Posted on 12/21/2004 9:55:35 AM PST by St. Johann Tetzel
No sh!t, Sherlock. See my last post.
Because post #214 is a link to an msnusers address, and when your browser attempts to load the image, msnusers.com asks you to log in. Maybe the mods could delete that image so that everyone reading this thread stops getting a pop-up window from msnusers asking us to log in?
I did, and still don't understand your frustration. Your last post didn't address my point either.
Sorry to have ruined your "I hate Target" thread by clouding it with an opposing viewpoint.
they would not have lost the lawsuits. Actually in this day in age it would have been a positive for target to fight to keep the bell ringers and conservatives would have rallied to their stores.
The aggragate pass of the most recent marriage protection amendments was in the high 70's (something like 76% I believe). GLBT causes are not good business.
I too am somewhat new to Freerepublic I am sure there are many freepers who I do not know and whose existence I am not aware of- actually a majority. I was not aware that full financial disclosure was a requirement for participation. I have an IRA - do I need to check the investment portfolio to make sure Target is not listed if I post on the matter? Egon- who I would not know if I fell over him- has stated an OPINION contrary to yours. Yes his wife works for Target and he has done some contract work for them. It does not automatically follow that he is trying to advance some secret pro gay Target agenda. For your information I shop at Target. I do not think unfounded allegations are a reason for boycotting a store. Target will never be able to please everyone- and guess what that is not their purpose. Since they are under no obligation to give support to any charity what they do to invest back into the community should be seen as what it is-a true concern for those less fortunate.
Making these facts known does not make me a Taget hater.
Full disclosure: I have no personal financial interest in Target, nor its parent company. I have no local Target store in my area, and have only been in a Target store once. Though the data on this thread indicates that, indeed, Target caved to sodomite pressure, if there were an iten at Target that I needed and could not find anywhere else, I would still purchase it at Target.
The readers here have a right to these unbiased facts, unspun by an employee of or contractor with the Target stores. In the future, I'd expect you to preface any of your comments on Target threads with the disclaimer that you contract with, and your wife is employed by, Target.
However, being a student of human nature, I doubt you will be honest enough to do so.
I'm surprised, given the amount of research you've done on this subject alone, that we would have seen each other on other threads.
Regardless, I recognize other names here. Some may know my current affiliation, some may not. It's certainly not because I've been hiding it. A couple of my comments here are relevant because I'm currently at Target, but the majority are just common sense.
Maybe he need not "recuse" himself, but for the majority of FReepers who, on any given thread, do not know that he and his spouse have a financial interest in spinning this Target story, full disclosure on each thread on which he is spinning seems appropriate.
My bone with you is about your claim that I need to "recuse" myself. This sounds a bit like censoring any opinion but that of your own. I see you're backing off that a bit. But as to "disclosure": the fact that it was me, not you that "outed" myself negates your entire argument.
Therefore, I simply wanted to raise a flag for my fellow FReepers who might not have understood where Egon's persistent defense of Target originated.
My persistent defense would be the same for BestBuy or any of the other companies you discovered to be taking the same tact. The fact that I'm not on a BestBuy thread is because, as luck would have it, Target threads jump out at me (given my obvious bias and affiliation) and BestBuy's don't. Point me at a BestBuy thread and I'll head right over and "spin" for them too.
Well, this is pointless as I've already told you that I have no argument with your point, which is completely true. ...and still you refuse to deal with mine.
Obviously it is not. But any FReeper reading this thread should understand that Egon's persistent defense of Target may not be unbiased. Knowing that, they can better weigh the opinions he has expressed on this and other threads about Target, and thus make a fully informed decision whether to shop at Target.
I am not going to boycott Target, but neither will I go out of my way to shop there, at least until the claims that Target caved to sodomite pressure in evicting SA are either refuted or confirmed.
For me, that will come next year, when Target decides whether or not to continue this course of action with SA. Right now, though Target has released its own version of why they evicted SA, I believe they bowed to the sodomites given the incomplete picture we have right now.
Then relax, because I backed off on that ;-)
Egon: Likewise, if they see that it's OK for daddy to blindly jump on a bandwagon based on ill-informed leaps of logic, they will likely perpetuate that as well.
Hear, hear -- to both! Now, the question is (put on your logic cap): which applies here? Think, think -- keep that knee still!
Ok Sherlock, if you say so.
I'd be happy if, on Target threads, you simply put in your Tagline, "Full Disclosure: I have a financial interest in spinning negative publicity regarding Target."
Fair enough?
I've got no argument with that. And I think the evidence is actually pretty concusive that they caved. My point is as it always was: I'm not sure I see a viable alternative to their caving, unfortunately. If I'm correct, and they didn't have a viable option then, in my opinion, there must be better alternatives than a boycott. (Plus, I don't think they're generally effective-- especially in this case where the facts are less than cut and dried-- and the left is boycotting too for their own reasons).
The readers here have a right to these unbiased facts, unspun by an employee of or contractor with the Target stores. In the future, I'd expect you to preface any of your comments on Target threads with the disclaimer that you contract with, and your wife is employed by, Target.
The readers here have a right to no such thing-- nor is it the intent of this forum (in my understanding) to simply post news articles and "facts". The purpose of throwing an article out there, the way you properly did, is to elicit discussion, debate, and explore different points of view. We've done that-- and no one is under any delusions as to where each of us stand. That's what separates FR from an online newspaper.
Again, although I didn't preface it the way you did, I made it very clear in several posts that I was affiliated with Target, and that I admire them as a company.
However, being a student of human nature, I doubt you will be honest enough to do so.
Perhaps, as a student of human nature, you'll expect to be wrong about other humans occasionally.
See, this is where it helps to know Egon's bias. It is NOT by any stretch of the imagination an "ill-informed leap of logic" to conclude, based upon known facts, that Target caved to the sodomites:
Homosexual Pressure May Have Forced Target's Salvation Army Eviction
"We happen to know," the CFI spokesman explains, "that the Target Corporation has been under enormous pressure from homosexual activists to dump The Salvation Army because [it] won't give domestic-partner benefits [to its employees]."
In fact, Knight says homosexual activists have been after The Salvation Army for a long time, and some groups have reportedly stooped to some fairly lowdown tactics in their effort to harm the charitable organization. "One homosexual activist group in Michigan, for example, has been distributing counterfeit one dollar bills and five dollar bills to be placed in Salvation Army kettles, accusing them of bigotry and prejudice," he says.
Also, Rick Garcia, director of the homosexual lobby group Equality Illinois, even admitted recently on WYLL's The Walsh Forum radio program that homosexual activists have pressured Target to stop supporting The Salvation Army. And Garcia also admitted in a letter he wrote opposing the Illinois Family Institute's call to boycott Target that he has long protested and even demonstrated against The Salvation Army.
Wrong!
Get your facts straight.
But I do notice no change in your tagline yet...
:-)
I do say so. The thread is there for everyone to read.
I'd be happy if, on Target threads, you simply put in your Tagline, "Full Disclosure: I have a financial interest in spinning negative publicity regarding Target."
Not gonna happen exactly the way you'd like to see it happen, but the relevant message will still get out there, even if you don't happen to be there to call me on it.
KMAYPDQ
Walmart, whom the boycott-Target enthusiasts are recommending because they do allow the bell-ringers, sells way more China made product than Target.
But, we can all only buy American made stuff and unemploy the importers and trading companies and truckers and value-added-resellers, and the companies that make parts here that are assembled elsewhere, or the companies here that assemble imported parts, and the list goes on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.