See less than the whole story at:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1155024.htm

Once again PC is used as an excuse to cover for corporate political side taking.

Bullshit.

"Waving a bottle of wine, she fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia."

She acted like a complete moron and lost her endorsement. Boo-hoo. It happens all the time. Get over it. What the hell ist he point of this article anyway?

since when can you get fired for a political ideology? she should sue the crap out of slim fast. corporations can't suppress political speech any more than the gov't can.

even if it's inappropriate, we're allowed to be assholes. that's what the bill of rights is for.

"Once again PC is used as an excuse to cover for corporate political side taking. "

That's the biggest pile of crap I've heard someone spew on here in...... A day. What next? GW had her axed? Yeah blame it on Bush. Kerry gets elected and some of you sheep will bitch just as bad about him. Make up your freakin minds.

"even if it's inappropriate, we're allowed to be assholes. that's what the bill of rights is for."

Bullshit. The bill of rights doesn't protect you from being fired for being an asshole. It protects you from being detained by the government for being an asshole.

If you walk up to your boss and punch him the the face and crack his skull, then you've been a pretty big asshole haven't you? The bill of rights doesn't say you can still keep your job. The bill of rights doesn't address job security in any way shape or form.

Whoopi wasn't arrested. Conclusion: the bill of rights did it's job. Conclusion 2: SlimFast did it's job as well. If you are paying someone to be a face for your product, and their face is ugly and talks too much while drunk and cursing, then you fire them.

This isn't a free speech issue. She has exercised her right to speak freely about the president, and she went 100% UNPUNISHED by the United States government. She got fired, so what? I've seen people get fired for saying a lot less worse things than she did. I give up. it's a big conspiracy. bush's minions have invaded slim fast... and they're clamping down on free speech while simultaneously losing weight (since slim fast is obviously hooking them up with free shakes). whatever.

They fired her because people called up complaining. Crimany, like there haven't been jokes about for the last four years: We've got a Bush, a Dick and a Colin.
Besides, I'm getting tired of the fact that it's okay for the republicans to make sexual jokes about a democrat, but God forbid a democrat make a sexual joke about a republican. How can we get rid of racism and bigotry in our country when it's the backbone of our own government?!?!
Frankly I'm tired of the whole demo vs. repub crap. It's old and pointless.

"I'm getting tired of the fact that it's okay for the republicans to make sexual jokes about a democrat, but God forbid a democrat make a sexual joke about a republican."

A sexual joke? What the fuck is wrong you people? It wasn't a "sexual joke."

Here it is again, for those of you who missed it the first two times:

"Waving a bottle of wine, she fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia."

1. It was't a a joke. It was "a stream" of jokes. That's where you're wrong first.

2. Secondly, it wasn't just "sexual" it was also vulgar.

3. She didn't just "make a joke." She was drunk, swinging a wine bottle, and acting like a stupid drunk vulgar loudmouth.

Did you catch it that time? Here.. if you missed it the first three times:

"Waving a bottle of wine, she fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia."


If I am paying you money in an endorsement deal for my product, and you stand up at a public event waving a wine and cursing, I will fire you. It would only be "politically correct" to NOT fire her for this. Then it couldn't be interpreted as her being fired for a political statement. So for the first poster who obviously has some issues with being PC, you should be happy.

What comparable story could you possibly be talking about where a drunk republican stood up and proceeded to make several vulgar sexual jokes about a democrat and didn't get punished?

"They fired her because people called up complaining."

Well holy shit, imagine that! You mean they fired her because the public (you know.. that group of people you sell your product to) was pissed off about something she did? Oh god.. it's almost like.. a company trying to please the consumer. And you retards STILL find a reason to bitch.

She got fired. She should have known better. That's Life. Maybe Slimfast should have also done their research before hiring her - I don't think she ever hid her politics.

Still as an outsider, I find it funny how this only seems to happen when someone says something anti-republican.

"And you retards STILL find a reason to bitch."

Chill, buddy. Although I agree with a lot of what you said, your arguments have little weight when you rant and try to back your points by putting others down.

Firstly: Anything that you have to pay a huge fee to get into and only if you receive an invitation to do so is not a public event.

Secondly: This was not an event sponsored by or endorsing Slim Fast.

Thirdly: It's not like Whoopi is an angel and has never gotten vulgar before. Slim Fast should have taken that into account when she was hired.

Fourthly: Anyone with half a braincell knows that things get pretty damn ugly at "private" political fundraisers, especially when they get celebrities involved.

Finally: The "waving the bottle" comment was made by someone from the New York Post... enough said. I wouldn't believe the New York Post if they told me my grandmother was dead... and she has been for 20 years.

The fact of the matter is, shit is flying from all directions. She excersised her right, as an American, to free speech and is being punished for it. That's wrong. If people can put up web sites or sell books on building bombs and how to kidnap, rape and torture children and get away with it under free speech and freedom of the press why should she be punished for jokes? Vulgar or not.

"The fact of the matter is, shit is flying from all directions. She excersised her right, as an American, to free speech and is being punished for it. That's wrong."

Bullshit. Free speech doesn't cover endorsement deals.

Chill, buddy. Although I agree with a lot of what you said, your arguments have little weight when you rant and try to back your points by putting others down."

I don't back my points by putting others down. I back my points AND put others down.


"Firstly: Anything that you have to pay a huge fee to get into and only if you receive an invitation to do so is not a public event."

Not relevant. She made an ass of herself in front of a bunch of people.

"Secondly: This was not an event sponsored by or endorsing Slim Fast."

So? It's not like their contract is null when she's in there. She was still a hired face of slim fast.

"Fourthly: Anyone with half a braincell knows that things get pretty damn ugly at "private" political fundraisers, especially when they get celebrities involved."

Yeah, so? Are you saying that Slim Fast told her to go there? If you're not, then what's your point? She made an ass out of herself at a private political fundraiser. Why does she have to be an exception to the rule because it's common knowledge that it can be nasty when celeberties are involved? How does that justify anything?

"Finally: The "waving the bottle" comment was made by someone from the New York Post... enough said. I wouldn't believe the New York Post if they told me my grandmother was dead... and she has been for 20 years."

Yeah, and the comment that she was denied her right to free speech was made by numbskulls on here.. "enough said." If you would't believe the NY Post if they told you your grandmother was dead, even though you admit that this is fact, that just helps me prove my point that you people who think she was denied her Constitutional right to free speech will argue till the death against something you for a fact to be true.


"If people can put up web sites or sell books on building bombs and how to kidnap, rape and torture children and get away with it under free speech and freedom of the press why should she be punished for jokes?"

You have absolutely no concept of what the purpose of the first amendment is, do you? If you mouth off to your boss, do you get fired? After all, you're exercising your right to free speech. I am sure you would argue that if you got fired for that, then you were denied your right to free speech.. completely ignoring the fact that free speech doesn't ensure job security. She's allowed to say what she said. She said it, and the government stood by idley and did nothing about it, just like the first amendment says they have to.

"If people can put up web sites or sell books on building bombs and how to kidnap, rape and torture children...."

And if one of those webmasters had an endorsement deal with, say.. Pepsi and stood up in front of a large number of people and started advocating "raping and torturing children" then that person would be fired. But even then, the government wouldn't do anything. Just look at NAMBLA. So what's your point? That people should be able to say whatever they want whenever they want to whoever they want and not have to face the real life consequences of their actions? And no, the first amendment doesn't exclude everybody from "consequences."

"Thirdly: It's not like Whoopi is an angel and has never gotten vulgar before. Slim Fast should have taken that into account when she was hired."

Why should Slim Fast put themselves in a position where you can cry about her not getting hired in the first place? Then we can come on here and say she didn't get hired because she was a Democrat.

"Why should Slim Fast put themselves in a position where you can cry about her not getting hired in the first place?"

They put themselves in the position. They went to her.


"Then we can come on here and say she didn't get hired because she was a Democrat."
Careful, your republicanism is showing.

BTW - I'm a republican, too. Just tired of "us" supposedly being the only ones right. Tired of hearing people being labeled as liberals or conservatives. Tired of lawmakers not signing a bill because it was written by someone from the other party, even if they believe in the bill.

Whoopi had a right to say what she said.
Slimfast had a right to fire her.
I have a right to boycott Slimfast and encourage others to do so. (FAT chance I'd ever use it anyway.)

It's just news. Thanks for the info.

Jeez, Sherm how many shares of SlimFast do you own?

You seem to have your hands full swatting at flies today.

Having read the article, plus a few more other sources, I can't really consider this a first amendment issue. Whoopi could have made any other type of joke about Bush, but she went a little over the line from Slim-fast's standpoint. I think she would still be SlimFast's spokesperson if not for the cursing and swearing. Her behavior was plain stupid whether she was at a Democratic, Republican or Martian fundraiser.

Is the blood pressure going down yet, Sherm?

Sherm: that description of her antix is obviously "FOX-inated".. that is.. embellished to serve their side of the story.

Yet she was always so calm and composed on Star Trek. Damn Andorian Ale.

"that description of her antix is obviously "FOX-inated".. "

HAHAHA. Excellent!

Not really, no. There's discussions where people disagree..(those are good) and then there's shit like this. All it takes is an ounce of common sense, but there are idiots who will refuse to give in. Everything violates someone else's rights and everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want. I see enough ignorant crap like this on tv, I hate seeing it here. Just because you suffer consequences for words that came out of your mouth does not automatically mean that you were unconstitutionally punished. Like I said, disagreements are thing... something like this is another. Really don't feel like going out of my way to hold anything back and "show respect" in this case. They don't deserve it anyway.

"Careful, your republicanism is showing."

Bullshit. It was a response to the following: "...I'm getting tired of the fact that it's okay for the republicans to make sexual jokes about a democrat, but God forbid a democrat make a sexual joke about a republican." -courtesy of yourself.

"Jeez, Sherm how many shares of SlimFast do you own? "

None. Maybe I should buy a few thousand just to let them know that they made the right decision and didn't violate anyone's rights. All they did was exercise theirs.

"If you walk up to your boss and punch him the the face and crack his skull, then you've been a pretty big asshole haven't you?"

punching one in the face would violate their right to life, liberty, and property under the bill of rights. Speaking your mind does not.

*holds up some binoculars.. is that your argument i see going down in flames?*

Give it up.. stop covering for the obvious political "favors" these large corporate owners are giving to bush at the expense of the public's most vocal proponents.

Note: one of the warning signs of fascism is the disenfranchisement of dissenting voices, intellectuals.. etc.

the RIAA is pushing congress to disenfranchise us, the news is covering up the public good which p2p is, and now youre covering for the obvious political discrimination being practiced nation wide.

This is the second such dissenter disenfranchiseed.
Never saw you stand up for clear channel when they fired howard stern.

what a hyppocrite.

Slimfast had every right to fire her because they feared a boycott from the Bush supporters.

Slimfast can now suffer from the fear of boycott by the free speech supporters.

Who's side did Slimfast (correctly) decide would be more vocal in their outcry?

"here's discussions where people disagree.."

yeah.. between fox's conservatives.. and fox's OTHER conservatives who claim theyre on the 'liberal" side.

"Sherm: that description of her antix is obviously "FOX-inated".. that is.. embellished to serve their side of the story."

That doesn't make a difference. Slim Fast didn't feel that she was being a good "face of slim fast" so they fired her. So what?

they didnt think she was a good "face of slimfast" because of her political leanings and nothing else
that is a violation of the constitution and the civil rights act.

Sherm - Go get a beer and relax man - It’s impossible to make points with the economic illiterate. Carla has summed it up very well, so let’s move on.

PS SkippyQSB - You can’t fool a conservative so don’t try.

"punching one in the face would violate their right to life, liberty, and property under the bill of rights. Speaking your mind does not."

I'm well aware of that. It was in response to this: "even if it's inappropriate, we're allowed to be assholes. "

So I demonstrated how we aren't allowed to be assholes, as he put it.

"is that your argument i see going down in flames?"

No, it's yours.

"Never saw you stand up for clear channel when they fired howard stern."

Clear Channel and Howard Stern are completely different situations.

"What a hyppocrite."

Not quite. What a fool.

by the way.. it does make a difference..

they portray her as a proverbial drunke ass.. staggering about uttering obscenities.

when in reality she probably said something very clear, coherent, and pointed.

But she always got pretty riled up whenever Q showed up.

She did have a right to say what she did, but Slim Fast didn't have a right to fire her for it. People are allowed to have an opinion, regardless of what other people thing. The people who called up and complained were obviously pro-Bush or else it wouldn't have mattered. And if it was a private event, then the complainers had to have been at that event.

And that's all i have to say about that.

Clear Channel and Slim Fast are completely different rather.

Sherm.. you demonstrated nothing.. you can pretend you did.. but you demonstrated nothing.

to paraphrase your complex way of saying it...
your argument amounts to a 3 year old sayng "does not"

This bit is from the USA Today article on the matter: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-07-14-goldberg-slimfast_x.htm

Slim-Fast is a unit of Unilever. Unilever executives have donated $3,000 to Bush and $1,250 to Kerry for 2004's campaign. Slim-Fast founder F. Daniel Abraham, who sold the company to Unilever in 2000, is a major donor to Democrats and has given $2,000 to Kerry this year"

Not exactly huge influence peddling sums from these guys.

People, you got the right argument but as they say "Right church, wrong pew"

Let this go, the campaign has still got a little ways to go, I'm sure both candidates and their frothing at the mouth supporters will have worse to say about each other before November comes along.

by the way.. just as a 3 year old does.. when your argument ran out of steam and you were proven wrong.. you reverted to character assassination.

to paraphrase your last annotation of my post..
"nuh-uh poopoohead"

"when in reality she probably said something very clear, coherent, and pointed."

Are you kidding me? The media got it wrong everyone. Whoopi stood up and actually criticized Bush is a very clear, coherent, and pointed way. Glad we got that cleared up.

"She did have a right to say what she did, but Slim Fast didn't have a right to fire her for it."

I agree. Companies don't have the right to fire anyone for anything they say ever, or else it's "wrong."

"The people who called up and complained were obviously pro-Bush"

Again, how is that relevant? You don't understand marketing.

"to paraphrase your complex way of saying it... your argument amounts to a 3 year old sayng "does not"

You're so full of shit. I put the same amount of justification behind that comment as you put into your original assertion - none. I was making fun of you bonehead.

Sherm: you of all people know big media spins everything to favor their outlook.

Since big media is owned by the likes of rupert murdoch... i seriously doubt they will favor dissent against their favorite schill in office.

"by the way.. just as a 3 year old does.. when your argument ran out of steam and you were proven wrong.. you reverted to character assassination."

For the 50th fucking time. Bullshit. I NEVER reverted to character assassination. I included it along with my argument THE ENTIRE TIME. I was never proven wrong and it hasn't run out of steam. My argument has gotten off track because you idiots can't keep your jumbled brains on the right track.

since when can you get fired for a political ideology?

I don't consider a verbal attack and slander toward the president political ideology. if it was president Gore I'd still say that. The office of president is bigger than any one person.
Carla is 100% right. Whoopi had every right to voice her views and Slim fast had every right to select who they wanted to represent the image of the company.

Reguardless who holds the office or what we think of that person personally, not many companies (most of whom contribute to the Dems as well as the Republicans) do not want to be linked with vulgar slanderous behavior toward an office which should be respected.
If she had stood up and blasted his policies, or blasted his vetos, proposed legislation, cabnet picks.... all of that is viable. vular slanderous behavior (much of which I see on this site as well) is inexcusable in my book.

If Kerry gets elected I'm sure any company hosting a person who does the same thing to Kerry will fire them too.

oh.. sorry.. not "uh-uh poopoohead" its "uh-uh bonehead".

the justification i give for my arguments are references to A) all articles posted to this site previously.
B) your own comments on those earlier articles
C) The howard stern case
D) the widely accepted fact that fox and other news organizations spin everything

now i introduce yet another..
some republican owners of some of air america's broadcasting contractors sold their airtime out from under them in breach of contract.

"Since big media is owned by the likes of rupert murdoch.."

Well thanks for helping me illustrate that the Clear Channel situation and the Slim Fast situation are different, because I really didn't feel like explaining it.

"you of all people know big media spins everything to favor their outlook."

Yeah, I do. But I sincerely doubt that she actually said something very "clear, coherent, and pointed." Others have already pointed out the fact that she has a history of being a vulgar loudmouth.

"I don't consider a verbal attack and slander toward the president political ideology. if it was president Gore I'd still say that. The office of president is bigger than any one person. "

allow me to inform you of the origin of the term "mr. president"

it was adopted because it was very important to our american values that our president is regarded as no more than a common man that happened to be selected by the people to lead that term.
In other words, the titled "mr" implies he is not to be worshiped as kings or dictators were then and now.

so defamation of the president should be as vigorously protected as the right to call any man on the street a moron for failing to turn on his signal before turning left.

"oh.. sorry.. not "uh-uh poopoohead" its "uh-uh bonehead"."

Someone once told me not to argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

awehr, you're in the minority here. And you've been proven wrong and you're argument is out of steam.

"some republican owners of some of air america's broadcasting contractors sold their airtime out from under them in breach of contract."

Wow, that's fantastically irrelevant since we're discussing whether or not Slim Fast has the right to fire Goldberg for her behavior.

"Sherm - Go get a beer and relax man"
No, Sherm, don't. You might be deemed an out of control drunk. And if you fall and hurt yourself and yell "SHIT!" the neighbors might call your boss and have you fired for using excessive vulgar language in front of their delicate virginal ears.


"PS SkippyQSB - You can’t fool a conservative so don’t try"
You know the old saying... Can't bullshit a bullshitter, can't fool a fool.
You might want to re-read what I wrote, I didn't say I was a conservative or a liberal, I said I was a republican.
Are you trying to say that republicans are only conservatives and all liberals are only democrats? If so, you've made my point.

"allow me to inform you of the origin of the term "mr. president"

it was adopted because it was very important to our american values ...."

So Slim Fast does or doesn't have the right to choose when they may terminate endorsement deals with parties who make Slim Fast look bad? Marketing....

"If Kerry gets elected I'm sure any company hosting a person who does the same thing to Kerry will fire them too."

uh.. huh... yeah.. they did that a lot when clinton was the lambast dujure in the late 90's.

"You might be deemed an out of control drunk. And if you fall and hurt yourself and yell "SHIT!" the neighbors might call your boss and have you fired for using excessive vulgar language in front of their delicate virginal ears."

What the hell are you talking about?

she doesnt make slimfast look bad to me.. or the majority of the population.

Gore did get the majority popular vote

and now many repubs who voted for bush have had a serious change of heart.

Who are they to fire someone for their political ideology.

and worse, who are you to defend that despicably fasciest practice.

where are we, germany 1931?

well.. he's talking about how your work monitors your emails.. and is somehow allowed to monitor online activity

that is.. however.. slightly off topic

geeze you people, thank goodness the rest of america has some sense

"she doesnt make slimfast look bad to me.. or the majority of the population."

So? That's slim fast's call. Would you rather they spend a ton of money taking a sample of the opinion of every American to find out how we all really feel?

"Gore did get the majority popular vote

and now many repubs who voted for bush have had a serious change of heart."

So you're proving yourself wrong? I don't get it. You just said that she didn't make Slim Fast look bad to the majority of the population, then followed that up by saying the majority can be wrong.

"Who are they to fire someone for their political ideology."

They're Slim Fast. If you read the article, you'll see that's not why the fired her.

"and worse, who are you to defend that despicably fasciest practice."

I'm not. It was never practiced in the first place.

lemme clarify "being an asshole"...not punching someone. saying bush is ---a string of expletives---is being an asshole. if i punched my boss in the face, of course i'd be fired, and arrested for felony battery probably, and if i told him i was going to do it, assult too. however, if i stood up at my house party and said that bush is a terrorist lovin, rights hatin nazi, and my boss fired me, that's wrong. not saying it was whoopi's house either. a woman in FL posed nude for pictures. she then became a jailer. the other jailers and inmates found her pictures online. she was then fired. judge said they'd violated her first amendment rights...because she has a right to do anything she wants within the law after work. and sherm, i'm not gonna reply to anything you post again, just wanted to clarify. no sense aruing with someone who's not gonna changer their mind. it's kinda like telling ASScroft that he's violating our rights.

"oh.. sorry.. not "uh-uh poopoohead" its "uh-uh bonehead"."

Someone once told me not to argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

awehr, you're in the minority here. And you've been proven wrong and you're argument is out of steam.

"some republican owners of some of air america's broadcasting contractors sold their airtime out from under them in breach of contract."

Wow, that's fantastically irrelevant since we're discussing whether or not Slim Fast has the right to fire Goldberg for her behavior."

I think youve traversed to the land in which cary sherman dwells good sir.

Youre under illusions that youre correct in saying the first amendment is suspended whenever you get in front of a crowd.

further.. the air america example is relevant.
They sold that airtime from under them because they were an "anti-bush" network.

it is plainly relevant.

But then again.. the only point ive seen you put forth is "im always right and so i win.. nya nya nyaa.. ooh.. i just bumped into cary sherman.. hey sherm"

nevermind, misread your statement about the majority.

"I think youve traversed to the land in which cary sherman dwells good sir."

Look whose committing "character assasination" now.

In the words of.. you.. what a hypocrite.

i think ill follow mmnuc's lead here.

consider yourself ignored on this particular response thread.

If i want to be lambasted by vicious insults and invective ill go to the republican convention and cheer for kerry.

"But then again.. the only point ive seen you put forth is "im always right and so i win.. nya nya nyaa.."

Then you haven't read a damn thing.

"Who are they to fire someone for their political ideology."

Who says that it's about "political ideology", and not public image? A company has every right to terminate a spokesperson who damages the image that they want to convey, even if it's at a "non-public" event. It's happened lots of times, it'll happen again. Just ask that Dell guy ("Dude, you're gettin' a Dell!")

If Slim-fast wants a spokesperson with the ability to disagree civilly, without resorting to angry vulgarities, it is their right to have one.

"If i want to be lambasted by vicious insults and invective ill go to the republican convention and cheer for kerry."

What? This from the guy who compared me to Cary Sherman. What an asshole.

"consider yourself ignored on this particular response thread."

No, that somehow violates my right to free speech.

btw.. character assassination involves spreading insults unrelated to what is being argued.

Saying youve traveled into the land of cary sherman is true if you believe that simply saying youre right makes you right, and dont think examples from reality are "valid"

"Never saw you stand up for clear channel when they fired howard stern."

Stern deserved to be fired. Plain and simple. Stern deserves to be so far off the public airwaves he'll never see the light of day.

Personally I find the guy freakin funny. Some people though are too damned stupid to change the channels if they're offended. For this he should be thrown off the air because lets look at the way he makes his money.... Being the most foul, offenseive, pompous, arrogant jackass in the entertainment business.

BTW for those of you who think Slimfast was wrong. Try signing an endorsement agreement and you'll find something called a MORALITY CLAUSE that gives the company the unlimited right to FIRE SOMEONE for being an offensive, vulgar, c-bag.

Hey! How 'bout dem Bears??

Okay, okay... we agree that we disagree.

Some of us think it was facist and wrong to fire her, others think Slim Fast had the right and responsibility to.


Let's all hold hands and sing koombaya.

ry signing an endorsement agreement and you'll find something called a MORALITY CLAUSE that gives the company the unlimited right to FIRE SOMEONE for being an offensive, vulgar, c-bag


i see.. so now its "immoral" to tell it like it is regarding bush. i see.. its "immoral" to have political leanings.

That's a funny one.. got any more =) i need a standup routine.

also, since conservatism and liberalism was brought up...if you all haven't figured out from my few posts, i'm a moderatate reactionary. bush and his regime should be tried as traitors. they have brought shame to the titles of "President" and "United States." We should shrink the domestic gov't to minimum necessary to prevent violent crimes. maximize military to protect us while we exercise our rights, and cut off funding to all contries except in the cases of helping our own economy "sorry africa, russia, most of South america, and mexico...others too." allow full gun rights, no limits. you won't rob me if i pull out a .50 cal Desert Eagle hehe. anyway, i'm off topic too...anyway on to next article hehe

"btw.. character assassination involves spreading insults unrelated to what is being argued. Saying youve traveled into the land of cary sherman is true if you believe that simply saying youre right makes you right, and dont think examples from reality are "valid""

That's funny, because never believed that saying I was right makes me right. That makes your insult unrelated and you guilty, but not me.

"consider yourself ignored on this particular response thread"

What a liar. (which is only character assassination if you believe you didn't actually just respond to me again).

The argument was on track just fine until you intervened. Congrats, you derailed the whole thing and directed the blame for the confusion at my "poor" argument.

KOOMBAYA!

skippy it's cloudy here. how's the weather out there?

" i'm a moderatate reactionary "

I think they have a vaccine for that. :-}

*holds skippy close and sings koombaya*

hehe btw here's something really worth discussing hehe

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20040715/ts_nm/security_losalamos_dc

a "moderate reactionary" is conservative.

"extreme reactionary" is right wing nutbag.

im happy to see "moderate reactionary", but if you study any hard sciences.. they show that intuitive and reactionary conclusions are usually incorrect, and applying them can cause great harm to society.

C'mon in! The weather's fine!!!

i see.. so now its "immoral" to tell it like it is regarding bush. i see.. its "immoral" to have political leanings.

That's a funny one.. got any more =) i need a standup routine.


Have you ever even SEEN an endorsement contract of any kind?

Why dont you word your response like you really meant it. "You dont like Kerry therefore you're WRONG!!!"

Telling it like it is is one thing. I could find just as many people who would feel the same way about Kerry. So what's your argument now?

he never had one.

*gives Sherm a big hug*
Love ya, man.

lol. Everybody loves me. I'm perfect.

don't need to call names awehr...i didn't call you anything. if you want to call me anarchist you can...i'm starting to lean that way. but anyway...any word on the induce acts progress, or lack of progress hopefully?

Everything is a conspiracy to you idiots.

So loudmouth Whoopie blasted Bush, and Bush supporters (God knows how many) called and complained to SlimFast, and SlimFast decided not to use her anymore as a spokesperson because they don't want a BOYCOTT! They know what a boycott can do.
Is the press acknowledging that some consumers of all ages are boycotting the RIAA right now? Or are sales just down because of p2p?

Why dont you word your response like you really meant it.You dont like Kerry therefore you're WRONG!!!"



there is a difference between saying "contract laws dont override the first amendment"
and
You dont like Kerry therefore you're WRONG!!!"

"lol. Everybody loves me. I'm perfect."

What's that line from FARGO?
"I think I'm gonna barf."
Yeah, that was it. HEE!

"Everything is a conspiracy to you idiots"

You're right. We're even conspiring to be idiots.

http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html/article.php?story=20040714230853143

there is a difference between saying "contract laws dont override the first amendment" and You dont like Kerry therefore you're WRONG!!!"

haha. This from the guy who told me: "the only point ive seen you put forth is "im always right and so i win.. nya nya nyaa.. "

It must suck to have your comments sucked up, summarized, then puked back out by some dipshit huh? (no offense stinkmonkey)

"contract laws dont override the first amendment"

No shit! Probably for the same reason potatoes don't override the first amendment. They have nothing to do with each other!

by the way.. if you want to get back to kerry vs bush again.

This is my simple and nonpartisan reasoning.

Kerry at least makes an effort to put up a charade of caring for the common man. The hearings and inquiry resulting from this charade may yet actually cause him to care.

Unlike bush.. who makes no bones about the fact that he could give a crap less what the public wants.
he and his cronies think they are saving us from ourselves. how very right wing christian they seem to act.

it has nothing to do with party affiliation.. or to do with democrat vs republican.

it has to do with one person at least pretending to listen, while the other simply shuts everyone out.

"Unlike bush.. who makes no bones about the fact..."

pun.

It must suck to have your comments sucked up, summarized, then puked back out by some dipshit huh?

only when the dipshit lies. ^^;;;

allow me to correct myself..
becomes "innovative" with the definition of "substantive point"

Bush told the NAACP to stick it.
Kerry went to Philadelphia to speak to them and kissed up.
It appears that Bush doesn't seem to want or need their votes.

now this is kerry vs bush again...

i call for the removal of the comment submission bar now guys =)

just from this article's response section,.

When you're endorsing a product you're under a microscope. Pure and simple. If you do ONE small thing that the company percieves as a threat to their image you're GONE. Pure and simple. So in a sense, in cases like this, contract laws DO over ride the first ammendment. I would LOVE to see Whoopi try to challenge her firing in court. Dismissal in the first round I would predict and would put $10,000 up to back the prediction up.

Do a search on the net to see if you can find a copy of a standard endorsement contract. Instead of making an ass of yourself because you have NO CLUE about endorsing a product and falling back on free speach this and free speach that, do a little research and see what you find.

Lachatte; Thats because, for Bush, appearing at the NAACP, have been the equivalant of him making an appearence at the Democratic National Convention.

I have one clue.. it is the veritable battery of laws which can be used to blow that petty excuse out of the water monkey.

fair employment termination laws
civil rights laws
the constitution

of course.. that petty constitution.. it's not REALLY the supreme law of the land right?

Really, awehr. Don't you think it's just business? The company got mail or calls. They don't want bad publicity. They don't want a boycott. So they axed her.

Look how fast Kobe lost endorsements!

Is the press acknowledging that some consumers of all ages are boycotting the RIAA right now? Or are sales just down because of p2p?

that's a great question Lachette. I'd like to see someone answer that

haha.. that one's obvious.

Awehr have you ever signed anything other than a lease? Or a cell phone contract?

well maybe we should just start making all our important decisions based on only the opinions of those who call.

If that were the case.. first off.. the law would swing wildly like a rollercoaster as different factions alternated their "calling" and 'writing".
it would become a terrible patchwork...

oh.. wait.. that's happening now! what am i talking about?

I think we've identified the failure of the democratic system right now.
The only action that is taken is based on the extremist morons who call in.

yes.. there is a so called "morality clause" connected to my acceptance to my university.

I've been very liberal and activist.. and it is a georgia based conservative school.

they have yet to boot me out because of that.

yes.. there is a so called "morality clause" connected to my acceptance to my university.

I've been very liberal and activist.. and it is a georgia based conservative school.

they have yet to boot me out because of that.

hmm.. double posts when it timed out.. not good.

Do you REALLY think a university acceptance agreement is ANYTHING close to endorsing a multi-million dollar product? Do you?

yes.. my education costs rediculous amounts of money.

you have no clue.. most people's estimates are less than half of what i pay.

of course.. you have no business delving into my life like this, and i take exception.

A university thrives on its reputation, without it it is nothing.

Do they teach spelling? Sorry, had to throw that in ~

And how many university students are very liberal and activist? It's EXPECTED in todays day and age. On the other hand we have someone who has never even SEEN an endorsement agreement of ANY kind trying to argue that Slim Fast firing Whoopi was wrong.

Take exception until you're blue in the face. I could care less. You made comments on an OPEN FORUM therefore you opened yourself up. I'm sure there are plenty of people who will try to pick apart my arguments.

As far as this argument goes. I have seen endorsement contracts. Not that it's YOUR business I have endorsed three products in my professional life. I know what comes with this territory. Whoopi is nowhere near the star it would take to negotiate a morality clause out of ANY kind of contract. Kobe wasn't either along with countless celebrities.

This argument is over. Plain and simple. Get the last word in if you wish.

And how many university students are very liberal and activist? It's EXPECTED in todays day and age.

haha. colleges in the sixites make todays universities look like the crew of the O'Riely factor

Compmore you have a hell of a good point. I concede that fact.

"Is the press acknowledging that some consumers of all ages are boycotting the RIAA right now? Or are sales just down because of p2p?"


"I think we've identified the failure of the democratic system right now.
The only action that is taken is based on the extremist morons who call in."


WOW, just thought those two thoughts needed repeating.

YoItsDeluxSon wrote:
"Everything is a conspiracy to you idiots."

I'm speculating about which extreme form of posturing is more dangerous: To cast disdain on any potential for a consipiracy whatsoever, or to think in conspiratorial terms incessantly.
Would the analogy of crying wolf or turning in false fire alarms assist in reaching a rational conclusion?

"Is the press acknowledging that some consumers of all ages are boycotting the RIAA right now? Or are sales just down because of p2p?"

No, but it should!
And what are we, individually or collectively, going to do except lament about it?

"I think we've identified the failure of the democratic system right now.
The only action that is taken is based on the extremist morons who call in."

That failure is tantamount to the squeaky wheel getting the grease. How do you fight pragmatism?

...you mean, it is NOT a conspiracy?

You have to raise hell ...or just be happy that you live down below.

one way to fight it is to encourage responsible voting, and enact tougher campaign standards.. a so called "election rules" which forbid sidetracking, harping, or character assassination.
Rules which would force politicians to fairly debate and focus upon actual issues in our nation rather than simply fling mud, or mislead the public by inflating minor and inconsequential differences within the population.

yeeesh,
This is sure nuts.
She got drunk, stupid , and fired.
Big Deal.
Count me with Carla and Sherm.
She had the right to say it,
They had the right to fire her.
And I thought I was the paranoid one.

the media says she got drunk and stupid.

show me her breathalizer before concluding anything firmly.

LOL stink monkey Kids today are just as active. as a good friend of mine said. they do it online than in the streets

another way to fight is to pick up a rock and hit the other guy on the head with it.



Sorry awehr, the cynic side of me just had to say that.

I bet this was just as planned as the Janet Jackson "Flash-dance" at the SuperBowl. I'm suprised Kerry hasn't said anything about it yet.

Based on the facts we know, or any reasonable deviation of them, Slim Fast did nothing wrong.

Now if the media lied and she actually, say.. got up and donated her life savings to an orphanage, then I will take back what I said and say Slim Fast did not make a wise choice. =)

Whoopi, just like the Dixie Chicks, asserted their legal privilege to speak their minds - but that privilege is not unaccompanied by practical consequences (which both experienced to their chagrin).
Whether Whoopi's employers can prevail as defendants in a potential civil litigation is uncertain.

LOL. WoW! That's the biggest reaction I ever got to a posting. I'm not going to argue my opinion either. It's just my opinion that's all

"they didnt think she was a good "face of slimfast" because of her political leanings and nothing else that is a violation of the constitution and the civil rights act."

"I have one clue.. it is the veritable battery of laws which can be used to blow that petty excuse out of the water monkey.

fair employment termination laws
civil rights laws
the constitution"

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Whew. Too much. : )

"Youre under illusions that youre correct in saying the first amendment is suspended whenever you get in front of a crowd."

No. You're under illusions that the first amendment includes a clause that says "companies may not fire their employees for anything they say even though the whole purpose of this amendment is to prevent oppression by the government not companies but whatever you say."

Sorry, missed that one.

*hugs mroop and sings koombaya

I think someone needs to read the First Amendment:

"CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This is NOT the First Amendment:

"SLIM-FAST shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

: )

well it violates the second amendment then!!

Look dude, this is VERY basic. If she had been rounded up by the police and taken to jail for what she said, THEN and ONLY THEN would it be a first amendment violation. If I walk about my work talking about female genetalia and comparing it to people, I'd get fired too, and I'd deserve it. When you are under contract to be a face and name for a company, selling their product, you can still legaly say anything you want. That's fine. But if you cost the company which is paying you business, then you're fired.

This is common fucking sense. I mean... i cant even believe people are argueing over this...

Wow, who said that there was nothing like religion and politics to stir up the hornets nest? I just cannot wait till your blankedity-blank election is over and everyone can get back to their sane selves again

You know how Canadians vote?...our Prime Minister calls an election date, usually five to six weeks prior to said election....we have our crazy time, then the vote happens, and thats it folks, end of conversation. I feel so sorry for you guys, you get a year or better of sheer torture!

But smile, this too shall pass!

she pissed off her employer and got canned.
happens everyday.
next?

I'll state that I don't necessarily feel that slimfast was out of line.

However the analogies that people are attempting to use equate this are atrocious.

This is more like, you got off work - paid 5,000 dollars to enter a door, spoke your mind at a PRIVATE event and come Monday you were fired.


There was no video tape release. (the republicans are screaming for one) No public broadcast audio or video. As far as I know you can't even get a transcript. All public outcry was based purely on hearsay - the general public wasn't present - nor did they view it. In fact aside from the obvious reference to bush (isn't that a beer?), with a connotation to genitalia - no one except those that were there actually know what was said. So what pray tell was she fired for?

Hearsay. "I'm calling to say that I'm angry about that thing that Whuppi said. I'm not *precisely* sure what was said, but well dang it I'm really mad about it, thats what I know.'

You wanna talk about much ado about nothing. If it was my company I'd tell them to figure out what was said then get back to me.

Now heres the real question:


a)Is slimfast afraid of a republican boycott? (I would presume that since the rich have people to wipe their asses for them, they must over time become the lion share of the obese population.

cause

b)to hear the republicans tell it, its the lazy liberal left thats the fat asses. (think Michael Moore and I guess they win that argument - although all this time and they can still only go on about his weight keep swinging boys)

Sorry, just had to thrown that in.

Seriously though, this should make anyone think more carefully about criticizing the president behind closed doors.

That shock and awe fear campaign is really working - keep it up.

Its not about not being able to speak. But when you are hired as the spokes person for a company, when you are seen in a comercial, you are the voice of that company, and if you go off and piss off half of that companies customers, free speech aside, your going to get fired.

Thats my point, the pissing off part is media hype. These people were NOT personally offended. They have merely HEARD that they SHOULD be.

They have never heard, or read, what she actually said. They've only read about it, and know that republicans are demanding a video. Theres been insinuations as to what she said but frankly, the content isn't publicly printable.

Again, she was fired over hearsay. Absolute Maximum .05% of their customers heard/viewed it. The rest are yelling on a politics bandwagon.

Its analogous to hundreds of people posting on IMDB that F911 was a pack of lies before the movie was even released. Totally Hearsay. Unless you were at Cannes, you had no idea.

So to say that the total results aren't due to partisanship, is incorrect. I doubt that it was necessarily the companies politics that caused it. But firing a perfectly viable spokesperson due to election year fluff is frankly assenine. Next year they wont even remember it.

Also, they only had about 15 hours of footage of Whoopi being vulgar on Comic-Relief to find out the character of their spokesperson. They Certainly Knew What They Were Getting Into.

Violation of law: No
Violation of business sense: Yes (like I said this will be forgotten by December)

But honestly, their loss. I'm sure she won't have a problem finding another product to sponsor.

BTW - does anyone know what she Actually said? After all this I'm curious to know. Like I said it doesn't take a genius to figure out a dick joke that works with a name like bush, but really whats all the hubub lol.

"This is more like, you got off work - paid 5,000 dollars to enter a door, spoke your mind at a PRIVATE event and come Monday you were fired."

No. First eliminate irrelevant information. Nobody gives a shit how much she paid to get in. Now, it wasn't like she got off work. Then the whistle blows at 5pm. Unless you're out in your work uniform being an idiot, you won't get fired (but if you're in uniform, i.e. company logo on the front and do something stupid, then you can still be rightfully fired). Now change "getting off work" to having an endorsement deal.

That's why nobody's arguments make sense. WHY is everyone using analogies? Can't you see the situation for what it is? Jesus. It's not rocket science. Nobody needs analogies to help them get a grip the concepts here.

"Wow, who said that there was nothing like religion and politics to stir up the hornets nest?"

Or misinterpreting our most fundamental and important freedom. Of all things Americans should be able to recognize it's the first amendment.

"But firing a perfectly viable spokesperson due to election year fluff is frankly assenine."

Whoa, holy shit. Someone completely missed the point again. I don't believe it!

If you missed it the first two times.. the third time, and then the 4th time... I present you with.. the 5th fucking time (read it good):


"Waving a bottle of wine, she fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia."

She is perfectly within her rights to express herself whenever and however she feels up to the point of violence or incitement thereof.

There were no riots. Team Chimpy was pissed,that's all. Really, it's just another corporation to boycott because of their intolerance of dissent.

I'm 6'3" and 200 lbs so I don't really need Slimfast, but if they had supported Goldberg I'd buy their product just to support them. (I can't stand Bush anymore)

Or maybe the corporation was just watching out for it's own best interests and doesn't care at all about political dissent.

Maybe it's just late, we're tired, have had a few too many and should just shut the fuck up. Good night.

"She is perfectly within her rights to express herself whenever and however she feels up to the point of violence or incitement thereof."

And they are perfectly within their rights to fire her. Dell fired the computer dude after his pot bust, and I'm sure he didn't do that in a public or violent way. A corporation is not a government entity (yeah, shut up), they don't need a vote to remove someone that they feel damages their image, nor do they need to defend their actions to us, the general public.

One has to wonder: If President Bush decided to toss Cheney off the ticket this fall (using the "f" word, and generally damaging the administration's image), how many of you people would be defending the VP's right to be an asshole?

"She is perfectly within her rights to express herself whenever and however she feels up to the point of violence or incitement thereof.
There were no riots. . ."

Exactly. And that's why she isn't in any trouble with the law. Her rights, as you described, are in keeping with a provision of the First Amendment.

Whether a company has the right to exercise dismissal over exercise of free speech even if offensive and potentially affecting their bottom line financially, ah, that's where the matter may be litigated in civil court. Time will tell.
Common sense would seem to indicate in favor of the company, but common sense does not always hold sway with jurors (not to mention judges).

I don't think Slim Fast's action had anything to do with Whoopi Goldberg's dissent. Look at how many sponsors Kobe Bryant lost and he didn't say a word about politics!!

"I don't think Slim Fast's action had anything to do with Whoopi Goldberg's dissent. Look at how many sponsors Kobe Bryant lost and he didn't say a word about politics!"

Good point. That would lead one to presume the matter involves company image, customer perception, and/or potential financial bottom line - does it not? And, if so, should not that type of issue be within the purvue of a corporation's decision-making process?

Really, though, we all need to just get a life and go on to more important matters. Like what this website stands for (or should stand for).

Or, hey, we can spend another hundred or so posts by interjecting speculation over whether Whoopi will find it expedient to broach a racial discrimination argument in civil court, if and when things go that far.

La-de-dah!
(Who gives a crap?)

Sherminator is correct on this issue. Thats all I have to say. I love Whoopi, but if she says stuff that pisses off the company whose product is being endorsed by her, they have every right to fire her.

Whoopi doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of challenging her dismissal in court. Plain and simple. No ifs ands or buts.

Play the race card until the cows come home. That'll expose her even more.

138 posts? eeks, I can't read them all.
Bottomline -- Whoopi and Slimfast had a contract. Not an ordinary employer-employee contract; being a spokesperson is a special relationship. We don't know the details. We don't know if Slimfast had an option of terminating her or for what reasons. For all we know, they are still obligated to PAY her even if they don't use her. We don't know if Slimfast breached the contract.

This doesn't really have anything to do with free speech.

jeeez, where you guys arguing all night long? You just wasted a whole lotta miles on your keyboards over nothing.

Who knows, maybe Slimfast wasn't getting anywhere with Fat people to slim people ads and just wanted to get back to the old tried and true method of getting a thin girl in a bikini smiling with the product in her hand and it will keep the fellas from changing the station when their commercials come on and unfortunately also keep the pressure on women and some men to kill themselves for a fake hollywood ideal of the human form.

It's a no win situation for Slimfast in the short term. Keep her and face a boycott of fat repubs or fire her and now maybe face a boycott of fat demos.

People need to wake up and boycott the companies we can all agree are the true dregs of human life on this planet, the RIAA.

Isn't sites like this to debate and discuss items posted on the main page? Don't see that as a waste at all.

i think that if we are all going to look at this subject as a matter of right or wrong then it is safe to say in my humble opinion that whoopi was right and so was slimfast. whoopi is outspoken and regardless of our political stance she can and did say what she could say legally however slimfast regardless of their politcal stance can terminate her for her actions due to the fact that she is the face of their companys product were all adults here and we should know by now that if your boss doesnt like you for your beliefs he can fire you for any number of false or ridiculous reasons he cant fire you for being a republican or a democrat etc but what he gives as a reason will not neccesarily be the real reasoning behind it and as none of us are members of slimfast board of directors or know the ceo then its just speculation in saying that it was politicaly motivated sales and marketing and especially pr is a politics of its own breed well anyway im just going further with this than i wanted too so in short imho whoopis was right (right meaning legally entitled) to say what she said and slimfast was right meaning the same to terminate her for saying what she did

Whoopi wasn't an ordinary employee.

In most states employment is "at will" meaning that your employer can fire you for any reason. However, they cannot violate employment discrimination laws. Union contracts also affect an employer's ability to fire. Further, if there is an employer/employee manual outlining employee relations, this may be construed as a contract. If an employer doesn't follow the procedures it says it uses (for example, progressive discipline) they may be liable for wrongful termination, meaning you can sue to get your job back.

wow, I missed all this fun for a night a work? good lord man! (well, woman) Next time I'm calling in sick so I can watch the fireworks.

btw

Sherminator is right.
George Bush is going to win the election.
Coke is better than Pepsi.
neener neener neener!
have a good day folks.

Why do you people in america worship your respective favorite political party's?

The way some of you get your ass up over anyone dissing your favorites is just amazing.

Most politicans republican, democrat, liberal, progressive conservative, ndp, green party, ass party, whatever..they are all ruled and bought by corporate interests which makes them assholes......treat them as such.

When have any of them worked for your interests? When they gonna stand up against thr RIAA and protecting consumers?

"Not relevant. She made an ass of herself in front of a bunch of people."

Heck, Kobe is being accused of Rape and he still has his sponsors.

How to lose your sonsors: Tell politial jokes at a private function.

How to not lose your sponsors: Be accused of Rape.

Go politics! :/

carla, why on earth would someone sue to get back a job with a company that despises one?

oh, money. sad.

My wife was fired from a hallmark store on her second day of work cause she answered the phone wrong. lets all boycott hallmark.

It's amazing how many constitutional lawyers come out of the woodwork. free speech is not an absolute, never has been.

For those that dont fully understand how celebrity endorsements work.

http://www.advertising.about.com/library/weekly/aa081203a.htm

Kobe didn't lose anything huh?

smoreop: money is not sad. Health benefits are not sad. They are necessities.

From the number of post on this subject, it looks as if the new moon frenzy came early this month.

The key point that seems to be missing in this whole argument is ‘that a major corporation considered the consumer’s perception of Whoopi’s performance’. Whether you agree or disagree with Slim-Fast’s response, it should give you courage that one consumer at the time can make a difference in a business’s policy.

Our major argument with RIAA member companies is that they don’t consider their customer’s concerns. Our concerns about the reckless suits, useless technology and biased laws are well documented. Our frustration at their hostile response to any suggestion that they need to embrace the computer age is fuel that keeps the faithful active.

We also believe it is the RIAA’s sole purpose in life to work with industry and congress to increase the technology and pass laws for their benefit. To this extent, we must be vigilant to their efforts and provide information for a defense against their actions.

An old hippie wondered after Mondale lost the presidential race how it could have happened because he and all his friends voted for him. Just because we have a small circle of friends which share similar beliefs, is not an indication of what the nation thinks. Similarly, a product like Slim-Fast, that sells on a national basis, cannot afford to ignore the majority of opinion if it expects to remain in business. As these are examples of a broad opinion base, I think that our voice should be equally unified in expressing the economic burden the RIAA is advocating to the music consumer.

One other point for consideration is what Whoopi and the other entertainers at that political rally think of you as a contributor or visitor to BOYCOTT-RIAA. My belief is that they will consider you and me as part of the Bush anti-business policy and will describe us with the same language used at that political fund raiser.

As soon as any debate like this post turns political, we’ve lost the cause. It’s lost because the individual has to endorsed the party and what the party represents and in turn give up individual beliefs.

My friends, lets keep it fact based, and do our best to keep the politicians guessing who we support.

I doubt that political ideology in and of itself was the main reason for the Slim Fast Decision. If Whoppi has made the same kind of vulgar jokes against Kerry, I bet Slim Fast would have dumped her.

Whoppi was hired by Slim Fast for PR work. As a PR person, you don't want to piss off a huge potential customer base. I suspect that there are a lot of Republicans (as well as Democrats) who use slim fast. Hell, everyone knows that Elephants are fatter than Donkeys!

mystlw, I wholeheartedly support the VP's right to be an asshole.

I just don't support him as VP anymore.

There's a big difference in what ol Dick did compared to what Whoopi did. Whoopi made an ass of herself infront of a few THOUSAND people that was covered by the media.

Dick made an ass of himself to one person that was overheard by a few others that was covered by the media. If ANY of these politicians want the public to believe that they dont use the f word from time to time they all need to be fired for stupidity. If Cheney told Lehey to F-Off at a press conference than GOODBYE Dick. He didn't. He did it to one person that was overheard by a few more.

You guys are all hillarious, arguing all night long..it's a record folks...

Did anyone here stop to think that maybe little old Whoopi wanted out of her contract with Slim-fast, and this was the way she achieved that? She's not a dumb broad. Sheeeeeesh!

I'm sure she's not crying the blues, I mean, advertising for Slim-fast? She could do a whole lot better, like making one of her hillarious movies, etc.....

Why is it funny that people are using a website for what it was intended? If the operator of this site didn't want people to comment on and debate content of articles posted then they should take away the replies section.

"There were no riots. Team Chimpy was pissed,that's all. Really, it's just another corporation to boycott because of their intolerance of dissent."

Oh god. Everything any corporation does is evil to you idiots. Nevermind the fact that Charter and Verizon went to court to fight the good fight against the RIAA. We'll just conveniently forget about that so you dumbasses can continue spouting your conspiracy theory bullshit.

And...how does it matter if there were no riots or not? What does that have to do with anything?

Here.. again... if you missed it the first time (this is very clear, so read it a number of times if you need to):

mroop says:

"'I think someone needs to read the First Amendment:

"CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This is NOT the First Amendment:

"SLIM-FAST shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'" -mroop

"Heck, Kobe is being accused of Rape and he still has his sponsors. "

That's because Kobe has a different IMAGE than Whoopi, and that's all the endorsement deal is about. If Kobe ever goes to a private fundraiser blah blah and stands up and says "I rape women" then he'll be dropped instantly. What a tragedy.

"Did anyone here stop to think that maybe little old Whoopi wanted out of her contract with Slim-fast, and this was the way she achieved that? She's not a dumb broad. Sheeeeeesh! "

Awesome. So even Whoopi agrees with me. See, people?

btw, Cock Cheney didn't have an endorsement deal, so the situations aren't comprable.

"If the operator of this site didn't want people to comment on and debate content of articles posted then they should take away the replies section."

Or not post off topic crap about Whoopi Goldberg and her Slim-Fast tragedy.

I have absolutely nothing to add to any of this. Have a good weekend all.

TheSherminator

Did I just get a new nickname?
"even Whoopi agrees with me." Oh well, I guess I could be dubbed worse names or are you spun out from lack of sleep?

If the operator of this site didn't want people to comment on and debate content of articles posted then they should take away the replies section.

then everyone would scream about censorship. In the past when the moderators of this site tried to keep it focused on the RIAA many cried foul and censorship and first amendment etc.... some left the site. We have to either be the ones to keep itr focused or accept the moderators guidlines.

Baldrocker,, RIGHT ON!!

carla, income and health insurance are necessities, to be sure.What is sad is having to be miserable 40+ hours per week to afford them. All I'm saying is there are other companies, other positions, other opportunities out there where you can start fresh and make a new career, new friends and maybe even more money. There's more than one job out there for anyone, why be miserable in a company that doesn't want you around? It takes time, effort and initiative but is worth it.

Besides, I doubt Whoopi is hurting much.

"Look at how many sponsors Kobe Bryant lost and he didn't say a word about politics!!"

There is a HUGE difference between being accused of saying somthing vulgar about someone and being accused of violently raping someone.
And for your info, Kobe was just re-signed to a $136 million dollar contract over 7 years. $20 million a year isn't losing jackshit.

Uh , Sherm. read my next post please, after the riot thing. Maybe they (Slimfast) were just protecting their interests.

The riot thing is where free speech ends, kinda like shouting "fire" in a theatre.And in the context of the discussion I think it is relevant. YMMV.

" Everything any corporation does is evil to you idiots."

Well no, actually. In fact I have no problems whatsoever with most corporations. I even work for one.
And I changed my phone provider to Verizon because of their efforts to thwart the RIAA. But *some* corporations clearly need to be boycotted because they DO stifle dissent and inhibit innovation.

And while you're quoting mroop, how do you explain enforcement of "Free Speech Zones" by Federal agents at both convention sites? Read it several times if you need to.

"Did I just get a new nickname?
"even Whoopi agrees with me." Oh well, I guess I could be dubbed worse names or are you spun out from lack of sleep? "

haha. No... I'm saying that if that is true, then even Whoopie knew she would get fired for it. =)

"And while you're quoting mroop, how do you explain enforcement of "Free Speech Zones" by Federal agents at both convention sites? Read it several times if you need to."

Read what several times.. I shouldn't have read it at all. It has nothing to do with Slim Fast firing Whoopi Goldberg for being a drunken, vulgar, loudmouth. Free speech zones have nothing to do with the contract between Slim Fast and Whoopi Goldberg.

once again.. free speech zones have nothing to do with endorsement contracts.

The following are some quotes from a few recent posts:

"As soon as any debate like this post turns political, we’ve lost the cause." [Amen!]

"Isn't sites like this to debate and discuss items posted on the main page? Don't see that as a waste at all."
[probem sometimes resides in the very choice of articles to post in the first place]

"If the operator of this site didn't want people to comment on and debate content of articles posted then they should take away the replies section."
[better yet, use better discretion in what articles they decide to post]

". . . Or not post off topic crap about Whoopi Goldberg and her Slim-Fast tragedy."
["crap" is right; totally agree with Sherminator here]

"In the past when the moderators of this site tried to keep it focused on the RIAA many cried foul and censorship and first amendment etc.... some left the site. We have to either be the ones to keep it focused or accept the moderators guidlines."
[then let the crybabies pout and leave; because what we have now is worse] [and which IS worse, them rediculously "crying first amendment" or the moderators paying attention to such drivel in the first place?]

You know, folks, we really can't disagree with what thumbtack (Bill Evans) recently had to say about what this website is meant to be! (But part of the time isn't, because of irrelevant news articles like the current one that we've been wasting time and energy on.)
And, you know what? It's counter-productive, for two reasons:
1) Visitors to this site can be turned off by reading about stuff like this article and the myriads of posts it attracted, rightly critiquing that this topic is off the wall -- this dilutes the effectivenss of the anti-RIAA campaign, does it not?
2) This type of article, like other recent non-pertinent political subjects, has the indirect tendency to alienate some of our team members here because of the polarizing nature of unnecessary contraversy....which can lead to non-productive dissension among the ranks.

I welcome any moderator's public response to the issues I'm raising here, along with what Bill Evans wrote along the same vein about a week and a half ago.

Or, perhaps better yet, how about just for once having an open forum for everyone to debate what constitutes effectiveness insofar as trying to reach the stated main goals of this website is concerned?
That should help provide better focus . . . and, who knows, maybe bring in a few new useful ideas in addition to the good ones we already have to work with. . . as awehr and independentmusician have recently so well described.

I think a few humerous off topic and non-political articles are good from timt to time to lighten things up around here. Besides while all of us support this website's fight against the RIAA, not all of us are intravenously attached to congress and senate proceedings. Sometimes there just isn't any RIAA related news going on, and it would seem even the most innocous article about birds flying south for the winter gets politizied by people bound and determined to argue politics. I think most of the real contributors and loyal followers of this cause can stand a few more months and then we can bitch, moan and complain about the Big 5 all the time again.

And I say these things with all due consideration of the fact that the website owner(s) pay the bills and take the risks and work very hard. But the caveat is that effective members are also needed, or the website isn't a success. Effective decisions by the management/moderators lead to a desired goal-achieving image as well as effective membership -- strong positive correlation, Business Management101.

Pinemikey, what you've said is very worthwhile; but my point pertains to how frequently these type of inane articles appear. Let's see, what was it last week that over 135 posts were spent on? Not an RIAA topic, guaranteed! Oh, yeah, setting us up for political controversy with some article pitting Kerry against Bush. . .

Demand the truth (loud thunderous applause)

Nobody is "setting" you up for political controversy. It's just the american way. You guys bleed politics. Too many people in this country let their lives revolve around politics and you often think the whole world revolves around the american political system. Like there's some obscure tribe deep in the australian outback whose lives will be snuffed out if americans make the wrong choice in November.

TheSherminator

I'm sure Whoopi knew exactly what she was doing..she did sign a contract...I'm sure she or her lawyer read it thoroughly. I can't believe you are still awake

pinemikey

I also agree with what you said about off topic and lightening things up...thats why I come here Nothing like a good argument every now and then - good for getting the old blood pressure reved up. yes? no?

If it's not good from the administration of this sites viewpoint, we'll be hearing about it.

Heck, good thing Codewarrior stayed out of this one, there would have been over 300 posts by now (No offense Code, ya know we love ya!!!)

"Nobody is setting you up for controversy."

Well, okay, instead of the phrase 'setting us up' . . . too many articles are chosen which dilute the main focus of the website, and many of those articles are controversial in nature in the sense of generating unnecessary dissension. Additionally, there is a need to consider the impression of visitors to the site as well.
Thumbtack had a good post about topic choice not long ago, relevant to the stated goals of the website.

"If it's not good from the administration of this site's viewpoint, we'll be hearing about it."

Perhaps if enough of us feel like compmore, thumbtack, and myself (among others), maybe the administration will be inclined to take heed. We can try and hope.

"I'm sure Whoopi knew exactly what she was doing..she did sign a contract...I'm sure she or her lawyer read it thoroughly. I can't believe you are still awake "

Well, if she knew, then you can add her to the list of people who know that I, and most everyone else here, is right. And I was up studying all night (great way to spend your summer).

Stop debating the purpose of this site. Again, have you lost your minds? www.boycott-riaa.com - world headquarters for discussing conflicts between whoopi goldberg and slim fast. The purpose of this site is to educate about the RIAA and boycott the RIAA. Nobody ever said political articles shouldn't be posted... they just

1) Need to have clear ties to the RIAA and/or related issues (i.e. not every single privacy concern in the world, but instead those that could become an RIAA/MPAA privacy concern.

2) Any concerns about authors of political posts twisting an article in their favor are elminated if rule #1 is followed. What's so hard?

John Kerry/Privacy article -good
Bush enforcing free speech zones! - bad
Call to action - good (and non existant on this site)

Far too many dipshits think that people here automatically support anything they aren't bashing in the articles. So if I say, for instance, "Hey, this article about the Patriot Act hasn't got shit to do with the RIAA," I am in turn told that I "support the Patriot Act and make love to it every night and am too blind and naive to see how it's all "connected'" or deviations thereof. When in reality, I do see how it's all connected, it's just those people are dipshits who forget that all I said was "this doesn't have anything to do with boycotting the RIAA"

So what happens? I take a stand on behalf of the people here who actually care if the RIAA is boycotted or not and Code leaves, then tomsong calls me an "idiot" who drove Code away. If people weren't so fucking stupid, they'd take what I said for what it's worth and not throw a bitch fit about it. Instead it was me against freedom... me against code.. It's not just me, it's happened with others too. It's impossible to suggest that this site stay on topic because saying that an article about how free speech zones (or anything else) are bad doesn't belong here will always, 100% of the time, incite x number of idiots to accuse that person of "not having a problem" with free speech zones and supporting Bush etc etc etc.

Why can't we just stay on topic? This current article doesn't even fall under what I've been saying. It's not even political, it's just stupid and happened to be turned into something political by dumbasses. Man, with all my name calling I must not know what I'm talking about! Either that or you (you know who you are) really are dumbasses.

by the way, I wasn't calling Code any names in my above post.. I love code. It looks like it could be misread.

[this is directed in general at those who are flaming exessively here, you know who you are]

I am not going to shout at you, I am sure you are nice people, but this is my viewpoint:

Ok, I am from "Liberal" Britian.

I laugh to say it since I consider this country to be right wing, but by these standards presented here, we're probably some sort of "ultra neo-communist hippie country".

I am Athiest, and I am also a centre candidate supporter (Liberal Democrat), but to be frank I don't care if someone wants to insult the guy who runs the party - heck he's boring isn't he?

I will happily insult any member of my government that I want, and I can even do it to his face, and no one (and i mean no one!) could do anything about it.

To be fired from work for that would be open and shut case - Unfair Dismissal.

To insult yours and other leaders, to constantly put them down, in comedy, particually satire is an *institution* of this nation, with programs like Bremner Bird and Fortune and Have I Got News For You as prime-time viewing.

Once on HIGNFY one of the panel called Tony Blair something along the lines of a "lying bastard". The audience clapped and laughed.
People went on with their business, *no one cared*.

To say that the office of a leader is somehow elevated is stupid - they are a person who is elected to do a job. Just a person - we rarely think in terms of statesmen, however it may appear to other countries.

Getting closer to my point now: all of the above comments have one thing in common.

I'll run through them again:

I'm not Christian (or any religion)
I support a centre party (not strongly left/right polarised)
Our leaders are constantly insulted on television/etc, and to lose your job over it is open-and-shut Unfair Dismissal

What do all those have in common? They are all *normal*. No one thinks anything of my lack of faith, or that a centre party exists, or anything else i mentioned?

Why is such an issue being brought up over such minor things?
If a comedian can't make a joke about a politician (who cares if its vulgar, it might have, y'know *subtle* undertone, and besides, I agree with the earlier comment - like Murdochs gonna put it right) without being fired.

Now if she had made the comment about G.W.s race, creed, country of origin or some other racist/nationalist discrimination statement then I would understand the firing, but not speaking your mind about a politician.

Now, I'm not flaming, I'm trying to introduce an element here of how other societies would view this, something that many people miss entirely.

I've been looking through the EU fundamental rights charter to find the section on not being fired for political reasons, but I can't be bothered to copy out from the pdf, so look at http://www.europa.eu.int/

however I just noticed a section about disallowing discrimination against people who are homosexual... isn't George Bush trying to the exact oposite?

Oh why do I even bother? You probably see me as some weird British nutcase who's got everything wrong.
Shame myself and the other 410 million EU citizens would probably not see me as unusual....

As long as we're are going to hold people accountable for their actions and in this case words, how about this? Lets fire DUH-bya Bush for calling a news reporter an A-hole. Lets give Cheney the hook for getting caught using the F word. What about Dennis Miller implying that Edwards & Kerry are gay when in fact it was Powell that was parading about, emulating one of the Village People? How about Limbaugh, Savage, and other vile right wing pundits who spew anti-gay propaganda? should those low lifes lose their jobs as well? The Conservatives needs to be careful as to not start a fire that could result in a backdraft that essentially chars their own frowning faces.

Folks it is like this.

If you were running a public company selling a product, would you have your official spokesman act in such a manner that didn't put your company in good light? I wouldn't.

You can be sure that Whoppie doesn't come cheaply when it comes to the payment. I don't think the company got what it paid for. From their actions, neither did they...

"Lets fire DUH-bya Bush for calling a news reporter an A-hole. Lets give Cheney the hook for getting caught using the F word."

That'd be fine with me. Can we find a non-Kerry replacement too? =) I'll do it.

"To insult yours and other leaders, to constantly put them down, in comedy, particually satire is an *institution* of this nation"

Exactly the way it should be. If there is anyone that should not be put on a pedestal, it's a politician. They need to be talked down to.. the public needs to put the scum in their place. They aren't special... they're of substandard character most of the time. I liked the rest of your post as well..

"I've been looking through the EU fundamental rights charter to find the section on not being fired for political reasons"

No need, since Whoopi wasn't fired for political reasons either.

"What about Dennis Miller implying that Edwards & Kerry are gay when in fact it was Powell that was parading about, emulating one of the Village People? How about Limbaugh, Savage, and other vile right wing pundits who spew anti-gay propaganda? should those low lifes lose their jobs as well?"

Only because I can't stand them. If you're saying they should be fired for their opinions, well that's kind of their job. You just named a politician and two republican radio show hosts, so there's no plausable reason that they should be fired. They aren't doing anything wrong. Don't forget Savage got kicked off the air for saying something anti-gay. It has nothing to do with their opinions.. it has everything to do with how they reflect on the company they're "representing." Same with Whoopi.

But it sounds like you want them to be fired just for being mean. They don't have endorsement deals, so the importance of their public image isn't as important. None of them should be fired.

"How about Limbaugh, Savage, and other vile right wing pundits who spew anti-gay propaganda? "

Look, I can't speak for other shows, but since I am a regular listener to Limbaugh, I would like to know what "anti-gay propaganda" he has been spewing. Exactly what has he said?

He has said is that a two parent heterosexual marriage is best for children, and this is why the definition of marriage should not be altered. It is best for society, if the goal of society is to raise the next generation the best possible way. You may not agree with this, but I'd hardly call it propaganda. It isn't even anti-gay. It is a pro-marriage argument. He does not go into vulgar rants to promote the idea. It is a reasoned argument, whether you happen to agree with it or not.

I think Whoopi should be heard far and wide. Her idiot comments are so extreme they will only hurt Kerry. But her anger and her vulgarity do not help sell Slim Fast, and she cannot really do her job if she's going to become the new Lenny Bruce.

who drove Code away??

I like Code, he's a friend of mine. however it was his choice to leave and any one person or small group is NOT responsible. he's a bigger man than that

"Look, I can't speak for other shows, but since I am a regular listener to Limbaugh, I would like to know what "anti-gay propaganda" he has been spewing. Exactly what has he said? He has said is that a two parent heterosexual marriage is best for children, and this is why the definition of marriage should not be altered."

Don't you know that the truth has become politically incorrect? Lies only please.

"who drove Code away??"

According to tomsong it was "you idiots." According to me, it was partially me. His big thing with everybody being pissed at his posts started with me I think.. It wasn't his choice? I don't know why he left, but I assumed it stemmed from that since he mentions how ppl don't like his articles fairly often now and doesn't come around as much. I guess I don' t know why he's gone then... maybe I (we) aren't supposed to..who knows.

SLIM-FAST FIRES WHOOPI GOLDBERG

Posted by on July 15, 2004 at 2:37 PM  (printer friendly)

See less than the whole story at:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1155024.htm

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
_______________________________________

"These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site":
[Wow, with a topic such as this, such a disclaimer is hardly necessary -- would anyone but an imbecile associate any relevance of the Whoopi article to the beliefs of this site?
Sadly to say, this type of topic is not an isolated instance.]

[And just in case there's any doubt about what the stated goals of this website are, I just copied the mission statement word for word as follows:]

BOYCOTT-RIAA.com
Take a stand against the Recording Industry Association of America

Why We Are Here

Boycott-RIAA was founded because we love music. More and more the RIAA and the major labels have attempted to lock up our culture and heritage through extensive lobbying, outrageous campaign donations, misleading our political leaders, and lying to the public, while misrepresenting the facts. Changing copyright law is not a solution for poor management. Copy protected CDs lock up the music forever, even when the work in question returns to public domain. This was not part of the copyright bargain our forefathers struck, nor was it ever intended to provide income for the heirs of the copyright holder. It is our intention to make the public, and our leaders aware of the implications and long term consequences to our culture of bowing to every demand the recording industry presents to our congress. It is our intent to continue to unspin the spin and to represent the consumer and independent artists positions on the battlefield that copyright has become.

Now, with that ultimate perspective, maybe we can finally put this silly Whoopi thread to its final rest. . .

[mournful funeral dirge cranking up; requiem ceremony for the repose of the deceased ready to commence]

I'd like to make a suggestion. If this is truly the way this website is supposed to be run I suggest the people who have posting privelages put their political agendas in their back pockets. A post that immediately comes to mind was a guy posting an obviously one sided review of Moore's movie. What on EARTH did that have to do with the RIAA. If you're supposed to stick to music related issues than stick to it.

http://www.outfoxed.org/

"No need, since Whoopi wasn't fired for political reasons either."

That's utter and complete bullshit! The Republican attack dogs energized their base with their little e-mail newsgroups. They notify one another of each cult like, ritualistic responsibility that they’re expected to carry out like obedient puppets. From there, like a swarm of bees they began disseminating the lies and deceit just like a Fox News promo. The insidious nature of this polemic is unprecedented. The true demagogue is not Michael Moore, it’s this administration that misuses, misleads and misdirects the American populace. They tried so desperately to thwart the distribution and public demand for Fahrenheit 9/11 to no avail. Conservatives are now running scared, the fascist regime they’ve worked so hard to achieve is crumbling apart. Whoopi Goldberg, Howard Stern, Richard Clarke, Bill Maher, Janet Jackson etc., the list goes on and on. They are scapegoats and nothing more that have been thrown into the fire of a Conservative sanctioned witch-hunt. Right wing zealots have become comfortable with their hypocritical double standards. It’s enough to make you want to empty the contents of your stomach with a finger to the tonsil! A vote to the repugnant party is a vote for death, environmentally, socially and economically!

"You just named a politician and two Republican radio show hosts, so there's no plausable reason that they should be fired."

So what you're saying is that if you happen to be a Republican acting as either a politician or an enterTAINTer, you suddenly become exempt from the rules huh? You get a free pass just as long as your ideals correspond with the repugnant party? How convenient that is......

Only because I can't stand them. If you're saying they should be fired for their opinions, well that's kind of their job

But you can't express an opinion if you happen to be Whoopi Goldeberg can you? It's really not about her though, it's about her political disposition. If she were instead glamorizing W. SHRUb as being the chosen one and speaking negatively of Kerry, the words would've been immediately forgotten. That's how Conservative morality works, applied only when it's beneficial to towing the party lines. Otherwise, pretend that reality is an illusion. The truth hurts too much, STINGS!

Since we're talking about the hypocritical drug addict Rush Limbaugh, this is pretty funny:

"Rush Limbaugh tries to disabuse a caller of the notion that "hundreds of prostitutes are going to be brought in from other states" for the Republican Convention, telling her that the "prostitutes are being brought to New York for the media.""

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071404/content/across_the_fruited_plain.guest.html

Rush: In the first place, the prostitutes are not being brought to New York for the Republicans. Everybody knows that after Republicans have their kids, they zip it up forever, they don't have sex after that. The prostitutes are being brought to New York for the media, Ingrid.

Oh yeah, set up for the above statement: There were a couple articles last week quoting people in the sex industry talking about how they were importing prostitutes from all over the country to meet the demand for the Republican convention in New York.

I would have thought that New York already had enough prostitutes.

As for Rush, well . . . . he can be funny, even if you disagree with him.

StinkMonkey wrote:
"I'd like to make a suggestion. If this is truly the way this website is supposed to be run, I suggest the people who have posting privileges put their political agendas in their back pockets. A post that immediately comes to mind was a guy posting an obviously one-sided review of Moore's movie. What on EARTH did that have to do with the RIAA. If you're supposed to stick to music related issues, then stick to it."

[to quote compmore: "loud, thunderous applause!"]

[and standing ovation thrown in for good measure!]

"So what you're saying is that if you happen to be a Republican acting as either a politician or an enterTAINTer, you suddenly become exempt from the rules huh?"

No, stupid. My point was they're radio show hosts, not that they're republicans.

"But you can't express an opinion if you happen to be Whoopi Goldeberg can you?"

Where the hell have you been? This whole thing is about how she expressed her opinion.

"If she were instead glamorizing W. SHRUb as being the chosen one..."

That depends. Is she glamorizing him in a mature manner, or is she be being drunk, vulgar, loud, sexual, and just showing terrible character overall while she's doing it? You idiots don't understand anything.


"The Republican attack dogs energized their base with their little e-mail newsgroups. They notify one another of each cult like, ritualistic responsibility that they’re expected to carry out like obedient puppets."

Wow. Lay off whatever the hell you've been injecting yourself with. You're a fricken lunatic.

Well, I finally found thumbtack's message that he posted awhile back. Here it is:

Date: July 10, 2004 @ 2:06 AM
And this discussion has what to do with music, the riaa and their lawyers?

You want to rant about the upcoming election? Great! go to Moveover or any number of the political websites out there where this type of bullshit is welcome. Send Michael Moore's fat ass a Valentine? Fantastic, do it at his fucking website. Give Ashcroft a kiss on the lips? Fine, just don't do it here.

This isn't boycott-Bush.com or boycott-Kerry.com; it's BOYCOTT-RIAA.COM

This website was founded with one purpose in mind, and that was to FIGHT THE RIAA. I can hear their snickering in DC now.
GET OFF YOUR ASS, FIGHT THE RIAA NOT EACH OTHER. IF YOU"RE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

Bil Evans
founder of boycott-riaa (until like an idiot he sold it to a lawyer)

At another point in a marathon discussion about politics, Bill fired off an additional rebuke:

"Let's see some of our passion turned back onto the RIAA, folks. . ."

Amen DemandTheTruth.
Yea, since when did anyone on this site give a rats ass about whoopi or slimfast?

Now we've gone from an endless rant about political shit to an endless rant about what YOU guys think should be ALLOWED on these forums.

I'm against meaningless arguments of any sort....including people complaining why this website doesn't only post what they want.

Relax, the RIAA news will come and everybody can get properly motivated to contact our representatives or write letters to our local newspapers to get out the message.

With regards to the political bullshit and those who feed off of it, these rants and ravings wouldn't get far if after the offending article was posted, no one submitted to the thread. It's all fine and good to criticize the owners of the website about allowing offending content, but when you enter into the fray just to shout and scream how this thread or that thread has no place here, then YOU are becoming part of the problem.

Easy job, don't care about the article, don't post a comment...and it will pass down the list as it is replaced by another article.

If it seems like every other article is not to your taste, maybe a foray into the internet's tower of babel can net you a perfectly designed website, scuplted with loving care with only YOU in mind.

C'mon guys....live to learn, it all doesn't have to enter your brain at 100 MB/s.

You know, maybe Pinemikey is right.
Maybe I'll stop paying attention to thumbtack, awehr, compmore, StinkMonkey, surfside6, and other voices of reason -- and just forget about what the stated objectives of this website are. After all, what's a mission statement other than just a perfunctory, well-articulated bunch of words to look and sound nice? Heaven forbid that we bind ourselves to lofty goals and promises, and try to remain on track with what counts!

Yeah, maybe I'll just retreat to that mythical cyberspace tower of babel where there exists a perfectly designed website. One where there is no need for improvement, OR one where a plea for improvement isn't mistaken as a plea for perfection!
It's all or nothing, right? No improvement needed, or go for total perfection, or give up. Wonderful.

Yeah, maybe I will leave.
Maybe that's what would make the webmasters happy, too. That way, there'd be less pressure for things to be improved.

"No, stupid. My point was they're radio show hosts, not that they're republicans."

Yes, extreme right wing radio show hosts acting as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, so what's your point exactly? Who didn't already know that they were radio hosts? Aren't you just stating the obvious?

"Where the hell have you been? This whole thing is about how she expressed her opinion."

I've been right here comprehending the whole scenario just fine. Where the hell have you been? She expressed her opinion and was then punished for doing so. Is that your vision for this country?

"That depends. Is she glamorizing him in a mature manner, or is she be being drunk, vulgar, loud, sexual, and just showing terrible character overall while she's doing it? You idiots don't understand anything."

So it's a matter of your own personal pseudo-morality? I understand well, you would like exclusive authority in deeming what is or isn't considered appropriate. The world doesn't revolve around you pal.

“Wow. Lay off whatever the hell you've been injecting yourself with. You're a fricken lunatic.”

So my presenting you with facts makes me a lunatic? What a deluded life you must lead. Stick your head back down in the sand where it belongs.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1171738/posts

“..Irate Republican activists began burning up the Internet with calls to boycott Slim-Fast and Internet links to send protest emails to the company and its parent, Unilever.
The anti-Slim-Fast activists also traded proposed language for protest letters and phone calls as well as information on which alternate diet shake was the best substitute…”

"Maybe I'll stop paying attention to thumbtack, awehr, compmore, StinkMonkey, surfside6, and other voices of reason -- and just forget about what the stated objectives of this website are. After all, what's a mission statement other than just a perfunctory, well-articulated bunch of words to look and sound nice? Heaven forbid that we bind ourselves to lofty goals and promises, and try to remain on track with what counts!

Yeah, maybe I'll just retreat to that mythical cyberspace tower of babel where there exists a perfectly designed website. One where there is no need for improvement, OR one where a plea for improvement isn't mistaken as a plea for perfection!
It's all or nothing, right? No improvement needed, or go for total perfection, or give up. Wonderful."

Be sarcastic all you want...but the reality is that this site, like the internet will evolve on it's own. IT DOESN"T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE IMPROVED EVERY NANOSECOND.

I'm sure the webmasters aren't feeling so much pressure from you that they are at the point of jumping off a bridge to escape your brilliant second by second endless plans to improve the website.

Seriously, I agree with your ideals but like I said to someone months ago when this very same argument came up, get ahold of leflaw and ask if you can join the editorial team. If they need help, I'm sure they'll welcome your input.

I'm sorry if I was coming across in a nasty way, but jeez, like I said, post to threads that interest you and not to those which don't. Submit news, like I do, when you find something you think would be appropriate. If the editorial staff post your article fine, if not, try again.

To demand (or even think you're bringing pressure on) how or what or where articles are posted is not your place in this website. Join the staff and help from within.

It's now 3pm somehwere in North America - As this very relevant posting on the Whoopie-Slim Fast-Election? controversy carries on.

It's hurting, Make it Stop...Make It Stop!

And to think I was going to post this, read it and thought, nah, it'll never fly

PS, if you want to do some serious bitching, on off topic matters, have a look at this;

'Secret film shows Iraq prisoners sodomised'
By Charles Arthur, Technology Editor

16 July 2004

Young male prisoners were filmed being sodomised by American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, according to the journalist who first revealed the abuses there.

story here
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=541472

more info and links on Codes site I'm sure you all know where. http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/

"Yes, extreme right wing radio show hosts acting as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, so what's your point exactly?"

No stupid. For the last time, my point is that they're radio show hosts. The same goes for the Democratic ones as well.

"Where the hell have you been? She expressed her opinion and was then punished for doing so. Is that your vision for this country?"

First of all, I've been right here posting about 100 of the 220 posts. Secondly, yes that's my vision for this country. You have no concept of what the first amendment means. It doesn't say you don't face consequences for your actions you stupid shit. It says you can't be punished by the government.

"So it's a matter of your own personal pseudo-morality?"

No you fucking idiot. It's a matter of her having an endorsement deal with Slim Fast. If you are signed as a "hired face" for someone's product and you act in any way that they don't like, they will fir e you for not representing them the way they please. It had nothing to do with the fact that she insulted Bush and everything to do with the way she did it.

"So my presenting you with facts makes me a lunatic? What a deluded life you must lead. Stick your head back down in the sand where it belongs."

No, presenting me with a psychotic bullshit conspiracy theory makes you a lunatic.

Thanks for the link... freerepublic.com. You just sent me a site full of right wing activists saying the same shit you're saying. Thanks but no thanks. You're an idiot. Even the people who disagree with me wouldn't send me that garbage.

"Yeah, maybe I will leave.
Maybe that's what would make the webmasters happy, too."

They put up the article, so they must be happy that we're discussing it.

hmm, change the way they "please" to the way they "want." I don't remember typing that

One last parting shot:
I probably wouldn't join the staff because research reveals past inconsistency in the management of this site. FOR EXAMPLE: There is reason to believe that as recent as a year ago, CodeWarrior was chided for being too verbose if not too political. According to information I could find, he left for awhile, too.
That was then; this is now!
Now, not only political but other off-track topics (straying far from the mission statement of goals) are commonplace.
The words of Bill Evans will not be silenced:
"And this discussion has what to do with music, the riaa and their lawyers?"
Really.

"The words of Bill Evans will not be silenced:
"And this discussion has what to do with music, the riaa and their lawyers?""

Bill Evans is a nice guy, but even he will begin to think you want a statue of him on a horse outside the offices of Boycott-RIAA.com.

Do you want your views published? Submit them. Will they get published? Maybe...maybe not.

Please don't get on like you're fighting the british at valley forge.

I think he's saying that there's no better person to listen to when debating the purpose of this site than the original founder of it.

TheSherminator hit the bullseye!

To be fair - credit where credit is due: Today's news articles approved for this website are right on track!

(I meant "for me to be fair".)

Here is something to really worry about

http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=2342

French downloaders to have internet connections shut down

(Sorry, I was remiss: Yesterday's news articles were all pertinent as well.)

Pepe512000, this is really something (what you referred to). I'll quote in part from that site:

"A co-operation agreement between French internet services providers (ISP) and the music industry is due to be signed under the initiative of the French Ministries of Industry, Culture and Finance.

Under the new agreement, which aims to promote legal music downloading sites such as Apple’s iTunes, regular offenders could have their internet connection terminated.

According to the agreement, the termination of the account of a regular offender could be implemented very quickly. In a few hours a judge will be able to order an ISP to shut down a connection at the request of a record label monitoring peer-to-peer networks. In the past, such requests would have to be submitted to a penal court with the inconvenience of long procedure and disproportionate – and thus unpopular - fines of up to €300,000 and sentences of up to three years in jail."

Wow, that's amazing, isn't it? I wonder if the RIAA will try that ploy here? (And if it'll fly, legally.)

DemandTheTruth

I just caught this today and yes, I did send it in, I think we all need to be on our toes for this one.... this is brutal!

I'm sure the record industry will be watching closely and learning, (perhaps they have even instigated this) and yes, I'm also sure they'll try this over here...when you think about it, it probably is the only way to kill p2p filesharing

I guess it would "selective killing", because some file-sharing is legitimate - and even professional.

That reminds me, isn't there already some law like this on the books in the Netherlands?

DemandTheTruth Concerning Netherlands, I thought they were pretty neutral, like Canada thus far.... if someone knows better, let us know...

I meant: I guess it would be "selective killing" . . .

About The Netherlands - I'll try to find out and report back.

Pepe agreed wholeheartedly. Leflaw could end this and get the site back on track to it's origional purpose with a click of the mouse if that's his wish.

Pine monkey every orginazation that is developed has a mission statement or boundries about what it allows. there are plenty of places on the internet where forums, disscussion groups and websites allow these things because that's part of their individual goals. Free speech isn't being threatened. When a site like this becomes a free for all for rants on anything it looses it's effectiveness and doesn't do a thing to further our fight. if that's what the moderators of this site want, that's their right I guess.

As far as pertinent recording industry news, it's avaliable every day. go to P2P net.net or Bill Evans new site Imira.org among many others along with the major media. the stories are out there and I highly doubt with the current feeding freenzy going on with this site many will see it. much of it is lost in the shuffle when it does get posted.

Carey Sherman must be laughing his head off at us by now

“No stupid. For the last time, my point is that they're radio show hosts. The same goes for the Democratic ones as well.”

So when then can we expect Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’reilly to lose their jobs or at least be reprimanded for consistently demonstrating an overt lack of class you pile of swill? Bush’s FCC had no trouble’s fining Howard Stern now did they? Are you that much of a moron that you can’t see this? The double standard is glaring! If we’re going to go around imposing talk show morals onto people, shouldn’t the leaders of the “free world” be setting an example themselves? I say fuck Slim Fast and FUCK YOU too!

”First of all, I've been right here posting about 100 of the 220 posts. Secondly, yes that's my vision for this country. You have no concept of what the first amendment means. It doesn't say you don't face consequences for your actions you stupid shit. It says you can't be punished by the government.”

You anti-American idiot, you’d gladly give up all of your rights in an instant. Why not move to North Korea where everything you do is monitored and controlled by the powers that be? You abhor freedom! If you are so offended by free speech and support censorship, let me duct tape your mouth shut then. The point is, she didn’t do anything wrong in the first place, in fact our own president and vice president have said and done far worse things. I don’t hear you griping about that you pitiful babbler.

”No you fucking idiot. It's a matter of her having an endorsement deal with Slim Fast. If you are signed as a "hired face" for someone's product and you act in any way that they don't like, they will fir e you for not representing them the way they please. It had nothing to do with the fact that she insulted Bush and everything to do with the way she did it.”

You are so aloof to reality, you don’t think that this had anything to do with politics? I guarantee if her comment was about anyone else (other than a republican) none of this would’ve ever happened. Republicans are traditionally thin skinned and can’t handle a joke, that’s what this is about. Slim Fast simply caved in to the pressure in order to save face.

”No, presenting me with a psychotic bullshit conspiracy theory makes you a lunatic.

Thanks for the link... freerepublic.com. You just sent me a site full of right wing activists saying the same shit you're saying. Thanks but no thanks. You're an idiot. Even the people who disagree with me wouldn't send me that garbage.”

So any truths that you’ve already decided that you don’t want to believe are now conspiracies? You can’t handle the facts can you? What you are experiencing is a common mental ailment known as cognitive dissonance. You’re just like the rest of the programmed robots with unplugged brain stems and partial lobotomies. A typical, gullible Fox News junkie that swallows all of the bullshit, hook, line & sinker. And about the link, I figured a clearly anti-American dipshit like you might find such a ludicrous source as credible. I had to stoop to your rudimentary level. But I guess you classify everything as being a conspiracy theory. Anything that you disagree with apparently? So much easier that way isn’t it? That way you can feel justified in wallowing in your own pitiful delusions.

pime example

Hey pal, it's pinemikey not pine monkey

Here's some information about The Netherlands - apparently the original information someone had passed along to me was incorrect.

"A court case against file-sharing service Kazaa helped stir up the confusion. Dutch royalties agency Buma/Stemra sought an injunction against Kazaa to stop it from distributing a file-sharing utility and allowing copyrighted material to be swapped on its network. But the judges in the case said Kazaa could not be responsible for the illegal actions of others. Buma/Stemra has appealed the decision to the Dutch Supreme Court.

But in the meantime the rumor has spread that the Netherlands is a shelter for file-sharing companies. Lawyers on both sides of the Dutch Kazaa case say that's just not true.

"The Netherlands is no haven for peer-to-peer computing," said Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm, a partner at Solv, the Dutch law firm representing Kazaa.

Thijm's opponents in the court action agreed. "This case does not mean that the Netherlands is a legal-free haven," said Buma/Stemra spokesman George Knops.

No matter the outcome of the Kazaa case, other file-sharing companies could still face legal action in the Netherlands. And even if Kazaa wins the appeal, the judgment would apply to Kazaa alone and won't prevent the company from being sued by someone else.

Moreover, the European Union Copyright Directive has begun work to synthesize copyright law throughout the union's 15 member countries, including the Netherlands. That, too, could affect the legal status of file-sharing companies.

As Dutch case law stands, file sharing is legal and companies that distribute file-sharing utilities are not responsible for how people use the services -- at least in the Netherlands.

"The Netherlands is the only country in the world where that issue is clear, but I'm very much against describing the country as a (piracy) 'haven,'" said Thijm. "It's not."

"So when then can we expect Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’reilly to lose their jobs or at least be reprimanded for consistently demonstrating an overt lack of class you pile of swill?"

God you illiterate dolt. We're talking about an endorsment deal.

"So any truths that you’ve already decided that you don’t want to believe are now conspiracies? "

You're an idiot man. I give up on you. You don't even argue, you just talk shit, unlike me who can do both at the same time.

"You anti-American idiot..."

HAHAHAHAHA. Oh man. You just laid into me for all kinds of pro-republican bullshit and you pull a Bill O'Reilly on me. Haha.

You win the argument. I give up =))

"A typical, gullible Fox News junkie that swallows all of the bullshit, hook, line & sinker. "

You fool. I'm adamantly against FoxNews. Anyone here will tell you that.

"But I guess you classify everything as being a conspiracy theory. Anything that you disagree with apparently? So much easier that way isn’t it? That way you can feel justified in wallowing in your own pitiful delusions."

For someone who bashes O'Reilly et. al so much, you sure did a great job of bashing the hell out of me there without saying A DAMN THING of any substance. You ought to work for FoxNews, you could take O'Reilly's place.

"We at Slim-Fast trust the public understands that the way in which Whoopi Goldberg chose to express her own personal beliefs at the recent fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall does not reflect the views and values of Slim-Fast," Terry Olson, Slim-Fast general manager, said in a press release Wednesday."

This would've been a commendable statement, IF their corresponding actions had actually backed it up. So they're claim is that they actually trust the general public in being able to understand that Whoopi WAS NOT speaking on behalf of Slim Fast when she made her statements? Anyone with even a slight amount of intelligence should be able to figure that much out. So if what Slim Fast says is TRUE, why then did they find it necessary to fire her? If they truly have enough faith in us to believe that we (the public) are capable of make that distinction, why take such drastic measures? Either they are lying, or they are simply pandering to the right and protecting Bush from GOD FORBID, criticism. When Clinton was in office, off color jokes were readily accepted and even promoted. Why now all of a sudden the change of tune? What specifically did she say that was just so over the top offensive that we couldn’t handle it? She talked about her own bush, and the Bush in office. It’s a word that you can find in any legitimate dictionary. Is this the precedent we’re setting? That a company should be able to arbitrarily fire people based solely upon benign statements? Do we know have to walk around in fear of losing our jobs because we dare to have a sense of humor? That’s the Republican way, pro-corporate corruption, screw the worker!

DemandTheTruth

Yup, thats pretty much Canada's stand as well, as I said, for now.

Compmore

Leflaw must be on vacation when he sees all this, he just may delete it all, and personally, I wouldn't consider that censorship, just a good business practice. I have a good idea as to the cost to keep this sites space up and running, and the privilege for our being here. It's humungus!

This post has become boycotts energizer bunny, it just keeps going and going and going...three days now! We're striving for 300 posts....thats it, it's a contest and someone forget to tell me!

I agree with you that Bush is a lousy president and that America has been in better shape under pretty much any other president. But your problem is you think that has something do with endorsement contracts.

And here's another thing, does anyone actually believe that this is the very first time that she's ever engaged in "off color" humor? If it wasn't a problem before, why all of a sudden is it such a monumental cataclysm now?

I'm discussing the issues that the admins on this site feel are necessary that we discuss, that's all =)

Pepe512000,
That last paragraph you wrote had me rolling in tears of laughter! We needed that comic relief! Superb!

I'm not trying to attack you Sherm, we probably had a misunderstanding as to where we were coming from. What you're saying is absolutely correct, Whoopi would have certain contractual obligations to abide by. What I'm saying is, Slim Fast knew what they were getting themselves into when choosing her to endorse their product. I apologize though for my foul tone.

"And here's another thing, does anyone actually believe that this is the very first time that she's ever engaged in "off color" humor?"

No. Everbody knows she's done it before.

"If it wasn't a problem before, why all of a sudden is it such a monumental cataclysm now?"

You don't understand. It ISN'T a monumental cataclysm now. It's just that she crossed the line in a way that Slim Fast did not like and given that the relationship between them is an endorsement deal (i.e. image is everything), she was let go. That's how endorsement deals work. It's how they always have, and how they always will.

For instance, say a high profile celeberty has an endorsement deal with, say.. Pepsi. That high profile celeberty stands up in front of a large group of people and says "I have sexual fantasies about children all the time..."

Now, according to both you and me, that is protected under the 1st amendment. He can say what he wants without fear of punishment from the government. Where we differ is that you think Pepsi (or whoever) should not be allowed to terminate the endorsement deal between them. That is not how Pepsi would want to be represented.

It isn't hard to understand.

"Slim Fast knew what they were getting themselves into when choosing her to endorse their product. "

I agree. I think they're idiots for choosing her too. But that isn't relevant at all. That doesn't change the terms of the contract.

"I apologize though for my foul tone."

Then I apologize for mine as well =)

"“That high profile celeberty stands up in front of a large group of people and says "I have sexual fantasies about children all the time..."

But you do understand that basically announcing the fact that you're a pedophile is far more extreme than what Whoopi said right? I concur that in some cases, these actions would be warranted. I don't however feel that this happens to be one of them. This of course is my own personal opinion and Slim Fast has the power to authorize their own decisions unabated. I simply disagree with their position. I strongly feel that the decision that they made was strongly influenced by behind the scenes political pressuring. This of course is just a theory of mine and I don’t have corroborating evidence to back it up.

I feel that Whoopi is first and foremost a comedian (although not very funny) and shouldn't be expected to alter or modify her behavior in order to appease Slim Fast, which is just a side job. She wasn't at a Slim Fast convention, what she did had nothing to do with them.

TheSherminator wrote:
"I'm discussing the issues that the admins on this site feel are necessary that we discuss, that's all =) "

Another bullseye!
Right on!
As long as we get these types of news articles, I'm in favor of running them into the ground with myriads of posts until the space used up becomes a concern . . . and maybe even censoring could kick in. At least, that way, the desired effect of not having these types of articles put to us in the first place might be less likely. Pragmatism. Whatever it takes.

(Substitute "more likely" for "less likely".)

BTW, I really do hope everything under this news article -- all 240 to 250 posts -- gets deleted.
Fine.
At least, point made.

DemandTheTruth

Ah, Wait a minute, what post number was my funny made at? It gets to stay right? :0)

Nice to see that Sherm and Knowthis have FINALLY kissed and made up..this has been like a bad soap opera day. I just like to tune in every once in awhile

"Nice to see that Sherm and Knowthis have FINALLY kissed and made up..this has been like a bad soap opera day. I just like to tune in every once in awhile "

We have reconciled our differences, but no kissing was involved I assure you. I'm as straight as an arrow as far as my sexuality is concerned. And as far as our discourse being percieved as a bad soap opera, it wasn't desgned to entertain. We were simply choosing to remain on topic, the topic of this thread like we're supposed to. If anyone takes issue with the content of our postings, they should first consider the themes of the subject headings that they willingly choose to post under.

"Slim-Fast fires Whoopi Goldberg"

Did we argue at first yes, but who hasn't thus far?

This post has become boycotts energizer bunny, it just keeps going and going and going...three days now! We're striving for 300 posts....thats it, it's a contest and someone forget to tell me!

Pepe I think this is what he was laughing at.

KNOWTHIS

Actually, I'm trying to think of someone on this board who hasn't faced opposition, even mild mannered me, at one time or another.

The people and opinions on this board are as diverse as the stars above, and personally, I think it's great! It would be a pretty dull place if we all chose to agree to agree all the time.

I think no matter what, we all still come back to our original position of our stand against the music industry, and that news item on the French disconnecting file sharers internet connections? That's why. This battle is far from over, as long as they keep coming up with new ingenius ways to thwart us.... time to get back to work!

My intentions are not to incite an all out flame war here. Mudslinging of any kind is in no way productive to our causes and achieving our goals. For that reason I officially apologized to Sherm for my outbursts. I, on the contrary to many other posters here happen to think that this thread is quite relevant to the issues at hand. There's much more to this problem than just the attack against file sharing networks, there's a larger context to acknowledge. It's an all out war against personal freedom, on all fronts. Our freedoms are slowly dissolving with the enactment of the Patriot Act. But US citizens have grown accustomed to being stripped of their liberties. They have a tendency to remain complacent until that one right that they value most is challenged. Howard Stern was hypocritical in that way. He was only concerned with the first amendment when it starting effecting him personally, threatening his career. Up until then he was a staunch Bush advocate even? Now of course he's on a mission to remove him from office. All I'm trying to say is that if you were paying attention, this was coming, a long, long time ago. The media has a way of ignoring certain bills that are passed right under our noses. Our freedoms are disappearing at an alarming rate, and US citizens remain passive. Don’t make the mistake of believing that these events are all unrelated. Don’t give the government the power to amend and essentially undermine the sanctity of our Constitution just because they decide it’s time to change it. The gay marriage debacle is nothing more than a wedge issue designed to distract and to divide. I would just like to applaud the Webmaster for possessing the presence of mind to see the broader picture.

Hell yeah! Pepe, I'm with you that one all the way!

"But you do understand that basically announcing the fact that you're a pedophile is far more extreme than what Whoopi said right?"

Yes, that's the point. It's easier to understand the situation if illustrated with a more extreme example. And you just basically admitted that that wouldn't be a violation of free speech either. Case closed.

"There's much more to this problem than just the attack against file sharing networks, there's a larger context to acknowledge."

Everybody knows that. But where do you draw the line? People coming to this site to learn about the RIAA are going to read crap like this or stuff about the patriot act or whatever else and wonder wtf we're talking about. That talk needs to be confined to the discussions below the articles 99% of the time.

"He was only concerned with the first amendment when it starting effecting him personally, threatening his career. "

Everybody's like that. Look at Christopher Reeve. I don't remember him trying to help cripples when he was raking in millions playing superman.

"I would just like to applaud the Webmaster for possessing the presence of mind to see the broader picture."

We all see the broader picture, man. It's a matter of how effective it is to our cause (boycotting the RIAA) to post articles about 100% of the huge broad picture. After a certain point everything is related to everything else. I agree with what you're saying here.. but it's too much for what is supposed to be the scope of this site.

In other words, it is not conducive to education (yes, people need to be educated on these other things as well, but not at the expense of easing up on the RIAA).

"The gay marriage debacle is nothing more than a wedge issue designed to distract and to divide."

And to ensure that the far right is lured to the polls.

Pepe512000 wrote:
"DemandTheTruth, what post number was my funny made at? It gets to stay, right? :0)"

Compmore was correct, this is the one:
Date: July 17, 2004 @ 6:13 PM
"This post has become boycott's energizer bunny, it just keeps going and going and going...three days now! We're striving for 300 posts....that's it, it's a contest and someone forgot to tell me! "

That was hilarious! It made my day. (And it had BETTER NOT get deleted; it's too good.)
BTW, I was out of pocket from about 5 p.m. until just now (about 11:30 pm).
I see the marathon continues unabated . . .

I might find it hard to resist commenting on something that was written while I was out and about:
I'm going to paraphrase an opinion from KNOWTHIS; basically, KNOWTHIS is satisfied with a policy of focusing on a broad picture of news events because of what he feels is the interconnectness of things. I have to defer to TheSherminator because, as he wrote in these exerpts:
"We all see the broader picture, man. It's a matter of how effective it is to our cause (boycotting the RIAA) to post articles about 100% of the huge broad picture. After a certain point everything is related to everything else. I agree with what you're saying here... but it's too much for what is supposed to be the scope of this site."

And TheSherminator said this too: ..."Where do you draw the line? People coming to this site to learn about the RIAA are going to read crap like this (topic of Whoopi & Slim-Fast) and wonder wtf . . ."

BTW, he also said these broad issues are conducive to education, but that they should not be emphasized at the expense of easing up on the RIAA.

Those were really good perspectives.

I had written earlier about how we were pleased to see that with both yesterday's and today's postings of news articles, almost all pertain to relevant matters that the site would be expected to pursue in keeping with its stated goals.
That is gratifying, and I feel like I can ease up a bit for awhile . . .

What to do when there is no live Saturday Night Live?

I have laughed till my sides ache at Sherm and KNOWTHIS insulting each other.

Here is Whoopi Goldberg's statement after being fired by Slim Fast in a New York Daily News Article.

"I find all this feigned indignation about 'Bush bashing' quite disingenuous," she said, noting the Bush administration has savagely gone after critics like former Sen. Max Cleland, Iraq whistleblower Joseph Wilson and ex-terrorism chief Richard Clarke.

"For the Republican Party to pretend this is new to them seems a little fake," she said.

"The fact that I am no longer the spokesman for SlimFast makes me sad, but not as sad as someone trying to punish me for exercising my right as an American to speak my mind."

Whoopi made an excellent point. Everyone's freedom of speech is endangered. I believe that this issue is pertinent in our fight against the RIAA. I wonder if everyone remembers last summer when CNN, FOX, and other corporate media giants' provided lopsided coverage in favor of the record giants when the RIAA story broke last summer.
Why did they stiffle protesters voices? Because they owned the media companies. A similar mindset is evolving nationwide.

What happened to American's first amendment rights? They're solely being "bought out" by corporate interests. Since the Bush administration has innumerable ties to corporate interests, so, it's no surprise that this censorshiop would extend
to the man himself. Those who argue that censorship is no worse under Bush than previous administrations should pay attention to the "free speech zones" that are becoming a norm in this country. Here are some examples:
1. | 2 .
It's not just this administration who's doing this either since Democrats are also doing the same thing. They are restricting free speech for anti-abortion protesters at the democratic convention this month.


Carla's right that Whoopi has the right to free speech. And that Slim Fast had the right to fire her. But, all I'm saying that it's part of a pattern. That every Americans rights - whether their liberal or conservative - are being threatened by these corporate interests. Yes, we might not agree with everything a person has to say -- but at the same time -- they should have the right to say it.

The common man, woman, etc; in this country doesn't have the monetary leverage or political clout to ensure that our constitutional rights, and our rights under the bill of rights, will be ensured. Of course, the check of powers is supposed to protect them. But these checks are being worn away by corporations who are able to buy the laws they want.

I dunno if I made sense...but, I'm sick of the back biting. These differences in opinion are used by political parties to maintain power. Agh. Anyway, it's scary.

Grrr...guesses there's no HTML in the posts LOL.
Here they are again:
1. http://baltimorechronicle.com/052704FreeSpeechZones.shtml
2. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL&type=printable

The last one concerning the Democratic convention's barring of anti-abortion protest may be found here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0220-02.htm

"We might not agree with everything a person has to say -- but at the same time -- they should have the right to say it."

Hmm, Sherminator might respond that Whoopi has a right to speak her mind without interference from the government. She did, and the Bill of Rights protected her in that way.

Mroop (an attorney) has likewise spoken; he weighed in with:
"This is the First Amendment:

'CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'

This is NOT the First Amendment:

'SLIM-FAST shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'"

Codewarrior apparently did make an appearance in this weighty matter. We wonder what his comment would be.

This article is headed for a record number of posts, but some of us members don't think it deserves this much attention - and even question the relevance of having the article included on this site in the first place - by virtue of this website's mission statement of goals, and by virtue of the impression visitors might get by wondering what this type of topic has to do with our stated stance against the Recording Industry Association of America.

We can easily know where thumbtack (Bill Evans, the founder of this website) stands in regard to determining whether a topic or a conversation is worthwhile to be on a forum; this is his litmus test:
"And this discussion has what to do with music, the RIAA and their lawyers?"

TheSherminator wrote: "DemandTheTruth is saying there's no better person to listen to when debating the purpose of this site than the original founder of it."

Thumbtack, awehr, compmore, StinkMonkey, surfside6, TheSherminator, DemandTheTruth, and others share something in common - a strong belief that we need to stay on track with what matters - beginning with choice of news articles.

In fairness, the last two days have seen all approved articles to be pertinent and relevant.

BTW, the use of the phrase "weighty matter" in my previous post was akin to sarcasm.

"Everyone's freedom of speech is endangered."

I agree. But Whoopi being fired isn't a manifestation of that threat in any way shape or form.

This is going to be a contest to see who gets to be number 300. Hey Leflaw, does the 300th pollster get a prize??

I'm off till tomorrow. I think I'll go to my neighbors boy scout meeting and stand up and protest them not letting gays in. also at church tomorrow I'll stand and call the pastor a facist because he's intollerant of athiests. After all it's my right as a free American. goodnight

It certainly is. But no bitching if you lose any endorsement deals

Well, it's not like Whoopie can't find work in Hollywood.

I'm a little conflicted. *I* wouldn't want to be fired for having an opinion, and I feel my job hasn't got any right to pry into what I do off the clock. But Whoopie is a public figure, and as an endorsement job it was pretty much her job to walk around giving Slim Fast a good name. Maybe Slim Fast doesn't want to be linked with any political speech at all, I'm sure if she'd been at the Republican fundraiser and made vulgar jokes there, she'd be in the same boat.

“Yes, that's the point. It's easier to understand the situation if illustrated with a more extreme example. And you just basically admitted that that wouldn't be a violation of free speech either. Case closed.”

I haven’t really admitted anything. Using an overly dramatic example changes the entire integrity of the argument. With the hypothetical case of molestation, your insinuating a form of child abuse punishable by law. Whoopi Goldberg in theory, harmed no one, and certainly not by law. To make that comparison isn’t even reasonable.

“Everybody knows that. But where do you draw the line? People coming to this site to learn about the RIAA are going to read crap like this or stuff about the patriot act or whatever else and wonder wtf we're talking about. That talk needs to be confined to the discussions below the articles 99% of the time.”

Everyone keeps complaining about this thread, yet they seem to focus such a great deal of their attention to it anyway? If people were truly interested in re-directing the discussions away from this particular topic, why the incessant replies? How do you think this thread accumulated “300” “useless” posts in the first place, they’re your own posts. Not a single person that has taken the time to post a message in this thread has any reason to complain seeing as how they are contributing to the so called “problem”.

“Everybody's like that. Look at Christopher Reeve. I don't remember him trying to help cripples when he was raking in millions playing superman”

Well, the “everyone does it” argument does it make it right or a good thing.

“We all see the broader picture, man. It's a matter of how effective it is to our cause (boycotting the RIAA) to post articles about 100% of the huge broad picture. After a certain point everything is related to everything else. I agree with what you're saying here.. but it's too much for what is supposed to be the scope of this site.”

That’s why there are separate threads for separate topics. If you don’t feel that this particular one is relevant, by all means ignore it. You mean to tell me that this one measly thread is so potent that it renders the rest of this website useless and ineffective? If you narrow your focus too much, you’ll also narrow the potential results of your cause.

“BTW, he also said these broad issues are conducive to education, but that they should not be emphasized at the expense of easing up on the RIAA.”

At what point did I suggest that we ease up on the RIAA? Just because I choose not to approach a discussion with blinders on? Your plan is to attack the symptoms of a problem instead of the actual cause. It’s a self-defeating purpose.

"But Whoopie is a public figure, and as an endorsement job it was pretty much her job to walk around giving Slim Fast a good name"

So she has to become a bore and never tell a joke simply because the owners of Slim Fast are uptight douche bags? The only thing Slim Fast was concerned about was losing the business of all the lethargic, fat ass Republicans that use their product and might not anymore just because Whoopi insulted the president.

"I'm off till tomorrow. I think I'll go to my neighbors boy scout meeting and stand up and protest them not letting gays in. also at church tomorrow I'll stand and call the pastor a facist because he's intollerant of athiests. After all it's my right as a free American. goodnight"

Exactly, in some countries that privilege doesn't even exist. That's one of the reasons that this country is as valuable as it is. Would you rather be instructed what to say or think? Would you prefer a dictator like Saddam intimidating you with fear & torture in order to essentially control you? Do you feel threatened by openly expressed opinions? Just because you might disagree with something, doesn't mean that someone else shouldn't be able to think it out loud.

My thoughts on this.

1) Whoopi and I were born on the same day (not joking) ...so, if there is anything to the astrology (Western astrology) stuff...she wouldn't REALLY give a crap about losing that Slim Fast account.

2) They haven't killed free speech altogether (or I wouldn't be around)..and thus, Good on Ya Whoop!

3) Off to see Will Smith in iROBOT

http://www.freeexpression.org/

(this excerpt says it all)
"…The conundrum here is advertisers like to be associated with hot stars, but they can't stand the heat," said show-business historian Tom O'Neil, author of The Emmys and Movie Awards. "Stars become hot because they are anti-establishment, they are rebels. The sponsors are the establishment, so they hired these people and then minute they open their mouths, they drop them…”

before going to the movie...one last comment...
"How dare this actress say something negative about Mein Fuhrer...she must be a terrorist...such things are not allowed in the New Amerikan Reich...
she might hurt the Little Dictator's Feelings...."

Oh by the way, wasn't it sad that the administration "accidentally destroyed" King George the W's military records and then couldn't find any backups...
and...isn't it odd that the AP had to sue, and get a judge to order the Austin repository to release their records...but they haven't released them yet....

"So she has to become a bore and never tell a joke simply because the owners of Slim Fast are uptight douche bags?"

You still don't get it. It wasn't about her being a fun time and a funny person. It was about her making a complete ass of herself in front of a number of people. Since she represents Slim Fast wherever she goes, then Slim Fast can fire her if they don't like it. To be honest with you, if Slim Fast thinks she's too boring then they can drop her for that too.

"Just because you might disagree with something, doesn't mean that someone else shouldn't be able to think it out loud."

Exactly. But you're still confusing responsibility with freedom. Have you read my above posts? What if you go up to your boss and tell him you hate him and he can eat shit? Then you get fired. Do you honestly think that's a violation of your free speech? You still don't get it - Whoopi exercised her right to free speech and everything went EXACTLY according to our forefathers' plan... the government of the United States stayed out of it.

Ok, let's just settle this now. I'm going to post a copy of the first amendment here, and you tell me which part was violated:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

Opened my eyes, pinched me, yup, it's still happening here, the dawning of day four , aiy yi yi yi yi yi yi - I'm going back to bed . I'd love to send this to Whoopi, she would be really impressed!

Codewarrior said ......

"she wouldn't REALLY give a crap about losing that Slim Fast account".....listen to the man!!!

Night, night......

good morning all. knowthis, that remark of mine was sarcasam if you didn't know that. r

eguardless of our opinions there is a time and place to voice them. do you stand up in the middle of your cousins wedding and start badmouthing your aunt because she's mean and nasty? it may be true but not apropriate. I've got a son with multiple disabilities that hinders him from living without help. one of his disorders is called Asbergers Syndrome. look it up, I see a lot of people here who seem to have that same disorder.

You're right about one thing, we've all kept this thread going even though many of us doesn't think it should be here. I've noticed there are a lot of great relevant threads that have been posted in the past couple days. I'm going to check those out now. I'll be back to find out who's number 300. hopefully Leflaw will delete this and not allow anything like this again. but that's his choice. adios

BTW since we're soooooo off topic with this sites intent I'll keep off topic. I found out yesterday my son is home from Iraq. now I can sleep easier. bye

I understand what the first amendment states. What I'm saying is that these types of penalties are a dangerous step in the wrong direction. Corporations and government are becoming one in the same. Once the slippery slope is allowed to start, many other rights violations will follow.

"...A new survey, released by the First Amendment Center and conducted by
the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of
Connecticut, suggests that almost 40% of Americans would like the government
to step in to block tasteless comedy routines. In addition, a
majority would ban public comments — funny or not — that might
offend racial or religious groups...."

(Results taken from the survey below)

"...Among the findings:
• 39% of those surveyed said they favor government restrictions on
public performances of comedy routines that might make light of
or trivialize tragedies like the World Trade Center attacks or the
Oklahoma City bombing.
• 37% favored government restrictions on the performance of these
comedy routines on television.
• 63% said that people should not be allowed to say things in public
that might be offensive to racial groups.
• 58% said that people should not be allowed to say things in public
that might be offensive to religious groups.
• Americans apparently are most comfortable with potentially offensive
humor when it’s presented to a select audience that pays for
the privilege. For example, 78% of those surveyed said that comedians
should be able to perform potentially offensive comedy routines
on subscription cable channels like HBO, Cinemax and
Showtime. This level of support drops sharply to 58% if the same
routines would be broadcast on networks like NBC, CBS or ABC.
All of this suggests that a significant percentage of Americans are reluctant
to give full First Amendment protection to comedic speech, art or
performances that could potentially insult or offend others. There
appears to be a willingness to give up a little liberty in exchange for
fewer hurt feelings.
If that’s the case, we’re selling art and comedy short. Throughout the
history of this country, satire, humor, music and theater have helped
shape public thought, and in turn influenced public policy. From the
satire of Ben Franklin and Mark Twain to the biting cartoons of
Thomas Nast, from the comedy routines of Lenny Bruce to the scalding
skits of “Saturday Night Live,” Americans have used humor to
puncture the pompous and challenge the powers that be.
The right to tell a joke that may offend others is as critical to our way of life
as it is to stand on the proverbial soapbox and raise one’s voice in protest..."

I'm glad for you, comp.


And what's all this about this article being bad because it's off topic? It's great. We should spend all of our time discussing important issues like Whoopi Goldberg's relationship with a diet shake company. After all, what could be more applicable to the RIAA than this? I'll tell you what - nothing. Nothing is as relevant and as important as this. This article is our cause in a nutshell. That's why I am proud to show the admins here that I agree with them.. this is an important issue! /sarcasm

compmore So glad to hear your son is home and safe!!!!! What a great blessing!

thank you. now the real hard work begins. getting to know each other

"...that I agree with them.. this is an important issue! /sarcasm"

Your sentiment seems genuine seeing as how you've already surpassed 50 posts in this thread alone. You may even have more posts here than anyone else. Seems a bit contradictory based on your assessment of this subject don't you think Sherm?

Best of luck, comp. With the same genes, you never know what kind of stuff you may have in common.

right over your head, isn't it? I would never do this under a worthwhile article. My non-stop arguing serves two purposes. To tell you people that you're stupid, and to tell the person who decied to put this up that he/she is stupid. Take with you this new knowledge... and go back and read my sarcastic post under a whole new light. .. especially the parts where I justify all of my postings.

compmore

It'll work out for both of you, keep the faith! (in yourselves) and let us know every know and then how it's going eh?

Only a moron would justify intentionally wasting his own time, congratulations! Want a better website? CREATE YOUR OWN! Otherwise quit your goddamn bitching and whining like a fucking girl!

Knowthis are you really Mroop with another sign on identity??? just curious

"Only a moron would justify intentionally wasting his own time, congratulations!"

I never justified wasting my own time. You're too fucking stupid to understand what I said, that's all. I said what I was doing had TWO purposes. That means not only was I not wasting my time, but I was using my time TWICE as efficiently as yours. You stupid fuck.

"Otherwise quit your goddamn bitching and whining like a fucking girl!"

Wow, here we go again. First you pull a Bill O'Reilly on me after telling me how pro-republican *I* am, and then you call me a girl right in the middle of some insane unexplainable moodswing.

"Want a better website? CREATE YOUR OWN!"

This one's fine. It just needs to stay on topic more. Remember, we already discussed that? Oh.. right.. "My intentions are not to incite an all out flame war here."

I forgot how short of a memory you have.

Look people can we just leave this!?

No one is going to agree! No one is going to be happy at the outcome of this thread!

Lets agree to disagree, this is not an important topic. All this is doing is destroying my 56k connection waiting for the bottom of the page to load so I can see how many relevant comments there are.

"this is not an important topic"

Of course it is, otherwise they wouldn't have put it up here. Whoopi + Slim-Fast = end of days for the RIAA.

You guys are idiots

And I'm gonna be post #300.
~~

YAHOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER. CARLA60626, COMEON DOWN. MODERATOR, TELL HER WHAT SHE'S WON!!!!!!!!!!

Number 300 - what a way to distinguish oneself with such a noble achievement!
Within such a noble news article, too.

Who should get the bigger booby prize - the one who posted comment #300 or the one who posted the news article?

TheRealJFM : "...this is not an important topic"

TheSherminator: "Of course it is, otherwise they wouldn't have put it up here. Whoopi + Slim-Fast = end of days for the RIAA."

DemandTheTruth: Eureka! That's it!
Whoopi + SlimFast + 300 posts = end of days for the RIAA.

i win. im the best.

She had a right to say it and they had the right to decide that she should no longer represent their company.

Griping about other peoples pointless posts, with just that, an equally if not even more pointless post of their own, lol! And who's really the stupid one? Being responsible for derailing your own cause without even realizing it. It's nice to know that by my posting here, I can piss you off so easily. And that you'll lack the intellectual capacity to understand that if you really wanted this subject to go away you'd just ignore it. You can't resist the temptation of coming back, time & time again for the sole purpose of making a complete ass of yourself. Lured into this trap on a daily basis. Don't you ever learn? I'd suggest to the moderator that he toss a few more articles like this one into the mix just for fun. I didn't refer to anyone by name if you noticed, you know who you are. Your stupidity is entertainment for us all, keep it up!

Someone mention my boobies?

"Being responsible for derailing your own cause without even realizing it."

You're an idiot. Psuedointellectual lil kid.

By the way - you just pulled another Bill O'Reilly. Nothing you said was true, everything you said was unsupported, and you did nothing but try to insult my character.

Are we done discussing Whoopi and Slim Fast? So sad. It was such an important topic too. (look, I just "derailed" my own cause "without realizing it.")

This posting, It's like a train wreck isn't it? Sickening, yet we're compelled to look?

Oh Carla, there are so many ways we could come at yeah for that one.... boobies indeed!

Now we're just striving to see who will get recognition for the LAST post.

If nothing I said was true, could you then cite even one example of anything that you've posted so far within this thread containing even the slightest amount of merit? Instead of being the true hero that you perceive yourself to be and posting relevant material in "more important" threads, you instead persistently return here.

Here's just one example of a completely valueless Sherm post:

"i win. im the best."

What exactly have you won, the right to call yourself an idiot? I'll grant you that much, you've worked hard at, about 60 posts now worth of jargon?

Here's an example of Sherm attempting to rationalize his blatantly childish and absurd behavior.

"My non-stop arguing serves two purposes. To tell you people that you're stupid, and to tell the person who decied to put this up that he/she is stupid."

Oh wow! Such a noble agenda you've set up for yourself. Your fight against the RIAA has been reduced to calling other people stupid. That’s the way to teach them all a lesson, way to go!

"...and you did nothing but try to insult my character..."

And speaking of Ad Hominem arguments, are you not the master of such? You seem unable to go any longer than three posts without resorting to cheesy expletives. But if it’s name calling that you desire, I’ve got plenty for you. It’s seems that the only way to reason with you is on a child’s level.

So go ahead, make an additional post here and confirm that what I'm saying is true. It's so easy for me to discredit you when you invalidate yourself with your own actions. Thanks for being so naive!

You two fucks are starting to piss us all off

Well, not all of us; I'm not upset.

But I'm a little surprised that leflaw has let this byte-consuming thread carry on for so long; although he could still delete it all anyway if he chose to . . .

Sorry, I left off my .....otherwise it comes across as nastier than I intended

DemandTheTruth, I am suprised too. the the only two things that upset me are that this site (not just this thread) has turned into a free for all and the other thing is the profanity.

Let me briefly paraphrase what I'm reading here:

"What we need is more demonstrations of censorship! We are intimidated and threatened by the notion of freedom of speech. We should delete this thread along with all of our basic civil rights like blind mice. We should fire, banish and exile all that dare to speak against the infallible government of ours. We support the idea of being fired for nonchalant reasons. What we need is a higher authority commanding our every decision and action. We are terribly afraid to think for ourselves. We need politicians to hold our hands and guide us into Armageddon."

"And oh yeah, we should be able to download songs too by the way. You can go ahead and violate the rest of our rights."

POPPYCOCK!!!!!!!!

If you have the flu, you could take flu medication, attack the root of the problem and cure yourself like you should. OR, you can simply suck on a cough drop, temporarily suppress one of the many resulting symptoms and instead REMAIN SICK!

Change your area of focus people, the issue is greater than your shallow perspective is allowing you to see.

You can't really take anything for the flu. You just have to let it run its course. Rest and fluids. Cough drops actually help keep the throat membranes moist.

knowthis you paraphrase wrong. anarchists always think this. Rights have nothing to do with this.

I own a business. I do not violate my employees right of free speech by not letting them make personal calls or insulting my customers. I do not violate their rights of assembly by not allowing them to hang out with their friends at work. I do not violate their right of privacy by checking what they are doing on the computer or saying to a customer or coworker. it's my business, I own it.

Like I said, if Leflaw wants this site to be a free for all then so be it. I have the choice to accept it and contribute my opinions (as well as you) which I am doing. he owns and pays for it. if he wants this site to remain focused on the RIAA that's his right as well and is NOT censorship if the website he pays for to maintain, deletes posts that are irrelevent to what his mission statement is, or enforces the policy of no profanity. If you or anyone else doesn't like that, then you (or I) have the freedom to build our own site.

our freedoms doesn't give us the right to take over someone elses business because we want it a certin way. we are all currently exercizing the anarcy that the owners of this site has allowed it to become. I would like to see it more effective but it's a laughing stock.

I come here to voice my opinions but go to other sites to actually participate in something constructive, which this doesn't allow. that's what our freedoms allow us. Say what you want but can the censorship rhetoric, it doesn't apply on privately owned sites.

And be sure to compare to the active ingredients of Nyquil!

Next, Linda Ronstadt gets booted from Las Vegas hotel for supporting Michael Moore.

smoreop

No, Linda Ronstadt got fired cause half of the hotel guests she was singing to, got up, walked out, creating lost sales for said hotel..... Again, she was being paid to sing, not voice her personal opinions. If it had been a political rally, it would have been different.