In article <86f3e6f8-db8d-4fd6-8623-b63f3da22e17 @g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, tom_sawye...@yahoo.com says...
> On Nov 5, 2:39 pm, "The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@eio.com> > wrote: > > Actually it proves his point -- it *was* all about image.
> > Absolute genius. Distilled brilliance.
> So you've got no problem with fraud. It clears some things up.
Did you not understand your own post or something? I was going to make the same reply, pointing out that clearly Agassi practiced what he preached. Where did you ever get the idea that an image presented to the public is more often genuine than an affectation?
On Nov 5, 3:35 pm, Anthony Summers <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Did you not understand your own post or something? I was going to make > the same reply, pointing out that clearly Agassi practiced what he > preached. Where did you ever get the idea that an image presented to > the public is more often genuine than an affectation?
No problem understanding my own post ... but I'm beginning to wonder about others.
His image was that of the carefree tennis pro with the hair-band style mop on his head, but I specifically referenced the endorsement money that was earned under the claim that his hair was real which was apparently fraudulent.
If that's ok with everyone else, then so be it. While I disagree, at least we can stop with the bickering of any discussion that involves deception or where actions are apparently not connected to words, promises or any other endorsement.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:02:05 -0800 (PST), tom_sawye...@yahoo.com wrote... > No problem understanding my own post ... but I'm beginning to wonder > about others.
> His image was that of the carefree tennis pro with the hair-band style > mop on his head, but I specifically referenced the endorsement money > that was earned under the claim that his hair was real which was > apparently fraudulent.
> If that's ok with everyone else, then so be it.
Get down off the cross, dude. No one's saying it's okay; others ARE saying they weren't fooled by it. It was just an image, which particularly from a celebrity as pretty likely to be at least partially (if not wholly) put on for effect.
On Nov 5, 4:04 pm, Anthony Summers <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Get down off the cross, dude. No one's saying it's okay; others ARE > saying they weren't fooled by it. It was just an image, which > particularly from a celebrity as pretty likely to be at least partially > (if not wholly) put on for effect.
Which is at the crux of a lot of problems in this country right now. People try to pass off legitimate claims as "image" and then innocence when they are called frauds. If you give Agassi a pass, then let's give Enron a pass, and the Tycos, and the Madoffs and whomever else decided to defraud people based on the image they presented as real.
A solution to avoid even the discussion of bailouts or whatever other public assistance is being debated is to hold those who are frauds accountable. Regardless of whether it's Agassi's hair, claims by insurance companies, big pharm claims, financial planners, medical practitioners, government representatives, or whatever.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:14:01 -0800 (PST), tom_sawye...@yahoo.com wrote... > On Nov 5, 4:04 pm, Anthony Summers <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Get down off the cross, dude. No one's saying it's okay; others ARE > > saying they weren't fooled by it. It was just an image, which > > particularly from a celebrity as pretty likely to be at least partially > > (if not wholly) put on for effect.
> Which is at the crux of a lot of problems in this country right now. > People try to pass off legitimate claims as "image" and then innocence > when they are called frauds. If you give Agassi a pass, then let's > give Enron a pass, and the Tycos, and the Madoffs and whomever else > decided to defraud people based on the image they presented as real.
> A solution to avoid even the discussion of bailouts or whatever other > public assistance is being debated is to hold those who are frauds > accountable. Regardless of whether it's Agassi's hair, claims by > insurance companies, big pharm claims, financial planners, medical > practitioners, government representatives, or whatever.
On Nov 5, 1:02 pm, "tom_sawye...@yahoo.com" <tom_sawye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 3:35 pm, Anthony Summers <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Did you not understand your own post or something? I was going to make > > the same reply, pointing out that clearly Agassi practiced what he > > preached. Where did you ever get the idea that an image presented to > > the public is more often genuine than an affectation?
> No problem understanding my own post ... but I'm beginning to wonder > about others.
> His image was that of the carefree tennis pro with the hair-band style > mop on his head, but I specifically referenced the endorsement money > that was earned under the claim that his hair was real which was > apparently fraudulent.
It would be fraudulent if he was selling shampoos, hair growth, etc. Were there any specific claims that his hair was real? Wasn't he mostly advertising for cameras (Canon?)?
I used to naively think that WYSIWYG, but when it comes to performers, entertainers, musicians, etc., there are extensions, weaves, clip ons, extenders -- everything. It's entertainment -- nothing is real! Image is everything! ($1).
In article <265698aa-e45f-4142-a534-c424ec3c5...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
"tom_sawye...@yahoo.com" <tom_sawye...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 5, 3:35 pm, Anthony Summers <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Did you not understand your own post or something? I was going to make > > the same reply, pointing out that clearly Agassi practiced what he > > preached. Where did you ever get the idea that an image presented to > > the public is more often genuine than an affectation?
> No problem understanding my own post ... but I'm beginning to wonder > about others.
> His image was that of the carefree tennis pro with the hair-band style > mop on his head, but I specifically referenced the endorsement money > that was earned under the claim that his hair was real which was > apparently fraudulent.
What claim? I did not know much about him and his endorsements?
|
