Kellogg boycott?
 

What a bunch of pussies...Kellogg has chosen not to renew Phelps' contract
because of the bong picture. While I don't smoke dope, it's pretty silly to
think that doing so is some rare thing among early-20s kids, and for Kellogg to
get all hypocritical and say "it's not the image Kellogg wishes to portray" is,
well, offensive. So don't put that picture on the box of Wheaties. The kid is
one serious athlete and Olympic record-setter, and if Wheaties doesn't want to
portray _that_ aspect of this kid, maybe the assholes can put Daschle and Cheney
shooting at each other in a un-taxed limo on the ****ing box...

Obviously, Wheaties is now the "breakfast of hypocritical sniveling
Martini-lunching executive pusses"...and equally obviously, even a steady diet
of crapflakes can't grow any hair...

Screw 'em,
R

Kellogg boycott?
 

wrote in message
...
What a bunch of pussies...Kellogg has chosen not to renew Phelps' contract
because of the bong picture. While I don't smoke dope, it's pretty silly
to
think that doing so is some rare thing among early-20s kids, and for
Kellogg to
get all hypocritical and say "it's not the image Kellogg wishes to
portray" is,
well, offensive. So don't put that picture on the box of Wheaties. The
kid is
one serious athlete and Olympic record-setter, and if Wheaties doesn't
want to
portray _that_ aspect of this kid, maybe the assholes can put Daschle and
Cheney
shooting at each other in a un-taxed limo on the ****ing box...

Obviously, Wheaties is now the "breakfast of hypocritical sniveling
Martini-lunching executive pusses"...and equally obviously, even a steady
diet
of crapflakes can't grow any hair...

Screw 'em,
R


Who are you...Phelps' mother? It would be foolish for Kellogs to continue
(right away) with Phelps. Wheaties cannot portray the athlete - role - model
image of Phelps anymore. People forget the gold and remember only the most
recent.

graphicjak

Kellogg boycott?
 

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:24:30 -0700, "graphicJAK" graphicjak@interfold-DOT-com
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
What a bunch of pussies...Kellogg has chosen not to renew Phelps' contract
because of the bong picture. While I don't smoke dope, it's pretty silly
to
think that doing so is some rare thing among early-20s kids, and for
Kellogg to
get all hypocritical and say "it's not the image Kellogg wishes to
portray" is,
well, offensive. So don't put that picture on the box of Wheaties. The
kid is
one serious athlete and Olympic record-setter, and if Wheaties doesn't
want to
portray _that_ aspect of this kid, maybe the assholes can put Daschle and
Cheney
shooting at each other in a un-taxed limo on the ****ing box...

Obviously, Wheaties is now the "breakfast of hypocritical sniveling
Martini-lunching executive pusses"...and equally obviously, even a steady
diet
of crapflakes can't grow any hair...

Screw 'em,
R


Who are you...Phelps' mother? It would be foolish for Kellogs to continue
(right away) with Phelps. Wheaties cannot portray the athlete - role - model
image of Phelps anymore. People forget the gold and remember only the most
recent.

Bull****. If he had gotten snapped shooting up, busted for 'roids, or voting
Republican, it would be one thing, but we're talking about, um, inhaling, and in
2009. As I said, I don't smoke the stuff, but lots of perfectly respectable
(and not-so-respectable) folks do, just like drinking. And on that, I'd bet if
he had been snapped with a drink or beer in his hand, no one would have so much
as batted an eye - recall it barely made news when he got popped for drinking
and driving, which is one hell of a lot more dangerous (and a lot worse behavior
for folks to emulate) than a bongload of weed. And I'd not be surprised if
Kellogg doesn't suffer some well-deserved blowback from this cowardly decision.

R

graphicjak

Kellogg boycott?
 

On Feb 6, 6:03 am, wrote:

, it would be one thing, but we're talking about, um, inhaling, and in
2009. As I said, I don't smoke the stuff,

You sound like a whiny liberal ;-) C'mon, he has no inherent "right"
to million-dollar endorsements, endorsements are _all_ about image,
and he blew it. He's getting what he deserves. Besides, I'm sure all
the endorsement agreements he signed include his promise not to engage
in these sorts of things. If you want, just look at it contractually.
He broke the contract first.

he had been snapped with a drink or beer in his hand,

The difference is, this is legal. Had he been snapped outrageously
drunk, I bet he'd be in almost as much hot water with his sponsors.

Kellogg doesn't suffer some well-deserved blowback from this cowardly decision.

I give 'em credit. I wish they'd all drop him, send a strong message
to our children. Maybe I'll go out and buy some cereal...

Jon.

Kellogg boycott?
 

On Feb 5, 11:30*pm, wrote:
What a bunch of pussies...Kellogg has chosen not to renew Phelps' contract
because of the bong picture. *

Given the revenue Kellogs has undoubtedly reaped over the years from
severe cases of the "munchies", this really is a bull**** move. If
everyone who ever smoked dope at least once refused to buy Kellogg
products, I daresay they'd likely feel the pinch.

Screw 'em,

Finally, something on which we agree.

Joe F.

Kellogg boycott?
 

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 06:14:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 6, 6:03 am, wrote:

, it would be one thing, but we're talking about, um, inhaling, and in
2009. As I said, I don't smoke the stuff,

You sound like a whiny liberal ;-) C'mon, he has no inherent "right"
to million-dollar endorsements,

Nope, not one bit.

endorsements are _all_ about image,

Yes, for both the endorser and the endorsee...and I'd say that Kellogg ****
right down both legs with this one, whereas Phelps is 23 or 24 year-old kid who
is obviously a superb athlete in top physical condition and I can't imagine
anyone with any sense at all, including doctors, saying that such a person is
going to suffer any negative health consequences from an occasional toke or two.
I'd say his "image" is fine, save for a few hypocrites.

and he blew it.

Well, something got blown, that's for sure...

He's getting what he deserves.

Uh, yeah.

Besides, I'm sure all the endorsement agreements he signed include his
promise not to engage in these sorts of things.

Well, ****, I had no idea you were an entertainment lawyer...

If you want, just look at it contractually.

Sure. Please fax over your copy of his contract with Kellogg and I'll review
it.

He broke the contract first.

I reserve comment on that pending receipt of your fax... I suspect you are
referring to a typical "morals clause," many of which are little more than
escape hatches. I suspect that if you signed a similar contract, I could
vitiate it on something you did, about 4 times a day, including things you and
millions of others do every Sunday in various churches.

he had been snapped with a drink or beer in his hand,

The difference is, this is legal.

Speeding is illegal. Not coming to a full and complete stop is illegal. Looking
at a deer too long with your headlights, even without a weapon and with no
intent to harm the animal, is illegal. I haven't checked lately, but I suspect
that in some remaining jurisdictions, unmarried sex and even heterosexual oral
sex between a married couple is illegal, too. While I agree fully that pot is
generally illegal (and is under these circumstances), and I do not condone
breaking the law, we aren't talking about the legal aspect, we're talking about
the "moral" aspect. And to call this kid "immoral" over this is nonsense...and
no, your mileage ought not to vary one tiny bit...

Had he been snapped outrageously drunk, I bet he'd be in almost as much
hot water with his sponsors.

Hmmm..."almost?"

Kellogg doesn't suffer some well-deserved blowback from this cowardly decision.

I give 'em credit. I wish they'd all drop him, send a strong message
to our children.

Yeah, several corporations are managed by a bunch of hypocritical pussies...

Maybe I'll go out and buy some cereal...

Just look for the box with Ted Haggard and his bible on it - "Wheaties - the
breakfast of hypocrites"...

HTH,
R

Jon.

Kellogg boycott?
 

rb608 wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:30 pm, wrote:

What a bunch of pussies...Kellogg has chosen not to renew Phelps' contract
because of the bong picture.


Given the revenue Kellogs has undoubtedly reaped over the years from
severe cases of the "munchies", this really is a bull**** move. If
everyone who ever smoked dope at least once refused to buy Kellogg
products, I daresay they'd likely feel the pinch.


Screw 'em,


Finally, something on which we agree.

Joe F.

Do you seriously think that a company founded on Seventh-day Adventist
principles could endorse a doper?

I think Phelps is coming out of this stronger. I heard him interviewed
today. He's learning from his mistakes. Lesson one: Don't toke up in the
presence of strangers with cameras.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Kellogg boycott?
 

" Lesson one: Don't toke up in the
presence of strangers with cameras "


....noted......

Kellogg boycott?
 

On Feb 6, 12:27*pm, rw wrote:
Do you seriously think that a company founded on Seventh-day Adventist
principles could endorse a doper?

Yeah, I do. There were better ways for Kellogg to handle this.
Whatever W.K. Kellogg's priciples may have been, demonizing Phelps'
actions or abandoning the potential of this pretty good kid probably
wouldn't have fit therein. Kellogg is a $12 billion company; its
actions aren't based on SDA principles, they're based on $$$
principles.

(And "doper"? Now, the one incident may not have been the only
incident, but I seriously doubt Phelps is a chronic or habitual pot
smoker. One time gets you the label "doper"? Geez, you sound like my
father.)

Joe F.

Kellogg boycott?
 

rb608 wrote:

Now, the one incident may not have been the only
incident, but I seriously doubt Phelps is a chronic or habitual pot
smoker. One time gets you the label "doper"?

In the celebrity media world, yes it does.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Kellogg boycott?
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
rb608 wrote:

Now, the one incident may not have been the only
incident, but I seriously doubt Phelps is a chronic or habitual pot
smoker. One time gets you the label "doper"?

In the celebrity media world, yes it does.

my two cents, **** Kellogg's. It shows a over sensitivity to an event that
should blow over quickly(of course, not helped by media hype and the
swimming oversight body suspending him for 3 months. Were I Phelps(who, I
suspect might have made an adequate amount of money without the further
inflow from Kelloggs), I would immediately announce out of the next
Olympics, so the national Olympic Committee and Swimming Organization can
find another cash cow to milk.
Moreover, the really disturbing part of the story is that he was
photographed at a private college party in the first place. We are seeing,
before our eyes(and, thanks to the type of narrow-minded opinions express by
a couple of folks here),a complete erosion of personal privacy. And, it
isn't the government that has created big-brother, it is a bunch of average
types armed with cell-phone cams and the like, with so little moral fiber as
to be willing to sell out a 23 year old kid at a party. Once again, I am
reminded of Walt Kelly's line, "we have met the Enemy, and he is Us.".
Tom

Kellogg boycott?
 

my two cents, **** Kellogg's. It shows a over sensitivity to an event that
should blow over quickly(of course, not helped by media hype and the
swimming oversight body suspending him for 3 months. Were I Phelps(who, I
suspect might have made an adequate amount of money without the further
inflow from Kelloggs), I would immediately announce out of the next
Olympics, so the national Olympic Committee and Swimming Organization can
find another cash cow to milk.
He has said he is rethinking competing in 2012 and US Olympic
officials who need his medals for propaganda, tv folks who need his
medals to sell air time and UK officals who need him for Games revenue
generation must have gotten really nervous.

Moreover, the really disturbing part of the story is that he was
photographed at a private college party in the first place. We are seeing,
before our eyes(and, thanks to the type of narrow-minded opinions express by
a couple of folks here),a complete erosion of personal privacy.
And from the paper which published the photo:
"Phelps, who earned £4million last year in endorsements, has resumed
training for the 2012 games.
But there were fears about his commitment when, weeks after the bong
incident, he began dating former stripper Caroline Pal."

Oh No!!!! Where will it end. A stripper!!!
A sure sign of a lack of commitment.
A couple of hits off a bong (or bowls of Corn Flakes?) and the guy has
spiraled totally out of control.

Sure.

Having a stripper on his arm will probably do a lot more for the sales
of Corn Flakes (and bongs) than anything the advertisers could dream
up.

He has plucked the advertising birds for enough cash already to last
the rest of his life. I'd like to see him seek a High Times
endorsement.

Kiyu

Kellogg boycott?
 

wrote:
snip
I give 'em credit. I wish they'd all drop him, send a strong message
to our children. Maybe I'll go out and buy some cereal...

If you want to send a message to children, I suggest this one:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/131438.html

Strong enough for you ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Kellogg boycott?
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
I give 'em credit. I wish they'd all drop him, send a strong message
to our children. Maybe I'll go out and buy some cereal...

If you want to send a message to children, I suggest this one:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/131438.html

Strong enough for you ? ;-)


Thanks a good article. And I agree with it compeltely. The guy had a
toke. BFD.

Tim Lysyk

Kellogg boycott?
 

Tim Lysyk wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
I give 'em credit. I wish they'd all drop him, send a strong message
to our children. Maybe I'll go out and buy some cereal...

If you want to send a message to children, I suggest this one:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/131438.html

Strong enough for you ? ;-)


Thanks a good article. And I agree with it compeltely. The guy had a
toke. BFD.

Tim Lysyk
My spelling is way off today. I meant.....That is a good article, and I
agree with it completely.

Tim Lysyk

Kellogg boycott?
 

On Feb 6, 6:15*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
If you want to send a message to children, I suggest this one:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/131438.html

In two words, damned right.

Joe F.

Kellogg boycott?
 

On Feb 6, 4:15 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Strong enough for you ? ;-)

Just because all of us humans are fallible doesn't mean there
shouldn't be consequences to actions, or that to believe consequences
are good is hypocritical. If I do wrong things I expect that there
will be consequences (and I've had them in my life). Our society today
seems to want to beg out of any consequences for their actions. Just
last week I helped some store workers stop a couple of kids stealing.
The one kid kept saying "here's your stuff back, man, just let me go,
I'm just a stupid kid". He kept repeating "I'm just a stupid kid".
He'd obviously been through this before, and fully expected to walk
away with no consequences. The kids were old enough to be driving, so
they we're plenty old enough, they knew exactly what they were doing.
If they keep experiencing "no consequences", in two years they'll
graduate to houses, and convenience stores, and pretty soon will be
either killed or in prison. Sometimes "getting caught" is the best
thing that can happen to us. There's been times in my own life that's
been true.

Jon.
PS: As I've said before, if y'all want to work to legalize marijuana,
that's your right, but for now at least understand the current cost
behind a toke:
http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11637160
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_116225...e=most_emailed
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...k/6251540.html

Kellogg boycott?
 

On Feb 10, 9:54*am, wrote:
PS: As I've said before, if y'all want to work to legalize marijuana,
that's your right, but for now at least understand the current cost
behind a toke

I'm sure we could discuss the supply and demand of illegal drugs and
establish a relationship between one bong hit and a violent death
elsewhere in the world; but I'll not even come close to considering
these deaths as the "cost behind a toke".

From the last of the three cites:"The brutal truth is that the
illegality of the drug trade creates a multibillion-dollar black-
market premium that attracts the greediest, most violence-prone
elements."

We've tried for decades to attack both the supply and demand, both
without success. One toke ain't going to change the world or get
anyone killed. What we need is a more sensible approach to
legalization, regulation, and taxation. In the mean time, I'm not
blaming Phelps or anyone else for the violence.

Kellogg boycott?
 

Kellogg boycott?
 

On Feb 10, 8:54*am, wrote:

PS: As I've said before, if y'all want to work to legalize marijuana,
that's your right, but for now at least understand the current cost
behind a toke:http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdate...k/6251540.html

Jon,

Did you even read the articles you linked to? If anything, they
show the problems associated with keeping pot illegal.

If you need further explanation, just go read some about the time
they tried prohibition of alcohol. Think about black markets and all
that is associated with that.


Chuck Vance (it's no accident that we don't have gangland
warfare over moonshine)

Kellogg boycott?
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:54:48 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 6, 4:15 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Strong enough for you ? ;-)

Just because all of us humans are fallible doesn't mean there
shouldn't be consequences to actions, or that to believe consequences
are good is hypocritical. If I do wrong things I expect that there
will be consequences (and I've had them in my life). Our society today
seems to want to beg out of any consequences for their actions.

If the South Carolina (?) authorities want to pursue it, that's a different
matter. I'd say they have at least a pretty good case. If there is a statute
against what he did, and I'd suspect greatly that there is, he's guilty by his
own admission. And

Just
last week I helped some store workers stop a couple of kids stealing.
The one kid kept saying "here's your stuff back, man, just let me go,
I'm just a stupid kid". He kept repeating "I'm just a stupid kid".
He'd obviously been through this before, and fully expected to walk
away with no consequences. The kids were old enough to be driving, so
they we're plenty old enough, they knew exactly what they were doing.

Um, are you suggesting that Phelps shoplifted the pot?

IAC, first, theft is malum in se and smoking pot is malum prohibitum, (or, if
you prefer, smoking pot is, in and of itself, a "victimless crime") so it is
more contrasting than comparative, but second and most importantly, Kellogg has
no role in or responsibility for any part of the legal system, and is certainly
not a legislative body. Kellogg as a commercial enterprise, entered into a
contract with another commercial enterprise, Phelps is a spokesperson, and then,
those in charge of that aspect of Kellogg's business made a choice based upon,
whether solely or partially, hypocrisy. They are, apparently based upon the
fact that Phelps and.or "his people" have made no mention of breaching of any
contract, perfectly free to do so. And I am free to think them, and Kellogg, a
bunch of hypocritical pussies. And you are free to eat Wheaties until they are
leaking out of your ****ing ears.

If they keep experiencing "no consequences", in two years they'll
graduate to houses, and convenience stores, and pretty soon will be
either killed or in prison.

And if Phelps is caught stealing, I'd hope he would be prosecuted. And whether
he is prosecuted or not, a sponsor dropping him after such an incident would be
a whole different matter.

Sometimes "getting caught" is the best thing that can happen to us.
There's been times in my own life that's been true.

Well, silly, quit shoplifting pot...

Jon.
PS: As I've said before, if y'all want to work to legalize marijuana,
that's your right, but for now at least understand the current cost
behind a toke:
http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11637160
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_116225...e=most_emailed
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...k/6251540.html

I only went to the first link, but I would take the risk and presume that you
not accusing Phelps of murdering anyone...

I will also presume that what you attempted to show is that the drug trade is
not, in practice, a "victimless crime." I agree. But again, that is not what
is at issue in this case, and I'd offer that Kellogg didn't cut Phelps loose
because of the outrage/indignation that what he did potentially played some
miniscule part in whatever other crimes might have occurred amongst the
"handlers" of the pot from which that which Phelps smoked might have come.

TC,
R