Re: "da marlboro man"
Tue, 30 Dec 1997 14:02:15 EST
In a message dated 12/30/97 1:48:59 AM, WAHowland@AOL.COM wrote:
<<I'm all for ripping off the cig companies whenever possible (trustworthy
an backseat here, I confess)...
Having followed this train, I appreciate Auntie Beans at least voicing a
thought which I have had.
The cigarette companies are not charitable organizations. They are making the
equipment available not out of the goodness of their heart, but because they
expect something in return, namely the exposure of their product name. If we
do believe in our oath and law, and we take the equipment provided by the
cigarette companies, do we not have some obligation to follow through on the
implicit deal and provide the exposure they expect, or at least not do what
one post suggested, which is to stencil a skull and crossbones next to the
I have no love for tobacco products and for the cigarette companies. As a
chemist, and as a businessman who has personally dealt with cigarette
companies, I believe that their mode of operation and moral standard is well
documented and substantiated.
Rather, I note a rather selective application of the oath and law. In cases
where we, as a group, believe that the party toward which trustworthyness
might be due is unworthy (read the cigarette companies), then we feel
perfectly comfortable in not following through on the implicit agreement which
they made in providing equipment.
However, in other cases where other individuals choose to make their own
interpretation of the oath and law counter to many of us -- read atheists,
gays, girls, etc. -- then many of us become very righteous ending up with
"National has spoken! Throw the bums out!"
I have no problem with the concept of majority rule or of minority veto. I am
just wondering if anyone else on the list feels this inconsistency or if I am
out in left field. Thanks very much.
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City