irihapeti

has been quite interesting reading USA peoples comments on this this flag was never the government flag of the CSA. It was never a State flag either (or incorporated into), until after the battle was over and had been lost as a observer I think that the incorporation of a battle flag into a emblem of local government is disrepectful is disrepectful to the soldiers who fight (and die) beneath and against the flag. Is a battle flag and that it is all a soldier has is most disrespectful to raise again a battle flag as a local government political fu gesture after it has been surrendered by and with a soldiers honour this fu gesture is not only totally disrespectful to the soldiers who bested you, but also to your own who gave their all and surrendered with honour to the enemy, when all was lost + that individuals might wear/fly whichever I dont really have any problem with, or with them making fu gestures about anything. Or TV shows, or books, or films, or vids, or even 3D stuffs in SL but for local government bodies in the RL to do this for real, is pretty off I think

Dresden wrote: irihapeti wrote: Drake1 Nightfire wrote: irihapeti wrote: Don Pedro Colley 1 character in 10 episodes over 7 years is kind of proving the point... as well Al White, Ella Mae Brown, Ernie Hudson, Herb Jefferson, James Reynolds, Ji-Tu Cumbuka, John Carter, Kevin Hall, Steven Williams, Wally Taylor, Woody Strode maybe you never saw any of these people bc you never expected to see them. That TV show being all racist and that I blame the shorts. ...Dres (:

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: irihapeti wrote: Don Pedro Colley 1 character in 10 episodes over 7 years is kind of proving the point... as well Al White, Ella Mae Brown, Ernie Hudson, Herb Jefferson, James Reynolds, Ji-Tu Cumbuka, John Carter, Kevin Hall, Steven Williams, Wally Taylor, Woody Strode maybe you never saw any of these people bc you never expected to see them. That TV show being all racist and that

Don Pedro Colley

ebil satan botherers

Rhonda Huntress wrote: but it did get a good discussion going yes agree

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: So, wait.. You tip the club owner for? nothing and ignore the people who entertained you. That is twisted logic. I think i wil try that the next time i go to a club in RL.. Not tip the waitstaff, nor the DJ, request several songs and dedications and just buy drinks. Screw the staff, they just do all the hard work, right? umm! no i pay the venue for the service it provides the staff get screwed when the owner of the venue doesnt pay their staff from out of the money I pay them the owner

for sure there can be argument about what a royalty (or any price) is worth, to whoever is paying it and receiving it in the case of broadcast content (music, vid, etc) like free-to-air and/or pay-per-view then if you are in the broadcast business doing this commercially then the payment for content isnt 0. Is some number greater than 0 and what this >0 amount should be, is often contestable for sure + is another thing tho that is going on which I think is quite important. probably way more important what a demand, like what Apple did want, does is change the risk/reward relationship between capital and labour. Zero hours contracts for workers affects the relationship in the same way basically, the content maker, the worker, gives up the higher reward (when the business is sucessful) by taking a lesser risk (fixed wages, or piece work payment for a set price per piece). The capital holder assumes the higher risk. If the stuff doesnt sell then the financial cost/risk of this to the business is borne by capital. The worker/makers are out of a job what zero payments do is ask the worker, content maker, to assume a capital risk, without the benefit of the higher reward that can flow from this. Any higher reward generated by the business activity still flows to the capital investor. In dividends and or stock cert appreciation the presumption that workers, content makers, should share the capital risk equally with capital investors, is what leads to trickle up where this idea of changing the risk/reward relationship can lead to also. Is. Losses are socialised, borne by the many. Profits are privatised, retained by the few. Bank and large corporate taxpayer-funded bailouts being the most recognisable example of this + probably the biggest con myth perpetuated on content makers is they get sold on the idea that they are entrepreneurs and as such then they will reap the higher rewards as a consequence. bc entrepreneur is not true this when the channel for your outputs is not owned by you. The higher rewards go to the capital holders of the channel. You do tho get a good share of the downsides when they come eta: i change con to myth bc is not really a con. Is actual a myth

Bree Giffen wrote: If it doesn't work out you could write a book about it, "the rise and fall of unionization in second life". i think it might end up being titled: "The fall and fall further" or "How my Home key got broken and I never got off the ground" (:

seems Apple worked a deal with the big 4 music companies where Apple didnt have to pay their (those companies) artists royalties on songs played/listened to by 3-month free accounts that Apple where going to give away to people, to build up their user numbers 3-month free accounts hoping to convert them later on into paying customers somehow maybe hope so then Apple sent out the same terms as a fait accompli to all the independent labels and artists. Basically, if you the indie wants to be on our new Apple Music streaming service then you have to agree that we can give your stuff to all our free accounts for nix money for you the artist Taylor Swift went umm! naah!! Apple went <blink> and now Apple are going to pay the royalty to all artists, whether the Apple Music account holder is free or not as they should + is true that a provider like Apple or any other can try get any terms they like. But when the biggest selling artist goes umm! nah! then <blink> <blink> <blinkety> <blink> like yeah!! Jimmy Iovine <blink> that (:

just had a look at my Q&As i have 12 for which i got 3 Ks so I am 25% helpful i maybe should of stopped at 4. bc I got 2 Ks for them. So then I would of been half helpful (:

KarenMichelle Lane wrote: What does it all mean? and this umm! dunno (: but i just now unlurkerered myself by about 10 jejeje (:

/me turns over the page and this (:

Dillon Levenque wrote: I am lurkier than thou. ;-) and this. and I am agree jejeeje (:

and (:

and here (:

and this as well (:

and this (:

and this (:

i am just replying to this to pimp my post count ok q; (:

is pretty good what Taylor Swift has done she single-handed got Apple to back down over using artists stuff for free to build their new Apple Music business so \o/ Taylor (: http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor

Alwin Alcott wrote: really great you support the venue owners with your tips, but realize most DJ's don't get wage but play just for tips. So your good intentions/reasons to give it to the owners doesn't make the ones who really work for you get anything. Thats how SL works... good intentions to change that will not work. yes I understand and am accepting of your point, that Amythest and kinda have made also. That this is how it is now for many but if the club patrons never gave the DJ or staff any tip and instead gave to the venue owner then what will be the outcome? will a person (DJ, live performer or hostie) keep doing this for nothing, knowing that the owner of the club is getting a income and they the DJ, entertainer, hostie are working for nix? in a activist action, the pressure point, the tipping point, is who actual has the money. In the case of the staff it is not them. So as a activist tactic then is pretty much a waste to try use them. like thru strike action and that, to effect change

dunno if you missed it, but I already said before. If I do have any money to give then I give to the venue. The staff I am indifferent to. If they want money for what they do then they can get off the person I gave the money to. Or not as they like so in this sense I am support the OP. Is just that I am suggest a different form of activism. If nobody ever tip the staff and only tip the venue instead then it will change how clubs are run. Like the staff arent going to keep on working for free, hoping to get tips. Bc they arent going to get any and what happens when this happens is that club owners are going to have to pay their employees. Unless is a sole or family business and they do it all themself