Bush 'Plans Iran Air Strike by August'

On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:26:08 -0700, (JJS)
wrote:

No, I doubt that Spielberg would be sued over this point. It wouldn¹t
be worth the bad publicity for the Chinese government.


Its a moot point anyway. Agreed that the Chinese govt. or rather the
Beijing OC, isn't that petty to go suing petty annoyances or even big
annoyances. The Chinese govt. just does what it does because it has
better things to do than provide free publicity to people like
Spielberg.

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:26:08 -0700, (JJS)
wrote:

No, I doubt that Spielberg would be sued over this point. It wouldn¹t
be worth the bad publicity for the Chinese government.


Its a moot point anyway. Agreed that the Chinese govt. or rather the
Beijing OC, isn't that petty to go suing petty annoyances or even big
annoyances. The Chinese govt. just does what it does because it has
better things to do than provide free publicity to people like
Spielberg.


China craved having someone of Spielberg's stature on board to boost
their standing in the world.



--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:57:43 -0700, tankfixer
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:26:08 -0700, (JJS)
wrote:

No, I doubt that Spielberg would be sued over this point. It wouldn¹t
be worth the bad publicity for the Chinese government.


Its a moot point anyway. Agreed that the Chinese govt. or rather the
Beijing OC, isn't that petty to go suing petty annoyances or even big
annoyances. The Chinese govt. just does what it does because it has
better things to do than provide free publicity to people like
Spielberg.


China craved having someone of Spielberg's stature on board to boost
their standing in the world.

Were you even aware Spielberg was involved as an "artistic consultant"
before his sham resignation. I follow the Beijing Olympics run up
pretty closely and Spielberg's involvement real or imaginary came out
of nowhere. If the Beijing OC is so hard up of American talent do
cite some examples where Americans have contributed to the event.
Surely Spielberg can't be the whole kaboodle?

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:57:43 -0700, tankfixer
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:26:08 -0700, (JJS)
wrote:

No, I doubt that Spielberg would be sued over this point. It wouldn¹t
be worth the bad publicity for the Chinese government.


Its a moot point anyway. Agreed that the Chinese govt. or rather the
Beijing OC, isn't that petty to go suing petty annoyances or even big
annoyances. The Chinese govt. just does what it does because it has
better things to do than provide free publicity to people like
Spielberg.


China craved having someone of Spielberg's stature on board to boost
their standing in the world.

Were you even aware Spielberg was involved as an "artistic consultant"
before his sham resignation. I follow the Beijing Olympics run up
pretty closely and Spielberg's involvement real or imaginary came out
of nowhere. If the Beijing OC is so hard up of American talent do
cite some examples where Americans have contributed to the event.
Surely Spielberg can't be the whole kaboodle?

Why did they try to backpedle, as you are now, and say they never were
considering him as an advisor ?


--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

On Sat, 31 May 2008 09:28:48 -0700, tankfixer
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:57:43 -0700, tankfixer
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:26:08 -0700, (JJS)
wrote:

No, I doubt that Spielberg would be sued over this point. It wouldn¹t
be worth the bad publicity for the Chinese government.


Its a moot point anyway. Agreed that the Chinese govt. or rather the
Beijing OC, isn't that petty to go suing petty annoyances or even big
annoyances. The Chinese govt. just does what it does because it has
better things to do than provide free publicity to people like
Spielberg.


China craved having someone of Spielberg's stature on board to boost
their standing in the world.

Were you even aware Spielberg was involved as an "artistic consultant"
before his sham resignation. I follow the Beijing Olympics run up
pretty closely and Spielberg's involvement real or imaginary came out
of nowhere. If the Beijing OC is so hard up of American talent do
cite some examples where Americans have contributed to the event.
Surely Spielberg can't be the whole kaboodle?

Why did they try to backpedle, as you are now, and say they never were
considering him as an advisor ?

Read the original post on what the Beijing diplomat said exactly.
[Liu said he had told reporters several days ago in London that he met
with Spielberg in New York last September. At that time, "Mr.
Spielberg is no longer an artistic adviser to the Beijing Olympics
since he had not signed a contract before the deadline. That is what I
learnt from the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX
Olympiad," he explained. ]

And since Spielberg was aware that he did not have a contract last
September 2007 it was factitious and hypocritical of him to "resign"
in February 2008 and claim that his conscience forced him to denounce
the Olympics.

Spielberg's participation was indeed welcome. But Spielberg never
went through to sign a contract and never provided the Beijing OC a
formal letter to decline. That would be expected of a man with good
manners. The post is as artistic advisor not as the principal designer
or organizer. Spielberg's name would indeed have lent prestige to the
event. But the donkey work of actually putting up the the program
and the show was already in place. An outside advisor wouldn't have
been missed. An advisor might have made useful suggestions to make a
better show but he has no veto power. Your reading honor into
Speilberg's actions when there is none is just tarring yourself with
his ****. And you still haven't answered where the all important
American input is in the rest of the Games organization.