BBC Blog Network

User Profile

SurfingSharka

Listed below are comments made by SurfingSharka between Friday, 13th February 2009 and Thursday, 17th December 2009.

«Newer
Older»

The sporting moral maze 6:52pm on 17 Dec 2009 re: #32:

You don't have to have an advert focus on someone being "clean living" for that to be implied in a big corporate sponsorship.

If a sportsman was arrested for taking drugs, they'd be dropped by some sponsors (though not all, depends on the brand) - it wouldn't matter that the adverts they'd appeared in weren't based on being a non-drug user. Same as if some unsavoury policital leanings were uncovered. In Tiger's case, it is - apparently - multiple affairs. If it had been one then I don't think we'd be seeing this reaction, but a dozen?! It makes him a joke, and no major company is going to want to be associated with the butt of this month's joke.

He has done something that, while not illegal, is something that most people in society consider to be immoral. As others have said, he's traded on his fame to make money from the media, and in return the media will make money from him. Some sportspeople just keep to making money from their talent and the media stays away from them. That's the trade-off.
Thoughts About Rage Against The Machine vs X Factor 5:04pm on 17 Dec 2009 *sigh*

You know what, every one of the people calling the RATM backers "snobs" are displaying an incredible amount of snobbery themselves. Instead of "oh, look at me, I hate manufactured pop music and will buy RATM as a protest against the sheep" it's "oh, look at me, I'm so clever I'm totally above all this nonsense, and I will condescend to all those involved because I'm so much cleverer than you all!"

If the charts are democratic then that has to include organised campaigns like this. You can't have democratic charts and then say "oh, but it doesn't count if you are buying a song for reasons x, y or z, because I disagree with those reasons".

Contempt for the chart? Disregard for public taste? Do you really think that hundreds of thousands of people would rush out and buy The Climb if it wasn't from some heavily-manipulated "reality" TV show? That's manipulation on a far grander scale than openly saying "hey, let's cause some mischief and buy RATM" on Facebook or Twitter.

You argue that the public has a right to chose and then compain about the public choosing RATM. You argue that the public shouldn't be manipulated by a cheeky campaign, and then say "let the X Factor winner have their moment" as if that's some sort of God-given (or Cowell-given) right that a karaoke poppet from a heavily-orchestrated TV show gets to have the Christmas number one, and how dare the public interfere with that.

The massive publicity that the X Factor gives to the single it releases does as much, if not more, to skew public taste in the charts as the campaign to get RATM to number one. Let's face it - if there was no TV show, and you played The Climb to all those millions of people, how many would rush out and buy it because they liked the song? A tiny fraction of those who will buy it this week - they are buying it because of the show, because they think Joe's a nice little lad. They are buying into something but it's certainly not the music. To suggest that that's fine, but people buying into RATM for a laugh is to be sneered at, is as pathetic as you're accusing the campaigners of being.

Frankly, all the whingeing about RATM is coming from old-school media like newspapers, magazines and TV networks. Are they afraid that this is highlighing the power of new media - the power for "ordinary" people to push their own agendas and make things happen without the approval of the powers that be? If a Radio 1 DJ had started this campaign you can bet that it would have all been hunky dory. Now it's just left for some of them to jump on the bandwagon because the masses are making things happen for themselves. Whether RATM gets to number one or not, the mere fact that all this happened through online spontaneity speaks volumes for the power of a single idea to capture the imagination through free online media, potentially toppling a multi-million pound advert (sorry, reality TV show) in the process.

Power to the people. Now that's something RATM would approve of. I hear they're going to donate some of the unexpected royalties to projects in the UK that help young people develop music skills. If only Cowell did that, huh?
Button deserves credit for rearguard fight 1:04pm on 28 Sep 2009 Some people genuinely don't seem to understand what sport is. It's not always about who is the most naturally gifted, or the most exciting. It's about who wins when it counts. This is the 2009 season, and in the 2009 season Button has won when it counted.

We could have a bunch of judges sitting watching people drive, who then decide who is the most talented/exciting driver and award them marks out of 6... if you wanted to turn F1 into ice dancing, that is.

Otherwise you accept that it's about who takes their opportunities in the car they have, to win races when they can and score points when they can. And that is exactly what Button has done this year.

Should Button not deserve his title because McLaren and Ferrari were too slow off the mark to be contenders? Rubbish. Otherwise we should take Roger Federer's 2009 French Open trophy back on the basis that he only won because Nadal was injured. Total BS - he played everyone who was contending, which is all any sportsman can do, and he won the matches that mattered. Nadal will always be remembered as the better clay court player of the two, but Federer deserved the 2009 title because he won the matches that decided the 2009 title. Otherwise what should they have done – cancel the tournament because Nadal wasn’t there?

In any sport there will be championships where luck goes with you and championships where it goes against you. There will be years when you can challenge for titles and years when you can’t. The mark of a winner is someone who seizes an opportunity when it comes along. They may only appear once in a lifetime – this season may be that once in a lifetime for Button – but if he seizes it while those around him falter, then he deserves the 2009 title.
Button deserves credit for rearguard fight 11:12am on 28 Sep 2009 Has Button been assisted by having a good car? Yes. But you can't win a WC with a bad car, no matter how great a driver you are. Every champion has had a good car.

Has he been "lucky" that his main rivals - i.e. other drivers in good cars - have made mistakes? You could look at it the other way around, that Button has made *no* mistakes and therefore deserves the WC more than other drivers who *have* made mistakes.

Has he been "choking" in the last few races? Not at all. If nerves had got to him he would have started pulling stupid manoeuvres to try and pick up extra points in races where his car was off the pace. Instead he has just calmly carried on accumulating points where he could.

At every stage of the season he has done what was asked of him and made the most of his car. That's what F1 drivers are meant to do.

Did Roger Federer deserve the French Open this year with Nadal ruled out? Yes. Ever heard of the phrase “you can only beat what’s in front of you”? You win seven matches against the other people who show up, you win the title.

Is Juan Martin del Potro the best tennis player in the world? No. did he deserve the US Open title this year? Yes, because he beat everyone when it counted.

Was the 2004 Greek national football team filled with the best players in the world? No. Did they deserve the European Championship? Yes, because they beat everyone when it counted.

Were Portsmouth the best football team in England in 2008? No. Did they deserve to win the FA Cup? Yes, because.... ah, you can fill in the rest.

Button beat everyone when his car gave him the chance to, and held his nerve to consistently pick up points when it didn't. He deserves this championship and anyone who claims otherwise doesn't really understand sport at all. It's not always the best man who wins, folks - it's the man who beats everyone else when it counts.
David Bain's Brain Strain 3:37pm on 10 Jun 2009 Surely the issue here is one of potential - not potential to become sentient, but the potential to aid society?

A newborn baby could, theoretically, grow up to be or do anything - invent clean fuel, cure cancer, write great novels or symphonies. Of course that's a long shot but you don't have to do something big to leave society better off.

It's true they may also grow up to be a killer but if we all went around eating orphaned newborn babies we could be damaging society in countless ways. And they would have to be orphaned, otherwise the pain and suffering caused to their family in the event of them being eaten would immediately make any parallel argument with eating pigs nul and void. And killing orphaned newborns is not the same as abortion/not having children at all as it doesn't involve the lives of others, specifically the mothers.
Caption Competition 12:41pm on 23 Apr 2009 Work began on the world's largest game of Guess Who
Are you an Office Evangelist? 2:00pm on 16 Mar 2009 Sorry ShoTown, but the vast majority of people wouldn't go near sites like that - and certainly wouldn't take advice on what to watch from strangers with whom they have next to nothing in common. It's hard enough getting someone you know well, and with the same taste as you, to agree to give something a go.

It may be nice for a small online community to interact that way but most word-of-mouth takes place face to face, not someone on the other side of the world imploring you to illegally download a show to watch it. The friends you see every day need to be watching something at the same pace as you or you can no longer talk about it, which is half the fun.

You say you have to pirate copies of Life on Mars in order to watch it, as if it wasn't possible to buy the box sets for £11, which it is. Or watch it on Virgin On Demand in its entirity. Or watch it repeated on Bravo. Haha.
Are you an Office Evangelist? 1:22pm on 13 Mar 2009 I told anyone who would listen to watch Being Human a few weeks back. They were sceptical about it, assuming it would be just another family-friendly fantasy show. It took some convincing but I got quite a few to give it a try, and they universally loved it.

Thanks to the whole series being on the iplayer, it didn't matter that it was 2 or 3 weeks in as they could catch up from the start. By the end we were all gossiping about the big finale over coffee. About a dozen people I know are now celebrating it getting a second series!
What now for cricket? 4:45pm on 03 Mar 2009 gordonjlegg - if I google for "the moon is made of green cheese" I get a disappointingly large number of results, that doesn't make it a fashionably held belief. I hardly think we're going to see any headlines that read "man finds controversial views on internet" as the existance of self-important bigots on the web is not new, and hardly representative of the world at large.

This terrible tragedy has hit home the despicable lengths that some bloodthirsty people will go to to cause hurt to strangers. It's a bad day for sport, but a much worse day for the families of those policemen who will never be going home. Never mind the players; it is the people who put their lives on the line for the safety others that deserve our respect the most.
Arts and the economy - uncomfortable bedfellows? 10:04am on 13 Feb 2009 Funding the arts is hugeley worthwhile. It's one of the main reasons tourists come to Britain, it not only employs many many people directly in the arts but also all those who make their living from the tourist industry. It's also of massive cultural importance and if we allow our culture to be chipped away by the commercial power of foreign imports, it will be a huge psychological blow to people who no longer see themselves represented in the world reflected back at them. Giving people access to, and involvement in, the arts promotes mental and physical health, reduces crime, and gives people a much needed outlet for their emotions. It's just about the only thing we are a net exporter of these days and it is absolutely vital to our economic future.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

SurfingSharka