Christian censorship: Atheist billboard taken down

[Morpheus]

Error...unintentional post.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

The end/point of the timing, not of the billboard itself.


Wouldn't dream of it.

And yet your argument rests on the notion that the ad-makers want to upset more people for more publicity, despite acknowledging that the ad could could have been inflammatory, thus generating more publicity, and yet was not. Apparently, they didn't want more publicity all that badly in contrast to your claims.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Of course. That's all any of us are setting out beyond the bare facts.

And yet your argument ventures bravely well beyond any established facts. Mine does not. You presume to know the rationale, strategy and expectations of the ad-makers based on nothing more than the timing of the ad. Unfortunately your proclivity towards specious argumentation appears proportional to your stated prejudice. It is disappointing.

 

[WizardofOz]

Sounds like the Coalition of Reason wants to make demands and tell Lamar how to run their (private) business.

They could just find a new advertiser and stop whining. Troy Tatum is right, they just want to start a fight. Having half of their money refunded is equitable. Stop with the victim card and move on.

 

[quip]

Sounds like the Coalition of Reason wants to make demands and tell Lamar how to run their (private) business.

They could just find a new advertiser and stop whining. Troy Tatum is right, they just want to start a fight. Having half of their money refunded is equitable. Stop with the victim card and move on.

The customer is always right! :up: ...except if the customer has an atheist agenda! :down: . . . . We have freedom of religious expression :up: ...until we express a freedom from said religion :down: ...Spoze it depends on which way the breeze wants to blow Oz? :Wamba:

 

[WizardofOz]

The customer is always right!

Whoever told you that fooled you.

Besides, this is a customer making demands on how the business should be run. I'll go to McDonalds and demand breakfast at 1pm.

After all, the customer is always right :hammer:

They should make it for me, right?

They're getting half their money back for the unused time. They should stop whining and move on.

:up: ...except if the customer has an atheist agenda! :down: . . . . We have freedom of religious expression :up: ...until we express a freedom from said religion :down:

You could be their spokesperson :allsmile:

Having their money refunded isn't equitable? They had their billboard up it just didn't run as long as they hoped so they're whining about it and playing the victim card.

...Spoze it depends on which way the breeze wants to blow Oz? :Wamba:

Projecting again?

I'd say the same thing if it were a Christian billboard. Stuff happens, you're getting refunded. Find another billboard to advertise on and stop :allsmile:

 

[Granite]

I don't. Never did. Never said I did. Never will say it.

Sure, you just have a problem with when they choose to speak their minds. How generous.

Without question. Blinding nearly.

Enough to make you overlook them in the glare, apparently...

What I've resisted is the attempt by several likely well meaning people to paint my point as something other than what it is or to cast it in a light that isn't mine.

Your "point" (such as it is) seems to be: "This bothers me, they shouldn't have done it, tut-tut-tut. Have they no decency, at long last?"

If your sensibilities are precious and delicate enough to be upended by retail advertising at Christmastime you seem to be acting like either a weak sister or a grandstander.

 

[quip]

Whoever told you that fooled you.

Probably...though, if I remember correctly, he also signed my check!

They're getting half their money back for the unused time. They should stop whining and move on.


You could be their spokesperson :allsmile:

Having their money refunded isn't equitable? They had their billboard up it just didn't run as long as they hoped so they're whining about it and playing the victim card.


Projecting again?

I'd say the same thing if it were a Christian billboard. Stuff happens, you're getting refunded. Find another billboard to advertise on and stop :allsmile:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4211712&postcount=91

 

[WizardofOz]

Having half their money refunded, equitable solution or not?

 

[Town Heretic]

Sure, you just have a problem with when they choose to speak their minds. How generous.

Rather, I find the choice they made in poor taste. And you think all sorts of things are in poor taste. You only just noted it.

Does that make you ungenerous?

Enough to make you overlook them in the glare, apparently...

Because everyone knows that when you object to one thing someone brings up about a holiday it's suspicious unless you then launch into a polemic on every single other thing, even if no one asked you.

Because that wouldn't be hyper sensitive or something to move on from, eh?

Your "point" (such as it is) seems to be: "This bothers me, they shouldn't have done it, tut-tut-tut. Have they no decency, at long last?"

Or you could go with what I actually said. Depends on if the agenda is to be reasonable or to advance your bias under the veneer of that.

If your sensibilities are precious and delicate enough to be upended by retail advertising at Christmastime

Because nothing says precious and delicate like attempting to reason with those who object to your point of view. lain:

you seem to be acting like either a weak sister or a grandstander.

Where you seem to be a half step from invoking the Nazis.

 

[Town Heretic]

Having half their money refunded, equitable solution or not?

No, I'd say breach should involve penalty. They didn't get what they paid for. The value of what they did get isn't for the injuring party to determine.

Say the atheists had scheduled a race and the promoters only had half the course protected so the runners had to stop running and go home before the intended end point. No one would suggest half a race was meeting any part of the obligation. There's potentially a bit of that in this, especially in light of their missing the beginning date to begin with.

 

[Granite]

Rather, I find the choice they made in poor taste.

At this rate the only response that makes any kind of sense is "bully for you."

Because everyone knows that when you object to one thing someone brings up about a holiday it's suspicious unless you then launch into a polemic on every single other thing, even if no one asked you.

Not really. Just bizarre that someone who's usually reasonable decided to make a mountain out of this particular molehill.

Or you could go with what I actually said. Depends on if the agenda is to be reasonable or to advance your bias under the veneer of that.

I see you've got your mindreader cap on. Again.

Where you seem to be a half step from invoking the Nazis.

All due respect but screw you. Considering the losses my family took that's an insult I rarely if ever use, and it's beneath you.

Have fun with this bird turd of a thread, guys. Over and out.

 

[WizardofOz]

No, I'd say breach should involve penalty. They didn't get what they paid for. The value of what they did get isn't for the injuring party to determine.

Then the CoR can certainly sue for damages if they can prove injury in court...

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Lamars simply refunding the unused funds. If CoR feels the need to create a bigger stink they have recourse.

I bet it would get tossed or settled with minimal financial gain. I'm sure Lamar has a legal department that knows what they're doing

Say the atheists had scheduled a race and the promoters only had half the course protected so the runners had to stop running and go home before the intended end point. No one would suggest half a race was meeting any part of the obligation. There's potentially a bit of that in this, especially in light of their missing the beginning date to begin with.

Hence the refund. No one is arguing the initial delay. The CoR simply demanded to go beyond their end date to compensate. Perhaps Lamars had prior obligation with another client...

 

[Town Heretic]

At this rate the only response that makes any kind of sense is "bully for you."

Agreed. We all have things that make us roll eyes. And bully for whatever that is, yours or mine.

Not really. Just bizarre that someone who's usually reasonable decided to make a mountain out of this particular molehill.

But I didn't. I only returned to answer others who seemed determined to make all sorts of general and particular objections the point.

I see you've got your mindreader cap on. Again.

You think it takes a mind reader to see that repeated attempts to set a simple objection in lights like "delicate, precious, weak sister" as being reflective of a different context requires ESP? lain:

All due respect but screw you. Considering the losses my family took that's an insult I rarely if ever use, and it's beneath you.

So you think I really am a mind reader. Well, no. I have no idea about your family history in that particular. But you missed the actual inference, which was the first person who brings in the Nazis, almost always a grotesque overkill with little value as a parallel, is the loser.

You'd done the precious and delicate, moved on to the weak sister. Trying to interject relative masculinity by inference is just a goofy form of posturing/name calling. So going even more overboard seemed the next natural step.

 

[Town Heretic]

Then the CoR can certainly sue for damages if they can prove injury in court...

The beach itself is proof. And attempt to mitigate doesn't go to punatives for breaking faith to begin with. So it's more a matter of determining damages. There's not much Llamar can do except show they made some (if insufficient) attempt to mitigate. Now had Llamar offered a later four week window of their choice and subject to the availability of the sign in question coupled with the return of the money I think no court would have had a problem suggesting the parties settle and return.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Lamars simply refunding the unused funds. If CoR feels the need to create a bigger stink they have recourse.

The strongest stick the atheists have is that Llamar's admission of pressure from outside parties gives the appearance of Llamar being both the breaching party and a party to a conspiracy to infringe upon their freedom of speech, which is more serious and could, if argued well enough and finding support move into a more serious penalty phase, now that I mull it.

Interesting case.

I bet it would get tossed or settled with minimal financial gain. I'm sure Lamar has a legal department that knows what they're doing

The problem with legal departments is that often what's said/admitted to by agents of a company isn't done through them, that counsel is typically brought in after the fact. Here, if the early reports of the Llamar admissions are correct that appears to be the case. Not a chance in Hades I'm going to let them say anything of the sort, raise that suspicion at all...though if I'm right about that aim of using the holiday they'd already have suspected/counted on it and would then subpoena records and/or people who would confirm the pressure.

Hence the refund. No one is arguing the initial delay. The CoR simply demanded to go beyond their end date to compensate. Perhaps Lamars had prior obligation with another client...

I said much the same thing to Fly early, which was actually my point in stopping by the thread. But there appear to have been two particulars, a beginning/end date and a duration declared in the contract. The arguments would be over preeminence of terms and fault, if Llamar wants to take a stab at defending against actual breach.

Like I said, an interesting case. Lots of potential (by which I mean billable time potential). lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

And yet your argument ventures bravely well beyond any established facts.

Rather, I extrapolate from established facts. That's the nature of speculation of any sort.

Mine does not.

You absolutely do. The billboard makes no mention of atheists feeling alienated around the holidays. That's a read in. Reasonable? Depends on the perspective. And I noted a problem with that read in and the timing, among others.

You presume to know the rationale, strategy and expectations of the ad-makers based on nothing more than the timing of the ad.

Rather I assert that the timing of the add speaks to a calculation that best explains it. Just so, the presence of a birthday cake may represent a bake sale, but the odds are better that someone is about to officially age a year.

Unfortunately your proclivity towards specious argumentation appears proportional to your stated prejudice.

And I note people who can't advance argument or even the appearance of it without name calling lack a fundamental faith in either their reason or position.

It is disappointing.

It really is.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Rather, I extrapolate from established facts. That's the nature of speculation of any sort.

There is much speculation of underhanded motives on your part. I do not partake.

You absolutely do. The billboard makes no mention of atheists feeling alienated around the holidays.

And is that an argument I have made?

Rather I assert that the timing of the add speaks to a calculation that best explains it.

Best explains? The best explanation is that they wanted to advertise their website. That you presume underhanded motive is an extra-curricular you have endeavored, and to condemn that presumed underhanded motive.

 

[WizardofOz]

The beach itself is proof.

That I am tired of winter. Yes it is

And attempt to mitigate doesn't go to punatives for breaking faith to begin with. So it's more a matter of determining damages. There's not much Llamar can do except show they made some (if insufficient) attempt to mitigate. Now had Llamar offered a later four week window of their choice and subject to the availability of the sign in question coupled with the return of the money I think no court would have had a problem suggesting the parties settle and return.

I hear you and I agree that CoR has legal recourse. So far, they've just been whiny about it. They should either sue or move on...

The strongest stick the atheists have is that Llamar's admission of pressure from outside parties gives the appearance of Llamar being both the breaching party and a party to a conspiracy to infringe upon their freedom of speech, which is more serious and could, if argued well enough and finding support move into a more serious penalty phase, now that I mull it.

Interesting case.

They claim to have the admission but they're the only ones saying so as far as I know...:think:

The problem with legal departments is that often what's said/admitted to by agents of a company isn't done through them, that counsel is typically brought in after the fact. Here, if the early reports of the Llamar admissions are correct that appears to be the case. Not a chance in Hades I'm going to let them say anything of the sort, raise that suspicion at all...though if I'm right about that aim of using the holiday they'd already have suspected/counted on it and would then subpoena records and/or people who would confirm the pressure.

Supra. They have an admission because the CoR or the Friendly Atheist say so?...

Maybe there was an admission. Unless they can prove it or Lamars repeats it, what is there really?

I said much the same thing to Fly early, which was actually my point in stopping by the thread. But there appear to have been two particulars, a beginning/end date and a duration declared in the contract. The arguments would be over preeminence of terms and fault, if Llamar wants to take a stab at defending against actual breach.

Like I said, an interesting case. Lots of potential (by which I mean billable time potential). lain:

How dare you find interest in such things. :sibbie:

 

[Town Heretic]

There is much speculation of underhanded motives on your part. I do not partake.

If by underhanded you mean secretive and by secretive you mean the more innocuous failure to make plain or public, okay. A thing can be in poor taste without anything nefarious attaching.

And is that an argument I have made?

Were you the one who said he didn't know many atheists who were bothered by the holidays? I thought it was Fly. I've been having this conversation with you and fly and Granite and rex and fool and a couple of others, but only one of you separated from the alienation bit. I thought it was Fly. If it was you then no.

Best explains? The best explanation is that they wanted to advertise their website.

Best explains the timing. The advertising follows whenever they do it.

That you presume underhanded motive is an extra-curricular you have endeavored, and to condemn that presumed underhanded motive.

If you conflate finding something in poor taste with condemnation and underhanded with clever, okay. Otherwise, I've set out very particular reasons for why I found the dates that were set to be used read as a play for additional press and why another reading of that date was less reasonable. Agree, disagree, but it's not dart throwing.

 

[Town Heretic]

That I am tired of winter. Yes it is

Or are you a lion? (see what I did there with the ante?)

I hear you and I agree that CoR has legal recourse. So far, they've just been whiny about it. They should either sue or move on...

They might be using the pause to drum up a better offer while saving legal fees and getting additional free press. If we hear about a settlement once everyone is done talking about it that'll be the likely reason why.

They claim to have the admission but they're the only ones saying so as far as I know...:think:

Admission or not I'll bet you they got complaints and all you need is the ability to demonstrate that coupled with the severance of the period and you have at least strong circumstantial evidence which, despite the common mistake on the point, can be enough for a conviction, especially in civil court.

Supra. They have an admission because the CoR or the Friendly Atheist say so?...

The silence on the denial side of Llamar would tend to argue they're telling the truth, but it doesn't really matter if they do so long as they can produce proof at some point.

How dare you find interest in such things. :sibbie:

Many's a day I find myself wishing I'd been more concerned about that.