Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 70

Thread: This Phelps thing. A question.

  1. #1
    Chemiker Guest

    Default This Phelps thing. A question.

    Michael makes good points. Somehow the thread has
    melted down to quibbling, IMO.

    1. People have values. Do you expect them to
    pat you on the back when you ridicule those?

    2. Kellog hired him (yes, hired) for a specific
    purpose. Would it have been different is he
    had been photographed fondling a woman's breast
    while wearing a General Mills Tee? How?

    3. How about if he was doing the deed wearing a
    Kellog's tee?

    4. Kellog's was founded on a health food image.
    If you don't know that, do some research. This
    image is part of their stock-in-trade. Did Phelps
    help or harm them? IS hitting ithe bong an
    example of healthy living? Could he pass for
    Ron White? Would K. hire White?

    5. Like it or not, almost everyone is judgemental.
    Do I pick up that snake or not? Should I buy a
    used car from this guy or not? Should I loan this
    deadbeat cousin 4,000 dollars? What's the prob.
    with this?

    Alex, detecting emotional posting rather than
    rational. And appreciating Michael's insights.
    Well, sometimes... <G>

  2. #2
    Mr. Bill Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:50:15 -0600, Chemiker
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >2. Kellog hired him (yes, hired) for a specific
    >purpose.


    That is the crux of this entire issue. Your employer will hire you
    and PAY you to do a job. If you can't or won't comply, you WILL be
    fired. Kellogg executed THEIR right. They have the ability to
    write the check. You have NO reason to demand payment with
    noncompliance.

    End of sentence.

    Find another job.

    Note to self.............don't try to pull this type of stunt again.




  3. #3
    Michael \Dog3\ Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    Mr. Bill <[email protected]> news:52aso4931vufv143nin02c72ugmfgf1t13@
    4ax.com: in rec.food.cooking

    > On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:50:15 -0600, Chemiker
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>2. Kellog hired him (yes, hired) for a specific
    >>purpose.

    >
    > That is the crux of this entire issue. Your employer will hire you
    > and PAY you to do a job. If you can't or won't comply, you WILL be
    > fired. Kellogg executed THEIR right. They have the ability to
    > write the check. You have NO reason to demand payment with
    > noncompliance.
    >
    > End of sentence.
    >
    > Find another job.
    >
    > Note to self.............don't try to pull this type of stunt again.


    The issue for me isn't the actual monetary compensation. Phelps is not
    going to get the compensation from Kelloggs and acknowledges it. The real
    crux, for me, is the way he was treated. The kid made a mistake.

    Michael

    --
    “He who does not understand your silence will probably not understand
    your words.”
    ~Elbert Hubbard

    You can find me at: - michael at lonergan dot us dot com

  4. #4
    Ed Pawlowski Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.


    "Chemiker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > Alex, detecting emotional posting rather than
    > rational. And appreciating Michael's insights.
    > Well, sometimes... <G>


    How do you figure emotional? Phelps and Kellogg had a contract with
    specific terms. He violated those terms. He was let go. Nothing emotional
    about it at all.

    IMO, that is the way it should be.



  5. #5
    Ed Pawlowski Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.


    "Michael "Dog3"" <don'[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > . The real
    > crux, for me, is the way he was treated. The kid made a mistake.
    >


    And he paid the consequences that he was aware would happen. Life is like
    that. Phelps is taking it well and moving on, but you don't seem to want
    to do the same.

    When I was a child we had rules and if we broke them, we were punished.
    Most rules were not broken more than once. We learned at an early age how
    to do a risk/rewards assessment.



  6. #6
    sf Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 00:23:47 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Chemiker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> Alex, detecting emotional posting rather than
    >> rational. And appreciating Michael's insights.
    >> Well, sometimes... <G>

    >
    >How do you figure emotional? Phelps and Kellogg had a contract with
    >specific terms. He violated those terms. He was let go. Nothing emotional
    >about it at all.
    >
    >IMO, that is the way it should be.
    >


    He wasn't let go. His contract won't be renewed.


    --
    I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
    interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

    Mae West

  7. #7
    Xenon Engineering Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:50:15 -0600, Chemiker wrote:


    > 4. Kellog's was founded on a health food image. If you don't know that,
    > do some research.


    Health food?!?! What kind of 'health food' has Kellogs *ever* produced?!




  8. #8
    Mr. Bill Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    On 08 Feb 2009 05:10:32 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
    <don'[email protected]> wrote:

    >The real
    >crux, for me, is the way he was treated. The kid made a mistake.


    Since no one here was personally involved we can only assume how he
    was treated.

    Time will tell....let's see how many future deals he picks up. While
    sucking on a bong....he blew millions.

  9. #9
    Goomba Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    Michael "Dog3" wrote:

    > The issue for me isn't the actual monetary compensation. Phelps is not
    > going to get the compensation from Kelloggs and acknowledges it. The real
    > crux, for me, is the way he was treated. The kid made a mistake.
    >
    > Michael
    >


    Seems to me he was treated in a upfront business like manner. No mixed
    messages or stall tactics. No grandstanding on Kellog's part. Michael
    Phelps certainly seemed to take it better and more professionally than
    you. How come?

  10. #10
    Goomba Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    Ed Pawlowski wrote:
    > "Chemiker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> Alex, detecting emotional posting rather than
    >> rational. And appreciating Michael's insights.
    >> Well, sometimes... <G>

    >
    > How do you figure emotional? Phelps and Kellogg had a contract with
    > specific terms. He violated those terms. He was let go. Nothing emotional
    > about it at all.
    >
    > IMO, that is the way it should be.
    >
    >

    I think he meant Michael (Dog3) being overly emotional over this. That
    is how I interpreted it. Otherwise, I agree Michael Phelps acted as
    professional and businesslike as Kellog's did. Seems pretty reasonable
    to me.

  11. #11
    sf Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:21:10 +0000 (UTC), Xenon Engineering
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:50:15 -0600, Chemiker wrote:
    >
    >
    >> 4. Kellog's was founded on a health food image. If you don't know that,
    >> do some research.

    >
    >Health food?!?! What kind of 'health food' has Kellogs *ever* produced?!
    >

    You are a *young* little whipper snapper. GIYF, try it sometime.
    http://www.kellogghistory.com/history.html



    --
    I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
    interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

    Mae West

  12. #12
    l, not -l Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.


    On 8-Feb-2009, Xenon Engineering <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:50:15 -0600, Chemiker wrote:
    >
    >
    > > 4. Kellog's was founded on a health food image. If you don't know that,
    > > do some research.

    >
    > Health food?!?! What kind of 'health food' has Kellogs *ever* produced?!


    In 1906, when Kellogg's was founded, they had different ideas of what
    constituted health food and corn flakes was one of those ideas. So was
    Post's GrapeNuts. Were they right or wrong in proclaiming those foods to
    be health food? We can't decide if margarine is a health food or not;
    which is it this year? Tuna; health food or poison??? Eggs are bad for you;
    no wait, they're good for you --- no, wait, they're bad --- this just in,
    eggs may not be as bad as thought. Fat is bad for you, no wait Dr. Atkins
    says its good for you --- good fat, bad fat, skinny fat, solid fat, runny
    fat......

    Health food is just a label to apply to the current trends being espoused by
    those who want us to change what we eat.

    SugarPops, Honey Combs and other high-sugar, over processed cereals didn't
    come along until TV made it possible to sell them to little zombies gooned
    out on 6 hours of TV/day. Lull the li'l bastards into a trance with
    cartoons (now it's anime), then, program 'em to demand sugar as food. Your
    health food will probably be your children's, or grandchildren, "what were
    they thinking" food.
    --
    Change Cujo to Juno in email address.

  13. #13
    Dave Smith Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    Ed Pawlowski wrote:
    > "Chemiker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> Alex, detecting emotional posting rather than
    >> rational. And appreciating Michael's insights.
    >> Well, sometimes... <G>

    >
    > How do you figure emotional? Phelps and Kellogg had a contract with
    > specific terms. He violated those terms. He was let go. Nothing emotional
    > about it at all.


    That isn't exactly accurate. Google is a wonderful thing. It seems that
    his contract with Kelloggs was due to expire in February. It is not
    being renewed, but they weren't planning to renew it anyway. Some of the
    morality clauses are so vague that they end up in court. But that is not
    the case here. He was not fired. They just aren't renewing it.




  14. #14
    Michael \Dog3\ Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    Goomba <[email protected]> news:6v8aumFijfdoU1@mid.indiv[email protected]:
    in rec.food.cooking

    > Michael "Dog3" wrote:
    >
    >> The issue for me isn't the actual monetary compensation. Phelps is
    >> not going to get the compensation from Kelloggs and acknowledges it.
    >> The real crux, for me, is the way he was treated. The kid made a
    >> mistake.
    >>
    >> Michael
    >>

    >
    > Seems to me he was treated in a upfront business like manner. No mixed
    > messages or stall tactics. No grandstanding on Kellog's part. Michael
    > Phelps certainly seemed to take it better and more professionally than
    > you. How come?


    Taking it? I was responding to the OP with my thoughts. It is what it is.
    You've had your say but still seem to be interested. Why is that?

    Michael


    --
    “He who does not understand your silence will probably not understand
    your words.”
    ~Elbert Hubbard

    You can find me at: - michael at lonergan dot us dot com

  15. #15
    Michael \Dog3\ Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    Goomba <[email protected]> news:[email protected]:
    in rec.food.cooking

    > Ed Pawlowski wrote:
    >> "Chemiker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> Alex, detecting emotional posting rather than
    >>> rational. And appreciating Michael's insights.
    >>> Well, sometimes... <G>

    >>
    >> How do you figure emotional? Phelps and Kellogg had a contract with
    >> specific terms. He violated those terms. He was let go. Nothing
    >> emotional about it at all.
    >>
    >> IMO, that is the way it should be.
    >>
    >>

    > I think he meant Michael (Dog3) being overly emotional over this. That
    > is how I interpreted it. Otherwise, I agree Michael Phelps acted as
    > professional and businesslike as Kellog's did. Seems pretty reasonable
    > to me.


    FWIW that is not how I read it at all, and I'm not "emotional" over it.

    Michael
    --
    “He who does not understand your silence will probably not understand
    your words.”
    ~Elbert Hubbard

    You can find me at: - michael at lonergan dot us dot com

  16. #16
    Gregory Morrow Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.


    Dave Smith wrote:

    $[email protected]..
    > Ed Pawlowski wrote:
    > > "Chemiker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> Alex, detecting emotional posting rather than
    > >> rational. And appreciating Michael's insights.
    > >> Well, sometimes... <G>

    > >
    > > How do you figure emotional? Phelps and Kellogg had a contract with
    > > specific terms. He violated those terms. He was let go. Nothing

    emotional
    > > about it at all.

    >
    > That isn't exactly accurate. Google is a wonderful thing. It seems that
    > his contract with Kelloggs was due to expire in February. It is not
    > being renewed, but they weren't planning to renew it anyway. Some of the
    > morality clauses are so vague that they end up in court. But that is not
    > the case here. He was not fired. They just aren't renewing it.
    >



    Wow, Dave, you mean the media didn't DO their JOB when making all these
    accusations and such...!!!???

    That makes the whole Kellogg's thang "moot"...but natcherly the moralistic
    windbags had to "make hay" outta the whole incident.


    --
    Best
    Greg



  17. #17
    Michael \Dog3\ Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    "Gregory Morrow" <[email protected]>
    news:[email protected] m: in rec.food.cooking

    >
    > That makes the whole Kellogg's thang "moot"...but natcherly the
    > moralistic windbags had to "make hay" outta the whole incident.


    I stil think they should throw the "moralistic windbags" a crumb and
    allow them to flog Phelps in the town square. Can you just see it?
    Phelps strung up in his Speedos surrounded by a bunch of pinch faced old
    biddies, and rotund balding men shaking their fat, sausage like fingers at
    him?

    Michael

    --
    “He who does not understand your silence will probably not understand
    your words.”
    ~Elbert Hubbard

    You can find me at: - michael at lonergan dot us dot com

  18. #18
    Gregory Morrow Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.


    "Michael "Dog3" wrote:

    > "Gregory Morrow" <[email protected]>
    > news:[email protected] m: in rec.food.cooking
    >
    > >
    > > That makes the whole Kellogg's thang "moot"...but natcherly the
    > > moralistic windbags had to "make hay" outta the whole incident.

    >
    > I stil think they should throw the "moralistic windbags" a crumb and
    > allow them to flog Phelps in the town square. Can you just see it?
    > Phelps strung up in his Speedos surrounded by a bunch of pinch faced old
    > biddies, and rotund balding men shaking their fat, sausage like fingers at
    > him?



    Speaking of "moralistic windbags", Michael, check out Loafie's latest blog
    entry...can we say petty, small - minded, and vindictive? I KNOW we can,
    lol :

    http://gamesvision.blogspot.com/

    "Sunday, February 1, 2009

    That Phelps photo

    You know the one.

    The one that England's News of the World paper published on it's front pages
    (both on-line and in it's newsstand copies.)

    He's apologised, and made the usual "error in judgement" statement to the
    public.

    But what is really disgusting is that people are so quick to give him a pass
    on this one.

    I am just outraged that some people have said because it was an
    out-of-competition situation, that it shouldn't be an actionable offense and
    that WADA should stay out of it as well as the USOC (even though USOC has
    issued it's own statement on the matter.)

    Others have said that because he was at a private party of a girl that he
    was dating at the time, that folks should mind their own business. It's part
    of life at college they say; school/beer/parties/pot.

    Even more have said that just because he had a bong to his mouth, that
    doesn't prove he was smoking anything. Wrong, bucko. I remember Cheech and
    Chong doing all that marijuana-related humor and you can't say that they
    didn't toke it up from time to time-a lot.

    Same thing.

    WADA can make cases sometimes years after an alleged violation. They took
    away someone's medal from Sydney just recently. Ditto for Athens. Some got
    their chain yanked there too.

    The USOC and IOC will have a PR nightmare on their hands if they *don't* get
    involved. Phelps, like it or not should realise he has a responsibility to
    set an example just because of the mere fact he is a public figure.

    If he doesn't want to set an example fine. But once that 8th gold meadal was
    awarded, he was in that position-like it or not. And his out-of-the-pool
    behavior no matter if he is competing or not should be scruitinized, all for
    the fact that he has been held up as an example of what is right with
    sporting in America.

    My message to the USOC, IOC and WADA is to *get* involved, and if necessary,
    re-test (even though according to everyone he has never failed a dope test)
    while in competition. And if necessary, start to yank medals.

    Shame on you Michael. I expected better-and so did America..."

    Posted by Maryanne Kehoe at 6:29 PM

    </>




  19. #19
    Michael \Dog3\ Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    "Gregory Morrow" <[email protected]>
    news:[email protected] m: in rec.food.cooking

    > Speaking of "moralistic windbags", Michael, check out Loafie's latest
    > blog entry...can we say petty, small - minded, and vindictive? I KNOW
    > we can, lol :
    >
    > http://gamesvision.blogspot.com/
    >
    > "Sunday, February 1, 2009
    >
    > That Phelps photo
    >
    > You know the one.
    >
    > The one that England's News of the World paper published on it's front
    > pages (both on-line and in it's newsstand copies.)
    >
    > He's apologised, and made the usual "error in judgement" statement to
    > the public.
    >
    > But what is really disgusting is that people are so quick to give him
    > a pass on this one.
    >
    > I am just outraged that some people have said because it was an
    > out-of-competition situation, that it shouldn't be an actionable
    > offense and that WADA should stay out of it as well as the USOC (even
    > though USOC has issued it's own statement on the matter.)


    Hmmm... the old hypocrite. She doesn't even know what a competition is. She
    had to BUY her beauty queen title. Good lord.


    >
    > Others have said that because he was at a private party of a girl that
    > he was dating at the time, that folks should mind their own business.
    > It's part of life at college they say; school/beer/parties/pot.


    And so it is. Did she ever go to college? I can't recall. She's told so
    many lies I'm sure she's spouted off a non existant Ivy League degree at
    some point in her Usenet career.

    >
    > Even more have said that just because he had a bong to his mouth, that
    > doesn't prove he was smoking anything. Wrong, bucko. I remember Cheech
    > and Chong doing all that marijuana-related humor and you can't say
    > that they didn't toke it up from time to time-a lot.


    Like she would know anything about Cheech Marin.

    >
    > Same thing.
    >
    > WADA can make cases sometimes years after an alleged violation. They
    > took away someone's medal from Sydney just recently. Ditto for Athens.
    > Some got their chain yanked there too.
    >
    > The USOC and IOC will have a PR nightmare on their hands if they
    > *don't* get involved. Phelps, like it or not should realise he has a
    > responsibility to set an example just because of the mere fact he is a
    > public figure.


    LOL... I'll be she can't wait for the weekly issues of the National
    Enquirer to hit the supermarket check stands.


    >
    > If he doesn't want to set an example fine. But once that 8th gold
    > meadal was awarded, he was in that position-like it or not. And his
    > out-of-the-pool behavior no matter if he is competing or not should be
    > scruitinized, all for the fact that he has been held up as an example
    > of what is right with sporting in America.


    I *love* the "should be scrutinized" statement. Says it all about her
    doesn't it?


    >
    > My message to the USOC, IOC and WADA is to *get* involved, and if
    > necessary, re-test (even though according to everyone he has never
    > failed a dope test) while in competition. And if necessary, start to
    > yank medals.


    By all means they should do exactly as she says. Pronto! Gawd...


    >
    > Shame on you Michael. I expected better-and so did America..."


    Like anyone but Maryanne Kehoe gives a **** what Maryanne Kehoe expects.
    She had best stop trying to dictate what the rest of America expects as
    well. Her miserable failed attempt at controlling Usenet should have
    taught the old windbag she doesn't do well in crowds.

    Michael


    >
    > Posted by Maryanne Kehoe at 6:29 PM
    >
    > </>
    >
    >
    >
    >




    --
    “He who does not understand your silence will probably not understand your
    words.”
    ~Elbert Hubbard

    You can find me at: - michael at lonergan dot us dot com

  20. #20
    Goomba Guest

    Default Re: This Phelps thing. A question.

    Michael "Dog3" wrote:
    > Goomba <[email protected]> news:[email protected]:
    > in rec.food.cooking
    >
    >> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
    >>
    >>> The issue for me isn't the actual monetary compensation. Phelps is
    >>> not going to get the compensation from Kelloggs and acknowledges it.
    >>> The real crux, for me, is the way he was treated. The kid made a
    >>> mistake.
    >>>
    >>> Michael
    >>>

    >> Seems to me he was treated in a upfront business like manner. No mixed
    >> messages or stall tactics. No grandstanding on Kellog's part. Michael
    >> Phelps certainly seemed to take it better and more professionally than
    >> you. How come?

    >
    > Taking it? I was responding to the OP with my thoughts. It is what it is.
    > You've had your say but still seem to be interested. Why is that?
    >
    > Michael
    >
    >

    Because what you say makes no sense to me. You seem to be saying that he
    was treated badly, when in fact he was not.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32