Announcements & Tech Support > Web forum hosting
Ginger!
Anonymous:
--- Quote ---On 2005-12-30 21:01:00, Antigen wrote:
"In a free market, good ideas thrive and bad ones suffer. That's my gambit right there. Always has been. So now I'm testing it in nearby new waters.
...
People around here will buy those books. But you couln't pay us to take private teen gulags. We're not buying. Do you think a prospective mark stands a better chance coming out of the encounter unscathed if they come accross the pitch here or somewhere else?
...
And I don't want to panhandle. I've had to do that just once for this site, that's quite enough for me, thanks. Just ... distasteful to me, ya know? But I'll earn it and I'll earn it honestly or I'll see it through to bust and do something else."
--- End quote ---
Sorry to be dense here, but which "free market" are you referring to exactly? Are you talking about U.S. economics or an idea about the free market of ideas on fornits, or what?
"People around here", "us", "we're"... Gosh Ginger, you're starting to scare me...
Let's think carefully about this idea that panhandling is less honest than propagating propaganda, if I have you right there.
Anonymous:
I'll admit, I'm mostly a lurker around here. I come here often to "hear" what's going on and try to remember that I'm not crazy and that what I experienced at one of these "schools" was far from okay. I'm also an idealist. And the idealist in me can't support a site that supports, in a round about way, the very programs that caused me so much harm. I wish everyone well, especially Ginger, who has made such a lasting impact in my recovery by providing this forum. Ginger, if you ever get past the "panhandling" guilt, I'll be the first in line to plunk down a few bucks. Thanks again for everything.
Antigen:
Of course, you're still just as welcome as ever to lurk and/or contribute.
It's not that I don't care what you think, I do. I just disagree with your premise. I don't think that those ads appearing in this context equate to helping or supporting the industry, even in a round about way. I think it'll backfire. I think they'll either demand from the ad providers (Google, in this case) a way to filter this site out of their allowed context or they'll just have to go on paying me.
And I think the faithful opposition is pretty much shooting itself in the foot by counting themselves out of the market. Why cede the entire economy to the bad guys? Why disallow yourself your birthright, as an American, to control that portion of the economy that you can gain without force or fraud? Taking a vow of poverty makes about as much sense as the Shakers' silly notion about lifetime celibacy. What, never heard of the Shakers? Well, it wasn't such a good idea after all.
If I spent lots of time and money and made my life an open book to sue them to get that money out of them, would that be better? I don't see how. If a thousand or three of us were to put ads in all of our private websites, we could accomplish the same thing without any coercion, stress or trouble. And it's fun, too!
There's something to the argument about repetition, brand familiarity and impressions. But it's not the WHOLE thing. Why do you think the industry spends so much time, money and energy on slapp suits? If all publicity were good publicity, why would they do that? They may be crazy but they ain't dumb. They do it because they have to in order to control the message. Well, I think this boneheaded move of mine will help to throw a little healthy chaos into that. If branding in negative context is just the same as promotional advertising, then how come those ad council ads against smoking are so damned effective?
So, I'm willing to take my chances, suffer the slings and arrows, be the guinea pig and see what happens with this.
It continues to amaze me to talk to law students -- college
graduates all and smarter than the average bear -- who will
seriously tell me about how dangerous mj is and how it
destroys the lives of those who use it and who, in the
very next sentence, will tell me how they and their
friends -- now CPAs, engineers, med students -- used
pot regularly through high school and college. And
they don't see the contradiction between these statements.
We're not just talking ignorance here -- we are talking
deep down, serious, religious indoctrination.
--Buford C. Terrell, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law
--- End quote ---
_________________
Drug war POW
Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82
Anonymous:
Many of us have brought up the issue of the online marketing web of WWASP and other larger program networks.
View a list of many WWASP related sites at: http://www.tbfight.com/wwasp/index.php? ... 3&Itemid=2
WWASP has a huge network of sites like some elaborate porn network and all your ads do is contribute to this trap for desperate parents.
How is it not a problem when a parent seeking information and help for their child is directed to a programs web site through this web site, and possibly thinks that web site is credible because they were referred through this web site?
Ginger I don?t understand your reasoning at all.
?I think they'll either demand from the ad providers (Google, in this case) a way to filter this site out of their allowed context or they'll just have to go on paying me.?
Why would companies like WWASP etc. want to filter out ads on this site?? This site helps expose the truth about these programs (up until someone clicks on a google ad and is lead to some marketing site that feeds them nothing but bullshit and lies). This site is like the last stop on the train for a parent seeking info, and if they?re lead off to some for profit referral site, what good is this site? Who cares how much your making, that 0.73 cent click might make a company like WWASP $60,000 for a year of tuition.
So what if that 0.73 cent click from this site was the contributing factor to having Billy sent off to some program in Texas where he endures 2 years of hell.
NOT WORTH IT!
Antigen:
Ok, explain to me the essential, vital difference between WWASP advertising on Fornits and WWASP hiring Crackhead Bob as their marketing director.
The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
--Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version