Subject: Re: How political-correctness ruined the Pirelli calendar
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.55.73.139 with SMTP id w133mr4880271qka.26.1519312451524;
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:14:11 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!q21no2281548qtn.1!news-out.google.com!o9ni7781qte.1!nntp.google.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news7
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: How political-correctness ruined the Pirelli calendar
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:13:07 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy.com
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <p6mm7o1var@news7.newsguy.com>
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>
<2359091f-78ea-48e9-a202-6e6dc95642cd@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pcdc42a519991cce49823a02e27031faa4ff1354babc406b8.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.6.0
In-Reply-To: <2359091f-78ea-48e9-a202-6e6dc95642cd@googlegroups.com>
X-Received-Bytes: 3937
X-Received-Body-CRC: 141304919
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Print Article
Forward Article
On 2/22/2018 8:57 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
> 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.

Read the thread.
> 
>> 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
> 


-- 
PeterN