Please Vote In My Poll

Tony:

Actually, I have read their "bloddy" posts.  Of the six people claiming to have tickets for sale, three have stated that between 55% and 100% of the money will go to charity, one has claimed that he "needs the money" (which could mean anything), and two have not expressed any intention, good or bad.

So what "facts" am I missing?

Peace.

Maani Wrote:

There is a fallacy in this statement.  Suppose a venue has 25,000 seats, and Pink Floyd decides to play 4 shows.  This means that 100,000 people will get to see them.  However, 500,000 people in the area want to see them.  So 400,000 of them are not going to see the shows under any circumstance whatsoever……..unless someone with a ticket decides to sell it.  That is why “someone in their right mind would pay ten times the price of a ticket”: because they really want to go, and this is the only way they are going to be able to do so.  This is called “supply and demand.”  Indeed, imagine (as is often the case) that the seller waited 24 hours – or 48 hours, or more – in line to purchase the ticket.  He may well consider the inflated price reasonable compensation for his time, energy, discomfort, etc.

Thus, one person’s “scalper” is another person’s “savior,” and one person’s “crime” is another person’s “unbelievable fortune.”  It all depends how you look at it (or what side of the equation you are on).

Would Pink Floyd not be aware of another 400,000 possibilities of selling tickets and add more shows? Sure They would! And Floyd playing in 25.000 seats venue , I would love it , but unconceivable, nowadays , unless they play the same venue for two weeks in a row. so much for the fallacy

So a scalper is a saviour the same way a thug would be his victim's saviour and a rapist would be the women's saviour? I may be pushing it a bit here, but hear me out!

If I go to a scalper , it is out of no other solution or as a forced victim not as a willing victim!

Forced victim , because of the ticket sales system which is plainly aware of this and I am sure ia an active part into it and therefore is deciding to milk the cows of the last ounce of milk not worrying a bit of the young bull that needs to be fed. Forced victim because I could not manage to get a ticket because the tel lines were all busy  (hoarded by Scalpers) or were the tel lines open at all? (maybe one or two, but certainly not enough) or were all of the 100,000 tickets for sales openly or was there only a quarter out of that up for direct public sale , the rest fto be shared in between the vultures out to make a buck on the artist's back since the organizer certainly gave arguments to the artist not to pay for the asked price! Forced victim simply because the media have pummeled my brains into submission because I have to be part of the event or I am selfish (in the case of Live8), or a loser (in the case of the latest fashionable group) or a poor sod ( I cannot afford to pay for the technology/web access to order tickets fast with my gold VISA card .

The real shame is that ticket sales and organization is almost a monopoly! One firm has got over 85% of the market! In Belgium , no groups or organizer has the possibility (oh , they have the right , of course but beware of our ire! Mr. Independant) to do anything without their consent.

Yes , organizing concerts is a jungle and free enterprise! I know because I have organized a few of them and have a few friends who have done that also (most have done it out of love for the music and the good times offered to everyone)! It is a risky business and it should be about making money - all I ever managed to do is break even some shows earning compensating for the other's losses - but the way it is handled by the monopolistic Clearchannel is more than undecent, it is vile and relies on mafioso techniques!

I hate big crowds - over 7000 or more -  (some sort of claustro-agora-phobia but nothing that cannot be dominated for an evening) but still managed to catch the Floyd tours at the turn of the 90's , but that was the last time I went to such a massive event. So I could not care less for all of those massive media events of the sort being the subject hereof and I dare say I boycott most of them because of the very media event they are!  I would not be caught dead or alive in live8 or massive U2 concerts.

My joy of finding this site a few weeks ago is now turning to despair having read this thread and seen all the live8 ticket sale postings.

I am not marching to Edinburgh, but I have sent emails to Blair, Brown and the others. In my opinion, its not about a music concert or Pink Floyd or Bob Geldof, but its about ordinary people coming together and saying enough is enough, end the obsence inequality in the World now. This is how slavery was finally abolished by the force of overwhelming public pressure.

I still cannot see how this forum could allow anyone to re-sell tickets.

Another battle lost and won.

Thanks for all the support!

We didnt win the war but we won the hearts and minds.......

What a wonderful community we have here!

maani wrote: Tony: I do not see the correlation between these ticket sales and Jesus throwing the money-changers from the temple, unless you are simply trying to “get my goat.”  (If so, you failed.)  This site is not a temple, and the ticket sellers are not “turning the house of God into a den of thieves,” as Jesus noted.  Nor, as Geldof would have it, are they even “profiteering from misery.”  (Indeed, Geldof knows better than to make such an insupportable, inflammatory, broad-brush statement, however well-intentioned.) As for Ebay, suppose I told you that I believe that they “caved in" on what remains a "free speech" issue?  Are you suggesting that just because Ebay "caved in," we should too?  And even if it were not a "free speech" issue, since when do we follow Ebay's lead?  After all, Ebay is a blatantly "commercial" enterprise, where we are not.  So they are looking at their "bottom line" - i.e., they will "blow with the prevailing wind" because they are afraid of losing customers.  We have no such mandate, compunction or raison d’etre here. As for “moral” principles, I could argue that it is not the function of a website about prog music to have any particular socio-political or moral stance.  However, even if we accept that position, I simply do not believe that the ticket threads are compromising any "principles" the site has, or might be presumed to have.  It may not be something the site is necessarily "happy" to support.  But then, neither is hate speech, pro-drug talk, sex talk, etc.  But we support them because there is a.....principle involved: free speech. With all due respect, I think many people here have allowed their personal views of "morality" to cloud their judgment about free speech.  And in responding to Sean’s comment, this should have particular significance (though not necessarily any special "impact") coming from a minister, to whom "morality" probably means more than it does to most people.  As I have pointed out, this site has stood behind all manner of "immoral" posts and threads.  I fail to see what makes the ticket threads so incredibly different, especially to the point at which it becomes a reason for people to leave, or to make a petit cause celebre out of it. Sean says “Whether the concert is for charity, and the ticket was free or not, whether it is a private-for-profit concert is totally irrelevant…not only is the ticket scalping a horrendous and vile activity, but the whole distribution system is awry right from the start and mainly because of the scalping of ticket.  Who in his right mind would pay ten times the price of a ticket, if he had a proper chance at obtaining them if the sales were correctly handled and fair? Those people not having tickets have no choice (except the one of not going to the concert) but to pay exorbitant prices. The fact is that scalping is robbery or extortion and this should be a crime.” There is a fallacy in this statement.  Suppose a venue has 25,000 seats, and Pink Floyd decides to play 4 shows.  This means that 100,000 people will get to see them.  However, 500,000 people in the area want to see them.  So 400,000 of them are not going to see the shows under any circumstance whatsoever……..unless someone with a ticket decides to sell it.  That is why “someone in their right mind would pay ten times the price of a ticket”: because they really want to go, and this is the only way they are going to be able to do so.  This is called “supply and demand.”  Indeed, imagine (as is often the case) that the seller waited 24 hours – or 48 hours, or more – in line to purchase the ticket.  He may well consider the inflated price reasonable compensation for his time, energy, discomfort, etc. Thus, one person’s “scalper” is another person’s “savior,” and one person’s “crime” is another person’s “unbelievable fortune.”  It all depends how you look at it (or what side of the equation you are on). I think many of you are caught up in the hysteria of the fact that these concerts are being held for the purpose of raising awareness about global (and particularly “Third World”) poverty.  Note that: raise awareness.  Not money.  Sure, money will be raised, and whatever is left after overhead expenses are deducted will be given to various NFPs.  However, that amount will be negligible compared to what might have been raised had the concerts been held for the express purpose of raising money – which they were not.  Their primary purpose - stated by Geldof, Bono and others - is raising awareness. In this regard, how can any of you be so certain as to the motives or intentions of the sellers?  Suppose one or more of the sellers does care about global poverty, and intends to donate the money to charity?  What then?  Do you want to be the one who prevented that charity from receiving that money? But let’s go further.  Suppose the seller cares about global poverty, but the buyer doesn’t give a whit about it: he just wants to see the re-united Pink Floyd.  Who is “moral” then? Or suppose the seller doesn’t give a whit about poverty, but the buyer really does, and wants to go to the concert to express his/her support, and is more than willing to pay the asked price?  Or suppose both the buyer and seller care about poverty, but each of them has a different “plan” for expressing that – the seller by donating the money to charity, and the buyer by attending the concert and, say, holding up a placard with an anti-poverty message?  How on God’s great earth can any of you claim to know which if any of these scenarios might take place with regard to any or all of the sellers? And I am the one being accused of “burying my head in the sand?"  From my perspective, I am the one who is considering more possibilities than any of you are.  Instead, you have all simply “presumed the worst” about every seller, without really knowing it.  And then you expect me (on behalf of the admin group) to simply go along with your presumptions, and delete the threads. Sorry.  I would rather “err on the site of caution,” and allow the threads to remain, than to presume, as most of you do, the nefarious intent of the sellers, and play the “benevolent dictator” you want me to play by deleting the threads out of some misguided, and ultimately unprovable, notion of the “morality” involved. Peace.

Great eulogy for  Free Speech Maani !

Love, peace and... Understanding

Tony:

As an aside, I just checked the ticket threads again, and particularly the dates of the posts.  It turns out that each of the three people who claim to be planning to donate all or a portion of the sales price to charity did so before you started this thread: that is, those offers were not a "response" to this thread, but rather were made when those sellers first offered the tickets.

You are skeptical - no, cynical - about all of these claims.  And you have that right, of course.  What you do not have the right to do is expect everyone else - including the admin group - to "follow your lead" in this, and be as cynical as you are, and, as stated earlier, presume that all of these people are lying.

It seems to me that it is you who is getting your foot stuck further and further down your throat, as you make claim after unsubstantiated claim, the most recent being: "Oh dear, Maani has made a simple error: He hasnt actually read the posts made by the spammers! Therefore he isnt in full possession of all the facts because he hasnt seen the evidence. So your judgement is based on hearsay? "In this regard, how can any of you be so certain as to the motives or intentions of the sellers?  Suppose one or more of the sellers does care about global poverty, and intends to donate the money to charity?  What then?  Do you want to be the one who prevented that charity from receiving that money?" The sellars have stated their motives, Maani. Read their bloody posts for pity's sake!"

Yet I did read the posts, and found that the sellers did indeed "state their motives," and that, in three of six cases - and prior to this ranting thread - they stated that all or a portion of the sales price would be donated to charity.

Now that I have proven your accusation completely wrong, you turn around in a "sour grapes" way and say, "Alright, well, okay, they did state that money would go to charity.  But they're all lying!"   Thus, instead of showing even one iota of humility by admitting that you were wrong re both your accusation of me and your claim of the "motives" of the sellers, you simply compound your cynical arrogance by making yet another accusation you cannot prove.

I still love you like a brother, Tony, but you did not "lose" this one due to my arrogance or stubbornness, but to your own.

Peace.

Snow Dog:

Interesting.  You note that quite a number of people viewed your poll, but only 28 voted in it.  What does that tell you?  I am surprised that you fail to see the relevance.

Garion:

Obviously, the site would not permit the sale of stolen property of any type.  And though it would admittedly be difficult to prove whether something was stolen or not, it is clear that most if not all of these tickets were obtained through "proper" channels, i.e., the lottery.

As for "Behavior Not Related to Decency," I must continue to reiterate my previous comment.  There have been any number of threads and posts that members complained were indecent, immoral, or otherwise inappropriate.  Yet no one left or made a "cause celebre" out of them, even when the admin group chose not to delete them.  If something was, in fact, indecent or otherwise inappropriate, the admin group either edited or deleted the offending thread/post, and/or ejected the member responsible.

"Decency" is in the eyes of the beholder - or, more practically, in each person's definition of what is "indecent."  In the case of this site, the admin group determines, sometimes on a case by case basis, whether an offending post is "decent" or not, and to what degree.  And again, in the past when the admin group did not side with even a majority of the members over something they felt was "indecent" or otherwise objectionable (and thus deletable), no one made a mountain out of a molehill about it.  The determination of the admin group was accepted, even if a little bit of grumbling persisted.

What makes this different?  After all, it does not rise near to the level of some of the threads/posts that members have complained about in the past - some of which were, in fact, deleted.

I continue to feel that many of you are "working on emotions" rather than truly thinking this through.  There is a "hysteria" on this site right now that is extremely unhealthy, and is, sadly, apparently being deliberately "stoked" by a few members.  The problem is that that hysteria has its roots only partially in facts and evidence; the rest is presumption and cynicism.  Would I be too far afield to suggest that this is how dictators come to power?  After all, Tony has all but begged me to go over to "the Dark Side of the force" and use my authority as "benevolent dictator" to delete the offending threads - and he did this by quoting no less a totalitarian primer than Animal Farm!

Call me arrogant, call me stubborn, call me anything you want.  But if I have anything to say about it, I will not permit this site to lose its focus, to compromise its most cherished principles, to cave in to the threats or hysteria of members, or to become a place where freedom of speech can and will be impinged by the "majority vote" of its members.

I want all of you to keep this in mind as we in America watch our freedoms and civil liberties erode as the result of a pro-rich, pro-war, right-wing agenda that has no room for dissention - which it has openly labeled "unpatriotic."  As two reporters are sent to jail by the Supreme Court for not revealing sources - an absolutely essential element of a "free" press - and when two members of the Bush Administration state, with a straight face, that "people need to watch what they say," I cannot help but be wary of those who would send the admin group down the road to the same sort of proto-totalitarian censorship under the guise of some misguided notion of "morality."

I will not become the "Big Brother" of Prog Archives.

Peace.

Maani said

Snow Dog:

Interesting.  You note that quite a number of people viewed your poll, but only 28 voted in it.  What does that tell you?  I am surprised that you fail to see the relevance.

What makes you feel that I fail to see the relevance? I thought It was obvious from my words that I was dissapointed! Long time members have voted though, people who make the Forum what it is!

Anyway it'll soon be irrelevant and it has brought up interesting discussion!

Tony:

You said, "It is a poor state of affairs when the rights of members that aren't members come before the feelings of people who are members."

A very interesting comment.  In my book, "rights" always trump "feelings" if the rights are legitimate and the feelings are not supported by enough evidence to show that the "right" was incorrect in the first place.

Think about it.  As a member, what is more important: that the admin group protect your feelings?  Or that it protect your rights?  Indeed, which one does the admin group have more of a "mandate" and responsibility to protect?  I would be shocked if you answered the former.

Peace.