CHAT ROOM
message
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Promoters - vs- teachers - vs- levels
Posted By: el D 15/05/08 23:13 Source ID: 0297d529-d1c3bb90
In Reply To: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Promoters - vs- teachers - vs- levels - vs zug 15/05/08 21:31
 | I think one possible approach here is that, if you feel you are not explaining yourself properly, it might be helpful to descend into personal abuse. Another possibility would be to understand that punters, customers, people who go to dance couldn't give a flying wotsit about different organisations being involved, they only give a flying wotsit about their activity - which is going out to dance. Thats what they pay for, thats what they want - they prove this by paying the entry fee. Putting the cost up, either by entry fee, or by compulsory subsidisation of people who want to drink as well, will lead to the closure of venues by less people turning up. Eventually, the venues that survive will be the ones that dont rely on high costs, which to the punter is a combination of all the expenditure he or she must pay out - drinks, entry etc. The reason I do understand this is because I am an economist by training. However, I am considering taking a course in how to give personal abuse, for on this I fear I lack the training of some other contributors to this site. |  |
Zug I've one more question for you in response to your post and I’ll repeat the other questions in a way that you can’t claim I haven’t made myself clear!
Firstly … Do you understand the dictionary definition of the words abuse and explanation?
Because I’ve given explanations by the bucket full in my original posts and also in the answers to the questions put to me, explanations, which, you have so miserably failed to grasp. Not because they weren’t succinct but because you clearly don’t understand market economics despite professing to be a trainee economist.
Calling someone a Nazi and / or a parasite is, I would have thought to most people, an abusive term! Despite the clear attempt to patiently inform you of the economic reasons for why you are wrong you started to use abusive language to which stupidly, I responded ... I should have taken t.t's advice and not done so ... but there you go! Now you are trying a new tactic of attempting to gain the higher moral position of making out that I'm the abusive one ... well it won't work because you left a trail of evidence behind you! And those who are even remotely interested in this pathetic dialogue will have noted that much, I’m sure.
And as yet, you still haven’t answered the questions which continues to weaken your position!
The pertinent questions are:
1. Do you believe it is morally and ethically correct to pay for the goods and services which you use and indeed order?
We can’t go anywhere unless we get past this crucial question but be careful because if the answer is yes to question one you’ve almost lost the argument!
2. Do you understand the economic fact that the promoter and the venue owner are not connected in business other than the venue owner allows the promoter to carry out his separate and distinct business in the premises of the venue owner?
If yes again be afraid, be very afraid as we’ve almost wrapped the argument up
3. Do you understand that the provision of the classes and DJ is one business - separate and distinct and the provision of the space in which you dance is another business - separate and distinct, both needing to be reimbursed for the provision of the goods and services they supply?
Do you understand that they are seperate? … A simple yes or no will do it!
4. On entry you’ve paid for the classes and the DJ … But you haven’t yet paid for the venue space and venue services? (Including the toilets you may wish to use, the sound system you may enjoy, the maintenance of the building, insurance for your protection and much, much more)
This is the bit I think you’re struggling with but let us know if you now understand – please do answer the question!
5. If the answer to all of the above is yes … Finally answer me this – how do you propose to pay for the dance space, which, by your own admission you have said you go to enjoy and use?
If you answered no to any of the above, by admission, you do not understand the economic argument!
If you answered yes to all of the above you have proven you do understand the economic argument but have not, as yet, explained how you propose to pay for the goods and services you have asked to use, other than by accepting the existing tried and tested - economically sound - method of paying for the drinks that you doubtless consume, during any sustained period of high energy and exhaustive dancing.
If you fail to engage in the questions put to you … You will prove that you must be scared of the possible outcome i.e. That you’ll be proven to be wrong about your economic theories and we can all move on … with you paying your way like the rest of us or potentially getting a ban slapped on you!
If however, you do engage in the questions put to you … You will prove that; either you don’t understand the economic argument in which case we really need to give up at that point! Or that you do understand the economic argument and you now accept that you need to pay as most people do, accepting naturally that you haven’t yet paid for the space in which you wish to dance!
There is an alternative for you whereby you could accept the economic argument and save face and also shine as a newbie economist, by coming up with a new system as yet not thought about! But one where the venue owner does get paid and people with your previously antisocial stance could be happy! Tough I know but hey, you could do it!
Sorted!
