-GoBengals- Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='Dan_Bengals_FL' date='30 August 2009 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1251688320' post='796526'] You're right ... you should probably tell that to the families of the nine people that just died in NYC because of low-flying aircraft. [url="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125140196268364357.html?mod=googlenews_wsj"]http://online.wsj.co...=googlenews_wsj[/url] It's cool when planes that can't be tracked by air traffic control decide to fly around and around over crowds. You know, because they never crash like commercial planes do. It may just be me, but I'd rather the dumbass more focused on looking down on a crowd and seeing if a banner gets "play" rather than flying, stays away from any field or crowd that me, my friends and/or family are involved with. [/quote] unless they think mike brown is a doodoo face... then there is no danger and all safety or pointless risk are justified... after all, one groups opinion and need to pointlessly flaunt it is far more important than general public safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 OH, and the WDR army should feel better that if you are hired by or involved with them, and run into law trouble, dont expect help... "SUPPORT THE REVOLUTION, BUT WE WONT BE SUPPORTING YOU FOR SUPPORTING OUR CAUSE" why arent they getting donations for his defense cost? why arent they covering his expenses for this? i couldnt of cared less about these dudes until these topics starting constantly popping up here in idiotic arguments and before i had to facebook novels back and forth with "their leader" about me being a stinker for saying meanie poo things about his [s]resume filler[/s] blog revolution. now its annoying AND in my business.. as i told andrew, to each his own, opinion, actions, etc, but theres nothing anyone can say that will make any of these actions make sense, to think it will change anything to alter time, history or the future in any fashion seems truly "insane" if you know the brown family well enough to dislike them for whatever reason, you should also be well aware that they have run their business the same way and have done well business wise with it and surely give no shits what the media or bloggers think of them. so whats the point? I told Mr. Simon that i agreed with someone elses proposal that perhaps funds werent all going to the revolution(which he denied, which is fine, i dont know diddly about his doings honestly) I mentioned that i cant think of any rational reason to do any of that stuff otherwise, knowing it would change nothing, and in fact, likelybe counter productive, if/when WDR gets publicity, no free agents are wanting to be part of "fans" protesting the owner/team, whatever it looks like.. they are being counter productive, knowing nothing will change in the front office and that it makes the team and city look worse.. seems impossible to see it any other way.... to me at least.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooky Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='GoBengals' date='31 August 2009 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1251689632' post='796527'] unless they think mike brown is a doodoo face... then there is no danger and all safety or pointless risk are justified... after all, one groups opinion and need to pointlessly flaunt it is far more important than general public safety. [/quote] Not to mention flying over the millions and millions of dollars worth of livestock on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='GoBengals' date='31 August 2009 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1251690212' post='796528'] OH, and the WDR army should feel better that if you are hired by or involved with them, and run into law trouble, dont expect help... "SUPPORT THE REVOLUTION, BUT WE WONT BE SUPPORTING YOU FOR SUPPORTING OUR CAUSE" why arent they getting donations for his defense cost? why arent they covering his expenses for this? [/quote] I was wondering the same thing. Seems that in a "true" revolution there is more popular support... Local leadership involvement would give the organization credibility and authenticity in the eyes of the community. As it stands, their "leader" does not even reside in the state but still manages to recruit minions to do his bidding and in turn does not support them when the situation deteriorates. Perhaps if WDR hired those girls who handed out ticket schedules near the gate ? (see rule #6 below) Lastly, I post Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals because WDR appears to follow similar guidelines. It's not perfect but there is a general idea to what they do. They appear to especially like rule #12. Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.) RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.) RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.) RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.) RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.) RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.) RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.) RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.) RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.) RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.) RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.) RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='Dan_Bengals_FL' date='31 August 2009 - 12:12 AM' timestamp='1251688320' post='796526'] You're right ... you should probably tell that to the families of the nine people that just died in NYC because of low-flying aircraft. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125140196268364357.html?mod=googlenews_wsj It's cool when planes that can't be tracked by air traffic control decide to fly around and around over crowds. You know, because they never crash like commercial planes do. It may just be me, but I'd rather the dumbass more focused on looking down on a crowd and seeing if a banner gets "play" rather than flying, stays away from any field or crowd that me, my friends and/or family are involved with. [/quote] How does this support the argument against WDR or Newhouse? Air traffic controllers don't see planes below 1100 feet in NYC due to tall buildings called "skyscrapers". Georgetown doesn't have those and is considerably less urban as Jay Glazer will tell you. Nobody is alleging that Newhouse nearly collided with another plane. The discussion is about whether the Bengals were right to call the FAA on Newhouse. The arguments against private planes flying over practice prove too much as they are basically Luddite arguments against any private planes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredtoast Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 To me this just makes Miike Brown look smarter than WDR. It is like a bunch of kids getting caught toilet papering the house of a teacher they don't like and then claiming that his calling the police shows how mean he is. Right now the pilot is paying a fine and looking at more problems while Mike Brown is laughing his ass off at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='fredtoast' date='31 August 2009 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1251743657' post='796643'] To me this just makes Miike Brown look smarter than WDR. It is like a bunch of kids getting caught toilet papering the house of a teacher they don't like and then claiming that his calling the police shows how mean he is. Right now the pilot is paying a fine and looking at more problems while Mike Brown is laughing his ass off at them. [/quote] WDR would probably say they have nothing to do with whether or not Newhouse obeyed FAA rules. Newhouse hasn't been fined yet for flying too low which is what the Bengals complained about. He claims the radar will exonerate him. If it does, is the shoe on the other foot with Mike Brown the laughing stock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote]It's up to pilots to avoid collisions, primarily by watching out the window.[/quote] Er.. Actually the naked eye is a notoriously poor way to judge anything in the air, that's why they have artificial horizons and a dashboard covered in instruments. You WDR guys know as much about piloting as you do football. But don't let that stop you from making asses of yourselves! [img]http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/funny-pictures-cat-has-toy-pony-minions.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredtoast Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='sparky151' date='31 August 2009 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1251746473' post='796659'] Newhouse hasn't been fined yet for flying too low which is what the Bengals complained about. He claims the radar will exonerate him. If it does, is the shoe on the other foot with Mike Brown the laughing stock? [/quote] All I know is that WDR website said that the FAA investigation determined that the pilot was in violation of the code. The article in the original post just said that he has had to pay for a lawyer. I wonder if the commrades at WDR are helping him with the expenses, or if they are actually cheaper than Mike Brown and less loyal to their commrades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='fredtoast' date='31 August 2009 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1251748777' post='796668'] All I know is that WDR website said that the FAA investigation determined that the pilot was in violation of the code. The article in the original post just said that he has had to pay for a lawyer. I wonder if the commrades at WDR are helping him with the expenses, or if they are actually cheaper than Mike Brown and less loyal to their commrades? [/quote] I went over to their site and looked around and didn't see anything beyond what was posted here. The FAA violation mentioned was not informing them he was flying outside of the 3 county area in Ohio. Flying outside the area is perfectly legal, he's just supposed to notify them ahead of time. That's not what the Bengals complained about or what the investigation is about. It's not even clear if he has been fined for not notifying the FAA or just given the bureaucratic equivalent of a slap on the wrist. The Bengals complaint, echoed by several posters here is that he was flying dangerously low when towing the banner complaining about the team's record. The pilot denies that and claims the radar from Lexington will exonerate him. He may be wrong but if he is right, would you agree the Bengals were out of line? My view is that he posed no danger to persons on the ground and the call was an attempt to cause him aggravation via the FAA. It was made by a Bengals security person and I'm curious if he did it on his own or at the direction of higher ups. Regarding WDR helping Newhouse with his legal issue, I don't think they are obliged to but a commenter there endorsed the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted August 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='sparky151' date='31 August 2009 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1251755372' post='796702'] I went over to their site and looked around and didn't see anything beyond what was posted here. The FAA violation mentioned was not informing them he was flying outside of the 3 county area in Ohio. Flying outside the area is perfectly legal, he's just supposed to notify them ahead of time. [b]That's not what the Bengals complained about or what the investigation is about.[/b] It's not even clear if he has been fined for not notifying the FAA or just given the bureaucratic equivalent of a slap on the wrist. The Bengals complaint, echoed by several posters here is that he was flying dangerously low when towing the banner complaining about the team's record. The pilot denies that and claims the radar from Lexington will exonerate him. He may be wrong but if he is right, would you agree the Bengals were out of line? My view is that he posed no danger to persons on the ground and the call was an attempt to cause him aggravation via the FAA. It was made by a Bengals security person and I'm curious if he did it on his own or at the direction of higher ups. Regarding WDR helping Newhouse with his legal issue, I don't think they are obliged to but a commenter there endorsed the idea. [/quote] *sigh* Obviously he was flying low enough that the Bengals thought the FAA should know. The fact that he had a different violation, is not the Bengals fault. The fact that he has to hire an attorney to defend him, is not the Bengals fault. And even if he was flying above 1,000 feet, then no, I do not think the Bengals were out of line at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.