these people pop up everywhere. This thread should probably be closed, as it is now serving no other purpose than to be a smoking debate. Not needed here. Anyway, we now know where AngelT stands, and we don't need to know any more than that. AngelT, move to Cuba or China, they are still non-free societies.[/QUOTE]
Ah, the wonderful [b] American [/b] free expression from jlyttle: Close the thread.
Funny, this discussion doesn't really seem OT WRT the original issue -- will SWRT fly tobacco company colors -- it just magically turned OT when Porter and jlyttle throw a few lame -- tobacco companies have rights! -- arguments onto the fire and expect the world to just eat them and burp quietly.
Jlyttle, there seems to be a much more [b]American[/b] way to deal with threads that you think have gone astray: Ignore them.
Are you American?
Porter, if South carolina isn't tobacco country, I stand humbly corrected. Those were the impressions I formed. I really can't figure out otherwise how you arrived at your opinion of the marlboro folks.
Angel
(No, I don't ICQ. Tough. I'm a crummy typist and people hate it. get over it)
| jlyttle | 12-16-2001 11:58 PM |
Actually I did. You simply did not understand that I asked some pointed questions that would hopefully make you think again about your attitudes and what you were actually suggesting, rather than respond directly to an inane statement. Simply saying that my points are weak does not make it so. I have tried to use reason to back up my points....obviously a mistake.
I have never heard of Atlas Shrugged. I HAVE heard of Rush, although I have a job and don't listen to him. The fact that his opinion may align with my own on this topic has nothing to do with the validity of my point. If, however, it does, then he must be a man that appreciates personal freedom. Good for him.
Come on, you are just an extreminst, stop trying to be serious with us. The fact that you propose selectively banning legal companies from advertising is a joke. You can only try to counter me with claims that my arguments are weak. You may say it, but that does not change reality. You can have your own opinions, I have no problem with that, but the simple fact remains that what you you suggest IS un-American, there is no getting by that. Believe me, we are all shaking our heads. You want to take away personal freedoms, period.
I have never heard of Atlas Shrugged. I HAVE heard of Rush, although I have a job and don't listen to him. The fact that his opinion may align with my own on this topic has nothing to do with the validity of my point. If, however, it does, then he must be a man that appreciates personal freedom. Good for him.
Come on, you are just an extreminst, stop trying to be serious with us. The fact that you propose selectively banning legal companies from advertising is a joke. You can only try to counter me with claims that my arguments are weak. You may say it, but that does not change reality. You can have your own opinions, I have no problem with that, but the simple fact remains that what you you suggest IS un-American, there is no getting by that. Believe me, we are all shaking our heads. You want to take away personal freedoms, period.
| jlyttle | 12-17-2001 12:01 AM |
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Thread should be closed because it is inflammatory. Voilates I-club rules. Does not servre the original intent of the thread. Whatever. Dude, you are reaching. Every time you post, I can hear one more person laughing.
Thread should be closed because it is inflammatory. Voilates I-club rules. Does not servre the original intent of the thread. Whatever. Dude, you are reaching. Every time you post, I can hear one more person laughing.
| Porter | 12-17-2001 12:13 AM |
Re: Free expression...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AngelT [/i]
[B]Porter, if South carolina isn't tobacco country, I stand humbly corrected. Those were the impressions I formed. I really can't figure out otherwise how you arrived at your opinion of the marlboro folks.
Angel[/B][/QUOTE]
I live in the northwest corner of South Carolina. Tobacco is a lowlands plant.
I'm really pleased to see how prejudiced you are about people from the South though. Gee, we must all pack a big wad of dip all the time because tobacco happens to be grown in the region. I bet it surprises you that I don't own slaves!
You're still being an *******, and by the way I hate Ayn Rand. She, like you, likes playing on the mental pornography of extremism. Your brand just happens to be politically correct at the moment. How's that working out for you? The being righteous part I mean? I hope it gives you a lot of personal satisfaction.
-Porter
[B]Porter, if South carolina isn't tobacco country, I stand humbly corrected. Those were the impressions I formed. I really can't figure out otherwise how you arrived at your opinion of the marlboro folks.
Angel[/B][/QUOTE]
I live in the northwest corner of South Carolina. Tobacco is a lowlands plant.
I'm really pleased to see how prejudiced you are about people from the South though. Gee, we must all pack a big wad of dip all the time because tobacco happens to be grown in the region. I bet it surprises you that I don't own slaves!
You're still being an *******, and by the way I hate Ayn Rand. She, like you, likes playing on the mental pornography of extremism. Your brand just happens to be politically correct at the moment. How's that working out for you? The being righteous part I mean? I hope it gives you a lot of personal satisfaction.
-Porter
| AngelT | 12-17-2001 12:17 AM |
Close?
jlyttle:
[QUOTE] Come on, you are just an extreminst, stop trying to be serious with us. The fact that you propose selectively banning legal companies from advertising is a joke. You can only try to counter me with claims that my arguments are weak.[/QUOTE]
If I am an extremist, then I guess everybody else is somplace else way, way over there where maybe I don't want to be!
Your arguments and statements [b]are [/b]weak. My sense is that you haven't read my posts thoroughly or responded to specifics. What [b] do [/b] you think of that communistic, un-American Surgeon General that forced cigarette companies to print the words [b] he [/b] wanted on cigarette packs or of the communistic, un-American coiunty government that banned tobacco advertising in their stadium? Are they extremists?
Man, it's a big world. I hear that health authorities (those extremists!) in Mr. Felstead's UK print warning labels on cigarettes and that the FIA (under pressure from the EU -- those extremists !) are even banning tobacco advertising in WRC and F1!!!! You need to take the boat off of Squantum once in a while!
Dang, if this thread should be closed, why are you posting to it????
Angel
[QUOTE] Come on, you are just an extreminst, stop trying to be serious with us. The fact that you propose selectively banning legal companies from advertising is a joke. You can only try to counter me with claims that my arguments are weak.[/QUOTE]
If I am an extremist, then I guess everybody else is somplace else way, way over there where maybe I don't want to be!
Your arguments and statements [b]are [/b]weak. My sense is that you haven't read my posts thoroughly or responded to specifics. What [b] do [/b] you think of that communistic, un-American Surgeon General that forced cigarette companies to print the words [b] he [/b] wanted on cigarette packs or of the communistic, un-American coiunty government that banned tobacco advertising in their stadium? Are they extremists?
Man, it's a big world. I hear that health authorities (those extremists!) in Mr. Felstead's UK print warning labels on cigarettes and that the FIA (under pressure from the EU -- those extremists !) are even banning tobacco advertising in WRC and F1!!!! You need to take the boat off of Squantum once in a while!
Dang, if this thread should be closed, why are you posting to it????
Angel
| Porter | 12-17-2001 12:34 AM |
What the hell are you blathering on about?
Do you realize how much of an idiot you look?
Nobody here is talking about the health risks of cigarettes. We WERE talking about the fact that Marlboro has chosen to continue supporting WRC programs.
That all stopped when you hijacked the thread with your meaningless political agenda.
Since you DO seem to be able to put words together in legible sentences, I'll refrain from branding you a TROLL. You're walking the line though.
-Porter
I'm half inclined to go buy a pack of cigarettes right now just to piss Angel off. I can imagine him now, sitting at home wringing his hands worrying about keeping the world safe from itself.
Do you realize how much of an idiot you look?
Nobody here is talking about the health risks of cigarettes. We WERE talking about the fact that Marlboro has chosen to continue supporting WRC programs.
That all stopped when you hijacked the thread with your meaningless political agenda.
Since you DO seem to be able to put words together in legible sentences, I'll refrain from branding you a TROLL. You're walking the line though.
-Porter
I'm half inclined to go buy a pack of cigarettes right now just to piss Angel off. I can imagine him now, sitting at home wringing his hands worrying about keeping the world safe from itself.
| AngelT | 12-17-2001 01:07 AM |
Not Locked yet!
Porter: (again in italics...)
[i] Nobody here is talking about the health risks of cigarettes. We WERE talking about the fact that Marlboro has chosen to continue supporting WRC programs.[/i]
Yeah, and silly me, I chimed in that I thought that having a pretty heinous tobacco company continue sponsorship of a sport that I really enjoy is a very bad thing -- that it tarnishes it and bends it to unsavory purposes.
[i]That all stopped when you hijacked the thread with your meaningless political agenda.[/i]
Like I've said, if you think you're being hijacked, don't respond.
[i]Since you DO seem to be able to put words together in legible sentences, I'll refrain from branding you a TROLL. You're walking the line though.[/i]
Oh, like I'll not sleep tonight if you decide I'm a troll or if this thread is locked.
In the meantime, for all the folks who are wandering around this forum spouting crap like "well, yeah, tobacco companies may be really evil and a few of my relatives may have died of lung cancer, but isn't it cool how many $$$ Marlboro has available to unselfishly contribute to WRC", well... I am here for you.
Surprised as you might be, I am not trying to insult anyone on the basis of where they are from. I *do* try to imagine how the heck some folks can think what they do and I don't pull punches when I think arguments are weak (again, how did you get the idea that Marlboro sponsor motorsports just for the fun of it???). Some of that comes down to regional attitudes and economics. OK, OK, South Carolina is only the #4 tobacco producer in the U.S.A. in 2000 by weight and the #3 producer in pounds per capita. I thought that might have something to to with your world view. So I'm wrong.
[i]-Porter[/i]
Angel
[i] Nobody here is talking about the health risks of cigarettes. We WERE talking about the fact that Marlboro has chosen to continue supporting WRC programs.[/i]
Yeah, and silly me, I chimed in that I thought that having a pretty heinous tobacco company continue sponsorship of a sport that I really enjoy is a very bad thing -- that it tarnishes it and bends it to unsavory purposes.
[i]That all stopped when you hijacked the thread with your meaningless political agenda.[/i]
Like I've said, if you think you're being hijacked, don't respond.
[i]Since you DO seem to be able to put words together in legible sentences, I'll refrain from branding you a TROLL. You're walking the line though.[/i]
Oh, like I'll not sleep tonight if you decide I'm a troll or if this thread is locked.
In the meantime, for all the folks who are wandering around this forum spouting crap like "well, yeah, tobacco companies may be really evil and a few of my relatives may have died of lung cancer, but isn't it cool how many $$$ Marlboro has available to unselfishly contribute to WRC", well... I am here for you.
Surprised as you might be, I am not trying to insult anyone on the basis of where they are from. I *do* try to imagine how the heck some folks can think what they do and I don't pull punches when I think arguments are weak (again, how did you get the idea that Marlboro sponsor motorsports just for the fun of it???). Some of that comes down to regional attitudes and economics. OK, OK, South Carolina is only the #4 tobacco producer in the U.S.A. in 2000 by weight and the #3 producer in pounds per capita. I thought that might have something to to with your world view. So I'm wrong.
[i]-Porter[/i]
Angel
| johnfelstead | 12-17-2001 06:52 AM |
The SWRT colours may stay the same!!!
well this is fun. :eek: :lol:
P.S The SWRT colours may stay the same!!! < Note the spelling, as the cars are painted in the UK i think it's more apropriate to use the queens english in this topic. :lol:
Sorry to take the piss but this thread is just sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wound up it requires it.
cya later
john
P.S The SWRT colours may stay the same!!! < Note the spelling, as the cars are painted in the UK i think it's more apropriate to use the queens english in this topic. :lol:
Sorry to take the piss but this thread is just sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wound up it requires it.
cya later
john
| Subie Gal | 12-17-2001 09:48 AM |
wow...
a flame war in the motorsports forum???
nope... not today gentlemen....
this forum is much more civil than this.
take it to email and keep your insignifigant trash talking to yourselves....
who friggin cares where marlboro advertises? :rolleyes:
u guys seemed to have forgotten what the topic was all about!
and it seems you 2 have a personal issue u need to go iron out...
please do so and dont post this opinionatied flame-war garbage in this forum again... please...!!!!
thank you.
jamie
[url]www.subiegal.com[/url]
a flame war in the motorsports forum???
nope... not today gentlemen....
this forum is much more civil than this.
take it to email and keep your insignifigant trash talking to yourselves....
who friggin cares where marlboro advertises? :rolleyes:
u guys seemed to have forgotten what the topic was all about!
and it seems you 2 have a personal issue u need to go iron out...
please do so and dont post this opinionatied flame-war garbage in this forum again... please...!!!!
thank you.
jamie
[url]www.subiegal.com[/url]
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét