From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: How political-correctness ruined the Pirelli calendar
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.200.50.148 with SMTP id z20mr4914399qta.16.1519307848169;
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 05:57:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.158.65 with SMTP id h62mr821765vke.4.1519307847912; Thu,
22 Feb 2018 05:57:27 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!y7no2208102qtn.0!news-out.google.com!m4ni8503qte.0!nntp.google.com!y7no2208100qtn.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 05:57:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <p6mhe80sb8@news7.newsguy.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=138.37.90.65; posting-account=Fal3rgoAAABua4brvRuRwdmPfigIDi6x
NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.37.90.65
References: <1ac80c3a-5746-47dc-b881-bba99d4faeba@googlegroups.com>
<p6d26j$1jb$1@dont-email.me> <IIudnUeHtfE5qRbHnZ2dnUU78UGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<p6fe0u$f3m$1@dont-email.me> <cd6n8dpl0hts06mkr9dtck0725v0p5u5a5@4ax.com>
<p6hdjn$dl0$1@dont-email.me> <UdWdndXmVYhQ3xHHnZ2dnUU78bPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fkho8dp71624bnfv0lvm7up0haptg6i73t@4ax.com> <6rednZF-o_SkzhHHnZ2dnUU78YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<p6ho25$peu$1@dont-email.me> <p6iohh0qff@news4.newsguy.com>
<200220182238065598%nospam@nospam.invalid> <p6k9ad02lbh@news7.newsguy.com>
<210220181337447953%nospam@nospam.invalid> <p6lm1001bs@news1.newsguy.com>
<11b7dd57-66d4-4bd6-864f-248437b439ff@googlegroups.com> <p6mhe80sb8@news7.newsguy.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2359091f-78ea-48e9-a202-6e6dc95642cd@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: How political-correctness ruined the Pirelli calendar
From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:57:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 56
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thursday, 22 February 2018 13:52:15 UTC, PeterN  wrote:
> On 2/22/2018 5:12 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Thursday, 22 February 2018 05:56:56 UTC, PeterN  wrote:
> >> On 2/21/2018 1:37 PM, nospam wrote:
> >>> In article<p6k9ad02lbh@news7.newsguy.com>, PeterN
> >>> <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Last year there was a Star Trek exhibit on the Intrepid. It combined the
> >>>>>> original with the Next Generation. I was told that most of the actors
> >>>>>> were nice, regular guys. William Shattner was charging for his
> >>>>>> autograph. I leave the name for that, up to the readers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> most of them do that. they know the fans will pay, so why not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not when they are being paid for the appearance. And the fans are making
> >>>> a generous donation to a charity.
> >>>
> >>> yes when they're being paid for the appearance.
> >>>
> >>> i've been to several cons and paying for autographs and/or photos is
> >>> standard fare.
> >>>
> >>> the lines are long, so few people find it to be an issue.
> >>>
> >>>> BTW I used to represent entertainers. Most thought it beneath them to
> >>>> charge for an autograph. They either declined, or gave one free. I don't
> >>>> know the source for your statement, but I KNOW it's not true.
> >>>
> >>> personal experience is my source.
> >>>
> >> You go to charitable events where the donation is between $500 and
> >> $1,000 per person, and then paid for an autograph?
> >> I have difficulty believing that.
> > 
> > Oh I don't know you should check out the presidents club.
> > https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/presidents-club-scandal
> > 
> And what does that have to do with charging for autographs at fund 
> raisers.

What has autographs got to do with fund raising for charity.

> Or, do you equate groping at fund raisers, with charging for 
> autographs.

Pretty much yes.

> On second thought, maybe there is a moral equivalence between unwanted 
> groping and charging for autographs at charitable fund raisers.

What's meant by unwanted groping unwanted by who ?
Don't forget the charity who was going to gain over 1/2 million quid is still trying to decide
whether or not they should give the money back.

> 
> -- 
> PeterN