Here's an idea....

#21

"Nancy1" <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote

Quote:

I'm an old folk, so I remember. Hard to believe Marlon's gone, eh?

Yup. Oh, and to make this even more off topic, have you read any of the

excerpts of the novel that he wrote (or co-wrote)? I don't guess I will be
picking that one up. And I generally do like the swashbuckling type of
novel.

Carey in Manvel

#22

"Carey Akin" <cmakin (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

"Gordon" <theo (AT) bestway (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:dnv0d4$rc0q$1 (AT) usenet (DOT) osg.ufl.edu...

Is this any different than an actor not showing up to receive an Oscar?

Are you saying that he should have had an Indian girl accept in his place?

(Old folks will remember this one)

Carey in Manvel

Brooke is a Indian girl?

#23

Carey Akin wrote:

Quote:

"Nancy1" <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote in message
news:1134761835.784168.168030 (AT) f14g2000cwb (DOT) googlegroups.com...

I'm an old folk, so I remember. Hard to believe Marlon's gone, eh?

Yup. Oh, and to make this even more off topic, have you read any of the
excerpts of the novel that he wrote (or co-wrote)? I don't guess I will be
picking that one up. And I generally do like the swashbuckling type of
novel.

Carey in Manvel

No, hadn't thought about reading it, actually....I have a hard enough
time keeping up with my dozen or so favorite authors, in addition to
the required reading to keep up with my granddaughter (Harry Potter and
the two by Carl Hiaasen for kids), along with maintaining my Sabuda
pop-up book collection. LOL.

N.

#24

Gordon wrote:

Quote:

"Carey Akin" <cmakin (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:n6Eof.161984$qk4.27728 (AT) bgtnsc05-news (DOT) ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Gordon" <theo (AT) bestway (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:dnv0d4$rc0q$1 (AT) usenet (DOT) osg.ufl.edu...

Is this any different than an actor not showing up to receive an Oscar?

Are you saying that he should have had an Indian girl accept in his place?

(Old folks will remember this one)

Carey in Manvel

Brooke is a Indian girl?

You obviously are just a young whippersnapper.

N.

#25

"Nancy1" <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote

Quote:

Gordon wrote:

Brooke is a Indian girl?

You obviously are just a young whippersnapper.

N.

Heh-heh...not me...Marlon did a lot for the Dairy industry, too.

--
Tom in Bristol

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

#26

"Alan Jones" <alan (AT) alanjones (DOT) us> wrote

Quote:

I think NASCAR is using nothing more than intimidation to avoid
driver unionization. A union is inevitable if NASCAR doesn't
lighten up and be more considerate of the drivers wishes, needs.

Unions are dead. Even if they weren't, I doubt you'd see one today anyway.
People who make the money these guys do, don't join unions. There are other
ways they have of skinning that cat.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE (AT) alltel (DOT) net

#27

"Nancy1" <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote

Quote:

Carey Akin wrote:

If I'm
not mistaken, per-capita union membership is at an all time low. It
certainly doesn't have the political power it once had (thank God for
that).

If it weren't for that political power in the old days of the unions,
U.S. workers today would be enjoying sweat shop conditions, locked exit
doors during the work day, 18 hour work days, child labor, no sick
leave, no benefits whatsoever, totally unsafe working conditions, etc.
I will agree that they don't have the same usefulness as they did when
there was a good reason to have a union to belong to, but that doesn't
mean that they are all bad, and they certainly did a LOT of good for
the U.S. workforce.

N.

Sorry Nance- irrelevant point. You're right, of course that the unions did
serve a purpose at one time, but that time is long gone and the truth is
that as Carey said, union membership is on the ebb.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE (AT) alltel (DOT) net

#28

Which?

What might the drivers do against the 800
pound gorilla.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:43:14 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<mmarlowREMOVE (AT) alltel (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

There are other ways they have of skinning that cat.

#29

"Alan Jones" <alan (AT) alanjones (DOT) us> wrote

Quote:

Which?

What might the drivers do against the 800
pound gorilla.

Well, to look at it practically - the drivers don't have an issue with
NASCAR. Their contract is with their owners, and the owners hold the
contract with the sponsors. Now - behind the scenes in all of the
discussion about NASCAR trying to lay a heavy hand, etc. lies the fact that
the fertile soil in which the money tree is planted is the sponsor.

Imagine if you will - just for example, and not to exhaustively consider
every aspect of this scenario... Jeff Gordon, who makes enough money to do
just about any damned thing he really wants to do - except maybe get in
another deep dive between Brooke's legs. Nothing NASCAR is going to say is
really going to initimidate Gordon. He could very well decide he was going
to take any Sunday off and go race in Europe somewhere and the one
organization he really has to make sure does not get upset is the
organization(s) that are paying the bills - the sponsors. Now - who do you
think the sponsors would most like align themselves with in a dispute
between NASCAR and individual teams? Don't you imagine that DuPont is going
to stand behind Gordon and screw NASCAR in any dispute? I do. Very
quickly, the 800 lb gorilla is reduced to 300lbs. You know how those crash
weight loss programs work - the hardest part is getting the initial weight
loss to happen.

NASCAR has enjoyed a legacy culture that has given them the heavy hand they
enjoy today. But - times are changing. With all of the popularity, comes
increased visibility. I don't have a crystal ball so I won't predict
anything, but I will suggest that we very well could be at a threshold where
drivers like Gordon, Earnhardt, and some others realize that NASCAR needs
them as much as they need NASCAR and the playing field gets reset. Sponsors
know where their bread is buttered and it's with their drivers - especially
when their driver is one of the big names.

I'm thinking you could easily enough be seeing the begining of a new form
of independence on the part of the drivers and teams. NASCAR doesn't have
the strangle hold it used to back in the days when every team relied upon
the "benevolence" of NASCAR to support them. It's only going to take one
driver like Gordon or Earnhardt to stretch their legs a little and lots more
will follow suit.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE (AT) alltel (DOT) net

#30

Yes, they do have an issue with NASCAR. That's what this is about;
NASCAR's treatment of the drivers. Now what was your solution to
that problem? Thanks.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:01:43 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<mmarlowREMOVE (AT) alltel (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

Well, to look at it practically - the drivers don't have an issue with
NASCAR.