Welcome To P8ntballer.com
The Home Of European Paintball
Sign Up & Join In

F***ing A**holes

Baca Loco

Baca Loco

Ex-Fun Police
Mar 8, 2002
4,730
8
63
In the pit
viewfromthedeadbox.blogspot.com
Originally posted by Missy Q
Thanks Loco, but seriously, I don't really need you to tell me I am correct (except about the thing I didn't actually mention - but thanks for pointing out that it would have been a wash if I had, in fact, mentioned it;) )
No, I doubt the woodsball vs Pro-ball insult-fest would acheive much, other than striking a blow for the blue collar paintballer - something I would have thought would have appealed to you, my illustrious Comrade.
Do you believe that your theory of Pro-teams taking control of the leagues translates on a more global scale into the Woodsballers taking control of paintball and ridding themselves of the priveledged pro teams that take all the money and sponsorship away from the paying public?
Its a twist, but just think how much cheaper things would be for the common man if the likes of N-dogs, Dynarats and Exessvee were not adding to the bottom line...
Click to expand...
Just wanted to offer my encouragement. :)

Wow, the rest of that is such a load of utter bollox I don't know where to begin. For a start you might at least characterize my positions accurately. :p
 
M

Missy Q

300lb's of Chocolate Love
Jun 8, 2005
552
0
0
East Side
www.tshirthell.com
of course it's bollox - Thats my argument - get your own...

I suppose I was characterising you as a rabble-rousing commie pinko, but my point (such as it was) was that there is a much larger, albeit far less vocal, rabble, that could latch onto your 'teachings' and apply same to further their own cause. I was doing this more for my own amusement than anything though, but to clarify...

You encourage top teams to assert themselves more within the leagues, even seek ownership of the leagues, because you see thier talent as being the currency that should get them onto TV, rather than the leagues investment in finding and funding said TV exposure. I don't have an issue with this, its a point of view. Fact is that in your view the Pro teams are providing the 'currency', and the league is 'making all the money'.

If we put this in a woodsball vs arena-ball context. The Woods-guys provide the currency to prop up the industry, hard cash in this case, which is far more tangible and less subjective than 'talent'. It is these guys that make up those big participant numbers we always read about, and receive pretty much nothing in return, which does not seem to bother them. If those guys are funding the pro teams big sponsorships, and they are being asked to pay full money for everything they buy, then wouldn't the same principle stand for them? The currency is different, but the movement of money and control away from the people that are spending it and into the hands of others is the same, is it not?
 
shadow9712

shadow9712

New Member
Jan 31, 2006
47
0
0
U.S.A. snohomish WA
dellnet.my.msn.com
at least im not one of the village idiots...

sure i can say banned...i can also say wuteva i want as long as im a American, u might not agree with it but skrew u im a f***in noob and ur a f***ing veteran, sue me i got carried away and made a fool of myself im sorry so jus forget i ever said anything











thanks missy at least smeone sees wut my prob is
 
Gyroscope

Gyroscope

Pastor of Muppets
Aug 11, 2002
1,838
0
0
Colorado
www.4q.cc
You're right, Missy, if those greedy pros weren't getting all that sponsorship money, then honest woodsballers could save tons of cash on their Angels, Shockers, Egos, and Empire pads. Bright red playing tops would probably only cost the average sniper $15!

Down with the dominant paradigm! Let the F***ing A**holes wear their own damn pajamas! We gentle forest people are sick of it! We're loud, we're proud, we're in yer face! I mean, we're silent, we're hard to see, but we're still in yer face!

Excellent way to meet the community, shadow9712. You are gonna make lots of friends. Do you wear a "Show me your tits" t-shirt at NOW meetings? There are tons of chicks at those things.

Baca, masterful. I bow (but I am too loud and proud to scrape, sorry).
 
Baca Loco

Baca Loco

Ex-Fun Police
Mar 8, 2002
4,730
8
63
In the pit
viewfromthedeadbox.blogspot.com
at least im not one of the village idiots...

Originally posted by shadow9712
sure i can say banned...i can also say wuteva i want as long as im a American, u might not agree with it but skrew u im a f***in noob and ur a f***ing veteran, sue me i got carried away and made a fool of myself im sorry so jus forget i ever said anything

thanks missy at least smeone sees wut my prob is
Click to expand...
This seems an appropriate place to remind everyone that A) text speak ain't allowed and B) ignorance of the rules is no excuse.
 
Baca Loco

Baca Loco

Ex-Fun Police
Mar 8, 2002
4,730
8
63
In the pit
viewfromthedeadbox.blogspot.com
Originally posted by Missy Q
1--You encourage top teams to assert themselves more within the leagues,
1A--even seek ownership of the leagues,
1B--because you see thier talent as being the currency that should get them onto TV, rather than the leagues investment in finding and funding said TV exposure. I don't have an issue with this, its a point of view.
1C--Fact is that in your view the Pro teams are providing the 'currency', and the league is 'making all the money'.

2--If we put this in a woodsball vs arena-ball context. The Woods-guys provide the currency to prop up the industry, hard cash in this case, which is far more tangible and less subjective than 'talent'. It is these guys that make up those big participant numbers we always read about, and receive pretty much nothing in return, which does not seem to bother them. If those guys are funding the pro teams big sponsorships, and they are being asked to pay full money for everything they buy, then wouldn't the same principle stand for them? The currency is different, but the movement of money and control away from the people that are spending it and into the hands of others is the same, is it not?
Click to expand...
Nice to have you back, Missy, but you're a little rusty I think.
1--absolutely.
1A--not at all. I have advocated either cutting out the middleman (leagues) altogether or uniting for the purpose of negotiating an equitable arrangement with the leagues. There are, of course, lots of reasons why neither is likely to occur including industry ownership of a significant percentage of top teams and primarily inclusive industry sponsorship of the rest to which Rocky & Bullwinkle's Golden Rule applies--he who has the gold makes the rules.
1B--not exactly. What I see is that at this stage the teams and talent are what the league is selling but once the league's deal is in place then the leagues validate the teams (unless competitive leagues are competing for talent.) My point to the teams has been that this is their window of opportunity.
1C--My other point is that in the present environment the teams are actually in competition with the league for resources and sponsors and the most beneficial arrangement for everyone would be cooperation and shared goal and purpose.

2--thanks for the laugh. Funny stuff that, Missy. Let's see, you guys give crack to addicts and use them to mule your product and then want to blame them for being addicts.
And by this rationale Nike should be giving money to all the kids who buy their shoes instead of NBA players. And who was it who decided how they were gonna market their stuff? Oh, yeah, those evil ungrateful players. I forgot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom