T1B

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Also, who the fuck are YOU to speak FOR these women? You have no idea how important this issue is or isn't to the average business woman. You're basing all of your arguments solely upon your own personal assumptions.

And some fairly obvious logical inferences. I happen to be a student of the game of golf. Something you are obviously not.

You want someone to quantify this issue for you with raw dollars and cents figures?

Good fucking luck.

I ask for this:

show a SPECIFIC business proposal that failed, as a result of the Augusta policies. Please name names, company names, etc.

And I receive this:

BSmack wrote:I happen to be a student of the game of golf.

Thanks for the laugh, moron. God, that was good.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:show a SPECIFIC business proposal that failed, as a result of the Augusta policies. Please name names, company names, etc.

You asked a bullshit question. If you can't even get through the fucking DOOR, you are not even in a position to TRY to put the deal together.

Ask the question again, you'll get the same fucking answer.

BSmack wrote:Ask the question again, you'll get the same fucking answer.

That's quite obvious, douche, evidenced by the fact we're 3 pages in now, and you still have yet to provide one single example that can back up your claims. Not a single one.

I don't even think you're dumb enough to think you have taken a stance in which you can legitimately defend. Bored day at work or something?

by your logic B the female CEO of XYZ chip manufacturing company should have the right to attend a private lunch between the president of intel and the president of texas instruments because they might conduct business and she's being excluded.....

why you can't see the fallacy of what you're arguing is beyond me.......

Felix wrote:by your logic B the female CEO of XYZ chip manufacturing company should have the right to attend a private lunch between the president of intel and the president of texas instruments because they might conduct business and she's being excluded.....

Are you high?

Felix wrote:by your logic B the female CEO of XYZ chip manufacturing company should have the right to attend a private lunch between the president of intel and the president of texas instruments because they might conduct business and she's being excluded

Why do I get the feeling there's going to be a "Sin, Dinsdale" reset coming along any minute now?

BSmack wrote: Are you high?

It's altruists like you, standing in the way of your country's plunge into the new Dark Ages, that really piss me off.

I just pluncked down a shitload of investment cash on a new burka manufacturing plant in Des Moines. Don't fuck with me.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:That's quite obvious, douche, evidenced by the fact we're 3 pages in now, and you still have yet to provide one single example that can back up your claims. Not a single one.

My claims?

I made one claim. Simply that this issue is a big deal to those affected by it. Where are you finding these other "claims"?

I don't even think you're dumb enough to think you have taken a stance in which you can legitimately defend. Bored day at work or something?

If I'm replying to your retarded drivel, you can BET it is a slow day at work.

BSmack wrote:

Felix wrote:by your logic B the female CEO of XYZ chip manufacturing company should have the right to attend a private lunch between the president of intel and the president of texas instruments because they might conduct business and she's being excluded.....

Are you high?

no.....

are you?

by all means go ahead and point out how this is different.......

BSmack wrote:If I'm replying to your retarded drivel, you can BET it is a slow day at work.

If my "retarded drivel" has made you look like a total fool in this thread, then that REALLY doens't say much for you, or your almighty "one claim".

Felix wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Felix wrote:by your logic B the female CEO of XYZ chip manufacturing company should have the right to attend a private lunch between the president of intel and the president of texas instruments because they might conduct business and she's being excluded.....

Are you high?

no.....

are you?

by all means go ahead and point out how this is different.......

By all means point out where I said that what Augusta is doing is illegal.

mvscal wrote:So when are you planning on substantiating your "one claim"?

l to r bsmack-mvscal

By all means, keep on denying reality. It makes you more entertaining.

BSmack wrote:

Felix wrote:

BSmack wrote: Are you high?

no.....

are you?

by all means go ahead and point out how this is different.......

By all means point out where I said that what Augusta is doing is illegal.

where did I say anything in that post about legalities......

are you sure you're not high?

Felix wrote:where did I say anything in that post about legalities......

are you sure you're not high?

You were the one who said, "by your logic B the female CEO of XYZ chip manufacturing company should have the right to attend a private lunch between the president of intel and the president of texas instruments because they might conduct business and she's being excluded".

When you start saying things like "should have the right" you are speaking about legalities. Now if you would like to back away from that statement, feel free. I won't think any less of you.

BSmack wrote: When you start saying things like "should have the right" you are speaking about legalities. Now if you would like to back away from that statement, feel free. I won't think any less of you.

now your going Doctor Detroit on me.....

you know what I meant.....

BSmack wrote: By all means point out where I said that what Augusta is doing is illegal.

Well, there's this ...

The problem stems from the fact that they are not just playing golf. They are also doing business that affects every man, woman and child on this planet. Not allowing 50% of the population to participate in that business is effectively restraint of trade.

When you start saying things like "restraint of trade" you are speaking about legalities. Now if you would like to back away from that statement, feel free. I won't think any less of you. :wink:

BTW 99% (just throwing a big number out there, but it's probably close) of the population is restricted from participating in "C-level business", but that's the free enterprise system.

You see, this argument is not about whether there is a legal basis to restrict membership at Augusta. Obviously, there is no legal reason why they cannot restrict their membership. No, this is about whether or not their policies are of any particular importance in the grand scheme of things. And I would submit to you that access to the men who control companies like Coca-Cola, Citigroup. Motorola , JP Morgan Chase, Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, Coors, IBM and GE (just to name a few) is a big fucking deal for somebody who is looking to make business deals involving those companies.

Again, since it seems to have been glossed over, but ... the CEO of Citigroup can ask the CEO of Xerox (a chick) to play a round at Augusta and talk about buying a new copier or selling her on the newest credit card with cash back options. Fortune 500 Company's conduct business with each other based on mutually beneficial business needs not the gender of the CEO or membership in Augusta or other restricitve clubs.

Your whole arguement semas fucked up to me dude. It's about access to powerful people. Most people don't have access to those types of people and it has nothing to do with gender. I'd love to do business with Citibank & Xerox, but if I placed a call to either of those CEO's, I'd get shot down equally fast.

Felix wrote:

BSmack wrote: When you start saying things like "should have the right" you are speaking about legalities. Now if you would like to back away from that statement, feel free. I won't think any less of you.

now your going Doctor Detroit on me.....

you know what I meant.....

You tell me how "should have the right to something" means anything other than "should be illegal to deny me that thing" and maybe we can talk.

BSmack wrote:
You tell me how "should have the right to something" means anything other than "should be illegal to deny me that thing" and maybe we can talk.

what the fuck were we talking about......you've moved the target so many times I forgot what the point was......

oh yeah, you believe that a woman should be granted access to a private golf club based on the fact that she's a woman......

martha burke much.......

Felix wrote:

BSmack wrote:
You tell me how "should have the right to something" means anything other than "should be illegal to deny me that thing" and maybe we can talk.

what the fuck were we talking about......you've moved the target so many times I forgot what the point was......

oh yeah, you believe that a woman should be granted access to a private golf club based on the fact that she's a woman......

martha burke much.......

Read my posts and get back to me. Right about now I am forced to conclude that the penguins underneath your posts are talking to you in ways that are driving you insane.

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:When you start saying things like "restraint of trade" you are speaking about legalities. Now if you would like to back away from that statement, feel free. I won't think any less of you. :wink:

Restraint of trade is not necessarily illegal. It happens all the time. Apples and fucking bowling balls dude.

BTW 99% (just throwing a big number out there, but it's probably close) of the population is restricted from participating in "C-level business", but that's the free enterprise system.

Again, since it seems to have been glossed over, but ... the CEO of Citigroup can ask the CEO of Xerox (a chick) to play a round at Augusta and talk about buying a new copier or selling her on the newest credit card with cash back options. Fortune 500 Company's conduct business with each other based on mutually beneficial business needs not the gender of the CEO or membership in Augusta or other restricitve clubs.

Your whole arguement semas fucked up to me dude. It's about access to powerful people. Most people don't have access to those types of people and it has nothing to do with gender. I'd love to do business with Citibank & Xerox, but if I placed a call to either of those CEO's, I'd get shot down equally fast.

My argument is that this access you speak of is a big deal to those who need it to advance their careers. Way back on page one, someone said that those trying to gain admission to these clubs somehow lacked "perspective". My take is that you change the things in this world that apply to you and someday maybe you can change the world at large. In this case, these women have no power to change what is happening in Iran. But they can change sexist practices here in the US. So that's what they do.

Sadly, Martha Burke is fucking HORRIBLE at what she does and has probably doomed her cause for the foreseeable future.

BSmack wrote: Read my posts and get back to me.

so you're now denying that's what the gist of your posts are?

The problem stems from the fact that they are not just playing golf. They are also doing business that affects every man, woman and child on this planet. Not allowing 50% of the population to participate in that business is effectively restraint of trade. (hmm, that sounds kind of legal like)

Now, if the members of Augusta were to adhere to a strict, enforceable and verifiable policy of absolutely no business of any kind (like bringing clients to the club) being conducted on club premises...

you want to prevent members of a private club from doing business, because there aren't women members.......

No, this is about whether or not their policies are of any particular importance in the grand scheme of things. And I would submit to you that access to the men who control companies like Coca-Cola, Citigroup. Motorola , JP Morgan Chase, Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, Coors, IBM and GE (just to name a few) is a big fucking deal for somebody who is looking to make business deals involving those companies.

They are impeding the ability of women who would, were it not for this arbitrary restriction, otherwise be able to enjoy the perks of membership at one of the most exclusive clubs on the planet. And one of those perks is the ability to network with the richest and most powerful people on the planet earth. Sorry to inform you of this, but this is not something you can do at your local muni.

yeah, I can see now how your posts aren't anything about what you perceive to be the inequities of Augusta National and your campaigning for a woman to be admitted as a member.....

Good job selectively snipping posts. If I ever want for an example of how to Ctrl-Cuda an argument together, I'll be sure to get back to you Pinks.

BSmack wrote:Good job selectively snipping posts.

then by all means asseyes....point out how I'm misrepresenting your opinion with selective "snipping"

we all get it Bri.....you'll defend your point to the death....no matter how wrong it is......

Felix wrote:then by all means asseyes....point out how I'm misrepresenting your opinion with selective "snipping"

Well, I never said that I wanted to prevent Augusta members from doing business at their club. In fact, I said very clearly that they have every legal right to exclude whomever they choose.

Did you miss that? Or did that not support whatever feeble argument you were trying to make with me?

That's what I mean about you selectively employing the ctrl-cuda feature.

we all get it Bri.....you'll defend your point to the death....no matter how wrong it is......

So now you're speaking for "we all"? All of whom? Disgruntled potato lovers?