On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:59:12AM -0400, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
Do you ever watch sports? Take the US Open that just wrapped up last weekend.[...]
With the name *J.P. MorganChase* is plastered all over the walls of the courts in Arthur Ash stadium with the *IBM* scoreboard high above the crowd Andy Roddick received the US Open trophy along with a check for $1,000,000 from *Ford Motor Company* while wearing an outfit from *Reebok*. Afterwards you are taken to commercials by *Citizen*,
When I see this kind of sponsorship for an event I don't get the impressions that this is a sign of a horrible product that needs to be propped up by various thrid parties. I get the impression that people want to be associated with the event because of the benefits of the association.[...]
See, here our perceptions differ. When I see sport events plastered with advertisement in that way, it looks to me as if the only thing it's about is *money*, not sport. So, yes: Apparently, the actualy product is *poor*. That perception gets even worse when I see how much influence the so called "sponsors" try to gain on the sport they "sponsor". I've heard enought discussions about wishes for rule changes to make the sport look nicer on TV so the ads get seen better. Puh-lease!
I sincerely hope, that MDK is never forced to go down that route.
Cheerio,
Thomas
You are right in that the sponsors are only interested in money. Imagine that! They sponsor a highly visible event to make a profit. How unethical could they possibly be!?!?
Enlighten me on how sponsorship of anything means that the product is poor. Especially when the sponsorship is being used to make both the *sponsor* and the *entitiy sponsored* money.
As far as the requests for rule changes goes...so what? Here's a little info on how a true free market works. I have the freedom to approach you and to say, "I'd like you to pay me to kick you in the crotch every Sunday afternoon." Because you are also part of this free market you have the freedom to say, "That sounds like a really good idea, but you know...I don't think I'm going to be able to do that." The fact that I asked to do it does not mean that the request has to be honored.
How do you expect Mandrake to be able to support itself, and to keep giving you a monetarily free product with an incredible intrinsic value, when all people with your mindset do is bitch when ever they have the "perception" that Mandrake might *possibly* do something that *might* not be in your best interest irespective of whether or not the doors will close if they don't take that *horribly offensive* action? I've never seen a more childish reaction, by mostly grown adults, to anything in my life.
If you don't like the product, as you've said you can do, go somewhere where they provide a *better* product. This will obviously suck for you if there is no better product.
There seems to be a whole lot of complaining without a whole lot of constructive suggestions for alternative means of getting revenue.
If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.
-- Brant Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________________
Linux user #322847 | Linux machine #207465 | http://counter.li.org/ AMD Duron 1.3GHz | Mandrake 9.1 | Kernel 2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk KDE 3.1.3 | Mozilla 1.4 Mail Client Uptime: 16:45:00 up 7 days, 4:01, 1 user, load average: 0.32, 0.14, 0.10 ___________________________________________________________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
