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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.