Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[ruchir]

http://specials.rediff.com/news/2007/jul/09sld1.htm

Edit:

The Losers: http://specials.rediff.com/news/2007/jul/09sld8.htm

This poll, or whatever it is, looks ridiculous. To not have Pyramids and Stonehenges in the final 7... is ridiculous.

[WicketView]

This poll, or whatever it is, looks ridiculous.

That was a foregone conclusion, whatever got included and whatever did not. The criterion was never clear, and was open to people (multiple number of times) like me who know nothing about many of the places on the list, let alone something like visiting these places.

[indcric]

This is false. It is not uncommon for rediff.com to overlook mistakes. Pyramids is not on the competition. Egyptian officials said they are not competing. Pyramids is already a wonder, which is acknowledged by this new7wonders committee as well. If you visited the website to vote, it doesn't allow you to vote for Pyramids, because it is already declared a winner.

Stonehenge? What is there in that? A sequence of stones, one upon other? If that is what a wonder, lot of Forts which were demolished by Muslims who invaded India qualify for that.

[ruchir]

Stonehenge? What is there in that? A sequence of stones, one upon other? If that is what a wonder, lot of Forts which were demolished by Muslims who invaded India qualify for that.

http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/stonehen.htm

Perhaps what is strangest about the Stonehenge ring of stones is that it is far from being unique. Though Stonehenge is the most intact and elaborate, there are known to be over a thousand remains of stone rings through out the British Isles and Northern France. Some of them were small, like Keel Cross in County Cork which is just 9 feet in diameter. The largest, Avebury, covers over 28 acres and encircles what is now a whole village. Some of the stones at Avebury weighed 60 tons.

How did the makers move these massive rocks many miles? Probably by dragging them on wooden sledges. Before the first one could be moved, though, a road had to be cleared from, what was then, a thick forest. Not an easy job in itself. Especially for a people who probably spent most of their time and energy just fighting for survival. The construction of both Avebury and Stonehenge must have been the work of many generations.




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same things are said about Pyramids too, how did they move huge slabs on top of each other. Stonehenge is supposed to be the oldest man made stone structure on earth.

[achutank]

nobody got the drift. this was a FOR PROFIT enterprise. the guys behind this got money per SMS sent. the indian suckers love to SMS. we SMS for everything in INdia these days. people do not realize somebody is making money. this is the breakup of the SMS chart - 33p to govt, 60p to mobile network, the 7p balance is divided beteween the promoters and the company (indiainfo.com in this case) who have bought the roghts for the promotion of the event in the country. plus the promoters make money out of whoever corporate sponsors the promotion in the country in this case i think fair and lovely (which in itself is among the seven regressive wonders of the world) was the principle sponsor

i hope all of you voted 

[feverpitch]

I did. I posted this info many days back when the first of several threads requesting ppl on this dg to do their patriotic duty was created.

[keep-it-cool]

While the poll in itself was silly .. and, I dont think kids will learn about these "new" 7 wonders in school ... what is wrong with anyone making money? It was all above board!

[feverpitch]

While the poll in itself was silly .. and, I dont think kids will learn about these "new" 7 wonders in school ... what is wrong with anyone making money? It was all above board!

the ancient 7 wonders were created by Greeks and served their purpose of imperial and hierarchical tabulation in their time. Subsequently, the term has become common domain and an artifact of history. What this travel company has done is use this ancient classification in a way that clearly plays on the gullibility of the people around the world. Nothing wrong in making money, but the ethics is highly dodgy.

[pipsqueak]

not that it matters given this poll is some cheap publicity(money making) show

....the results reaffirm that only a few people from cambodia have access and time to loaf on the internet, compared to india, brazil etc.

[keep-it-cool]

While the poll in itself was silly .. and, I dont think kids will learn about these "new" 7 wonders in school ... what is wrong with anyone making money? It was all above board!

the ancient 7 wonders were created by Greeks and served their purpose of imperial and hierarchical tabulation in their time. Subsequently, the term has become common domain and an artifact of history. What this travel company has done is use this ancient classification in a way that clearly plays on the gullibility of the people around the world. Nothing wrong in making money, but the ethics is highly dodgy.

In that context, any advertising - which highlights supposedly strong and unique points about a product - is unethical.

This was never claimed to be an official list ... neither was it done surreptitiously ... anyone who cared enough could have figured out quite easily that there is nothing binding about such a list. But the outgo itself was so trivial that most people just did not bother to do so. I am sure that if people had to shell out a lot of money or go to some hardship to achieve the same end, they would have been more discerning. Either way, as long as people do not do their homework, they will end up getting carried away. No point in blaming those who are doing the carrying.

It is similar to someone buying a lot of shares based on some "tips" and then losing money on them ... and then blaming the stock market.

[pipsqueak]

on another note, i don't think any list of wonders of the world is complete without Keith Richards.

[sgusa]

While the poll in itself was silly .. and, I dont think kids will learn about these "new" 7 wonders in school ... what is wrong with anyone making money? It was all above board!

the ancient 7 wonders were created by Greeks and served their purpose of imperial and hierarchical tabulation in their time. Subsequently, the term has become common domain and an artifact of history. What this travel company has done is use this ancient classification in a way that clearly plays on the gullibility of the people around the world. Nothing wrong in making money, but the ethics is highly dodgy.

In that context, any advertising - which highlights supposedly strong and unique points about a product - is unethical.

This was never claimed to be an official list ... neither was it done surreptitiously ... anyone who cared enough could have figured out quite easily that there is nothing binding about such a list. But the outgo itself was so trivial that most people just did not bother to do so. I am sure that if people had to shell out a lot of money or go to some hardship to achieve the same end, they would have been more discerning. Either way, as long as people do not do their homework, they will end up getting carried away. No point in blaming those who are doing the carrying.

It is similar to someone buying a lot of shares based on some "tips" and then losing money on them ... and then blaming the stock market.

You are wrong about this. It is not a matter of anyone caring could easily figure it out. Or about the exact amount being charged. If ANY charge is present, they have to tell you exactly how official this is, how the amount charge is distributed, and who makes how much out of it.

People hearing 'tip' on stock is different from someone spamming the world with 'tips' about a product they get a cut out.

[keep-it-cool]

While the poll in itself was silly .. and, I dont think kids will learn about these "new" 7 wonders in school ... what is wrong with anyone making money? It was all above board!

the ancient 7 wonders were created by Greeks and served their purpose of imperial and hierarchical tabulation in their time. Subsequently, the term has become common domain and an artifact of history. What this travel company has done is use this ancient classification in a way that clearly plays on the gullibility of the people around the world. Nothing wrong in making money, but the ethics is highly dodgy.

In that context, any advertising - which highlights supposedly strong and unique points about a product - is unethical.

This was never claimed to be an official list ... neither was it done surreptitiously ... anyone who cared enough could have figured out quite easily that there is nothing binding about such a list. But the outgo itself was so trivial that most people just did not bother to do so. I am sure that if people had to shell out a lot of money or go to some hardship to achieve the same end, they would have been more discerning. Either way, as long as people do not do their homework, they will end up getting carried away. No point in blaming those who are doing the carrying.

It is similar to someone buying a lot of shares based on some "tips" and then losing money on them ... and then blaming the stock market.

You are wrong about this. It is not a matter of anyone caring could easily figure it out. Or about the exact amount being charged. If ANY charge is present, they have to tell you exactly how official this is, how the amount charge is distributed, and who makes how much out of it.

People hearing 'tip' on stock is different from someone spamming the world with 'tips' about a product they get a cut out.

But there is no separate charge other than what you spend on the SMS. And, I believe anyone who owns a mobile phone would know that sending an SMS costs money. If people had voted online, they would not spend anything - other than the cost of surfing the internet (now, is that also to be construed as a charge??).

And, it is not as if this was camouflaged as an official event. Anyone who cared could have figured it out quite easily that it was a private enterprise. There were enough people out there disowning the list and being quite vocal about it.

[feverpitch]

And, it is not as if this was camouflaged as an official event. Anyone who cared could have figured it out quite easily that it was a private enterprise. There were enough people out there disowning the list and being quite vocal about it.

How would you define an official event? How would a list of 7 wonders be selected 'officially'? No, it's not a matter of being 'official', but a matter of using what is a world heritage as a trademark. which is why i mentioned ethics, not law.

and if u just followed the hoopla surrounding the event on indian media, i'm sure there was an even chance of u getting the wrong idea... as an example, my cousin, who is in std 10, calls me up to ask me about the seven wonders about six months back. says he has to write a school essay. i search on google and find why the sudden interest. i try explaining to him the intricacies, including how the greek list too is only a reflection of their own knowledge base and imperial projections and nothing definitive and universally acceptable. he writes his essay based on what i told him and gets a 0. his teacher tells him that he needed to write on the new seven wonders, and how taj fits into it. in effect, he could get a ford model t in any colour as long as it was in black!

[keep-it-cool]

And, it is not as if this was camouflaged as an official event. Anyone who cared could have figured it out quite easily that it was a private enterprise. There were enough people out there disowning the list and being quite vocal about it.

How would you define an official event? How would a list of 7 wonders be selected 'officially'? No, it's not a matter of being 'official', but a matter of using what is a world heritage as a trademark. which is why i mentioned ethics, not law.

and if u just followed the hoopla surrounding the event on indian media, i'm sure there was an even chance of u getting the wrong idea... as an example, my cousin, who is in std 10, calls me up to ask me about the seven wonders about six months back. says he has to write a school essay. i search on google and find why the sudden interest. i try explaining to him the intricacies, including how the greek list too is only a reflection of their own knowledge base and imperial projections and nothing definitive and universally acceptable. he writes his essay based on what i told him and gets a 0. his teacher tells him that he needed to write on the new seven wonders, and how taj fits into it. in effect, he could get a ford model t in any colour as long as it was in black!

Well, the question is that if there is no "official" source for the seven wonders, why get into the ethical (forget legal .. there is no question that this was legal) debate at all?

There are umpteen contests that select an American Idol or an Indian Idol or India Ki Voice ... there may also be contests that select the best Indian batsman ever, several organisations run their own cricket ratings ... are all of these unethical because they play on people's emotions and urge to get interactive?

I do not know if people of every country which had a monument at stake went as ballistic as Indians about getting their own monument voted in. The fact is that wherever there is such an emotional appeal over something of perceived value, there will be people around who try to leverage on that for their own profit .. nothing wrong or unethical about that.

One can also go to the next level ... if even one person feels that the Taj should be a part of all lists that are there out there - official or otherwise, how can you or I label him / her as gullible or ignorant? Especially when there is no "official" list anyways. Are we to start setting standards for everyone - which events should people be serious about, which they should ignore etc?

On your cousin's example ... why blame the organisation which is conducting this poll? The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the teacher who is unable to see beyond certain narrow confines.

[feverpitch]

And, it is not as if this was camouflaged as an official event. Anyone who cared could have figured it out quite easily that it was a private enterprise. There were enough people out there disowning the list and being quite vocal about it.

How would you define an official event? How would a list of 7 wonders be selected 'officially'? No, it's not a matter of being 'official', but a matter of using what is a world heritage as a trademark. which is why i mentioned ethics, not law.

and if u just followed the hoopla surrounding the event on indian media, i'm sure there was an even chance of u getting the wrong idea... as an example, my cousin, who is in std 10, calls me up to ask me about the seven wonders about six months back. says he has to write a school essay. i search on google and find why the sudden interest. i try explaining to him the intricacies, including how the greek list too is only a reflection of their own knowledge base and imperial projections and nothing definitive and universally acceptable. he writes his essay based on what i told him and gets a 0. his teacher tells him that he needed to write on the new seven wonders, and how taj fits into it. in effect, he could get a ford model t in any colour as long as it was in black!

Well, the question is that if there is no "official" source for the seven wonders, why get into the ethical (forget legal .. there is no question that this was legal) debate at all?

There are umpteen contests that select an American Idol or an Indian Idol or India Ki Voice ... there may also be contests that select the best Indian batsman ever, several organisations run their own cricket ratings ... are all of these unethical because they play on people's emotions and urge to get interactive?

I do not know if people of every country which had a monument at stake went as ballistic as Indians about getting their own monument voted in. The fact is that wherever there is such an emotional appeal over something of perceived value, there will be people around who try to leverage on that for their own profit .. nothing wrong or unethical about that.

One can also go to the next level ... if even one person feels that the Taj should be a part of all lists that are there out there - official or otherwise, how can you or I label him / her as gullible or ignorant? Especially when there is no "official" list anyways. Are we to start setting standards for everyone - which events should people be serious about, which they should ignore etc?

On your cousin's example ... why blame the organisation which is conducting this poll? The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the teacher who is unable to see beyond certain narrow confines.

i think your comparisons are waay off base. and as i said, yes i understand that legally this company is in the clear -- means, i understand the implications. my trouble with the whole idea is elsewhere. does any one individual or corporate entity have the rights over, say, the 'ten commandments'? could they create a vote and choose a new set of 'ten commandments' then?

[keep-it-cool]

i think your comparisons are waay off base. and as i said, yes i understand that legally this company is in the clear -- means, i understand the implications. my trouble with the whole idea is elsewhere. does any one individual or corporate entity have the rights over, say, the 'ten commandments'? could they create a vote and choose a new set of 'ten commandments' then?

The key is whether it would be accepted. If people at large accept the new set, then fair enough. If people do not accept it, it will die a natural death anyways.

Finally, people have a choice. They can opt to ignore or take part. I imagine that if a similar poll of the "ten commandments" were to be held, there would be a big outcry and most people would reject it.

[feverpitch]

i think your comparisons are waay off base. and as i said, yes i understand that legally this company is in the clear -- means, i understand the implications. my trouble with the whole idea is elsewhere. does any one individual or corporate entity have the rights over, say, the 'ten commandments'? could they create a vote and choose a new set of 'ten commandments' then?

The key is whether it would be accepted. If people at large accept the new set, then fair enough. If people do not accept it, it will die a natural death anyways.

Finally, people have a choice. They can opt to ignore or take part. I imagine that if a similar poll of the "ten commandments" were to be held, there would be a big outcry and most people would reject it.

a. i agree there would be an outcry about the 10C. any idea why there would be such an outcry?

b. also, do u think there should have been a similar outcry in case of this seven wonders thinggy? why then do u think that such an event hasn't happened?

c. also, do u think the evangelists converting the poor in India is "fair game"?

[keep-it-cool]

i think your comparisons are waay off base. and as i said, yes i understand that legally this company is in the clear -- means, i understand the implications. my trouble with the whole idea is elsewhere. does any one individual or corporate entity have the rights over, say, the 'ten commandments'? could they create a vote and choose a new set of 'ten commandments' then?

The key is whether it would be accepted. If people at large accept the new set, then fair enough. If people do not accept it, it will die a natural death anyways.

Finally, people have a choice. They can opt to ignore or take part. I imagine that if a similar poll of the "ten commandments" were to be held, there would be a big outcry and most people would reject it.

a. i agree there would be an outcry about the 10C. any idea why there would be such an outcry?

probably because people feel very strongly about the original 10 commandments

b. also, do u think there should have been a similar outcry in case of this seven wonders thinggy? why then do u think that such an event hasn't happened?

probably because people dont feel as strongly about the original list

c. also, do u think the evangelists converting the poor in India is "fair game"?

I dont understand where this is coming from.

[feverpitch]

a. i agree there would be an outcry about the 10C. any idea why there would be such an outcry?

probably because people feel very strongly about the original 10 commandments

Why would 'the people' feel so strongly about the 10 C? Who would be 'the people' here?

b. also, do u think there should have been a similar outcry in case of this seven wonders thinggy? why then do u think that such an event hasn't happened?

probably because people dont feel as strongly about the original list

Why wouldn't 'the people' feel so strongly about the 7W? Who would be 'the people' here?

c. also, do u think the evangelists converting the poor in India is "fair game"?

I dont understand where this is coming from.

To quote ur previous post:

The fact is that wherever there is such an emotional appeal over something of perceived value, there will be people around who try to leverage on that for their own profit... nothing wrong or unethical about that.

[pipsqueak]

From wiki:

NOWC claims more than 100 million votes were cast through the Internet or by telephone. They include multiple votes that could be bought from NOWC. In its Terms and Conditions, NOWC reserved "the right at its absolute discretion to exclude [any] votes" that were cast.[2] No information has been given as to any excluded votes. Besides revenue from the sale of votes, NOWC relied on private donations, the sale of merchandise such as shirts and cups, and revenue from selling broadcasting rights.

what a noble cause!

 

[keep-it-cool]

a. i agree there would be an outcry about the 10C. any idea why there would be such an outcry?

probably because people feel very strongly about the original 10 commandments

Why would 'the people' feel so strongly about the 10 C? Who would be 'the people' here?

Those who hold it dear. I do not know.

b. also, do u think there should have been a similar outcry in case of this seven wonders thinggy? why then do u think that such an event hasn't happened?

probably because people dont feel as strongly about the original list

Why wouldn't 'the people' feel so strongly about the 7W? Who would be 'the people' here?

I dont know why they did not. But they clearly did not, as there was no outcry. Anyways, at least here I can give you an example. I do not feel very strongly about them.

c. also, do u think the evangelists converting the poor in India is "fair game"?

I dont understand where this is coming from.

To quote ur previous post:

The fact is that wherever there is such an emotional appeal over something of perceived value, there will be people around who try to leverage on that for their own profit... nothing wrong or unethical about that.

Yes. So, your point / question being? Is conversion wrong? Well, if forcibly then yes. If people convert out of their own free will, then no.

[achutank]

there is difference between unfair practice and unethical practice.

the former borders on the unlawful and causes the bending of rules for eg. ) cartels.

but unethical practice is usually taking advantage of loopholes in the law and it boils down to whether one whould do that or not. eg.) chappel's underarm bowling , though i do not know why micheal chang's cheeky underarm service did not create the same furour.
unethical practice in its worst form is taking advantage of people's gullibilty. most people are trusting. they trust corporates to give thema  fair deal and do not read the fine print where the company protects its extra profits. in this case too people have been gullible. the roping in of celebrities to the cause of championing taj's inclusion (especially someon like shabana azmi or sanjay nirupam who has been an MP) really gives it an official NGO air about the whole enterprise. yes people do know that mobile compaines will charge for the SMS but they did not know that a company behind it will make money. no ad says that. they also did not know that companies like Levers that were suporting the cause were doing it only after payign huge endorsement monies to the promoters, the public only could make out that the companies were in it for the cause. it is only apparent it is not so when you read the fine print in the backpages of the newspaper where some stray journalist makes some noise about it or on the net where some blogger writes about it. indian public likes to still trust its "NGO"*** celebs. which is why shabana makes logical sense for corporate advertising. or an amitabh endorses the fact that cadbury's is not  wormfull.

the whole tone of the campaign was such that this was an officlal world event. that all of the people associated with it had a cause. but in reality celebs made money, channels made money, mobile cos made money and the promoters made money. all under the blanket of national prestige. this is what made it unethical. you took advantage of the audience who inherently trusts you.


***NGO celebs = shabana, amitabh, mamoothy, rahul bose (for india'a uber chic) = intelligent, thinking celebs who support a whole lot of causes

[feverpitch]

a. i agree there would be an outcry about the 10C. any idea why there would be such an outcry?

probably because people feel very strongly about the original 10 commandments

Why would 'the people' feel so strongly about the 10 C? Who would be 'the people' here?

Those who hold it dear. I do not know.

You seemed so sure there would be an outcry. And yet you are unsure who would cause the outcry. Doesn't add up.

b. also, do u think there should have been a similar outcry in case of this seven wonders thinggy? why then do u think that such an event hasn't happened?

probably because people dont feel as strongly about the original list

Why wouldn't 'the people' feel so strongly about the 7W? Who would be 'the people' here?

I dont know why they did not. But they clearly did not, as there was no outcry. Anyways, at least here I can give you an example. I do not feel very strongly about them.

Right. so it can be reasonably agreed that the same reasons for an outcry as in the case of the 10C don't exist in case of the 7W. So just answer my previous q [on the 10C] and that should give you a fair idea about why there was no outcry about 7W.

c. also, do u think the evangelists converting the poor in India is "fair game"?

I dont understand where this is coming from.

To quote ur previous post:

The fact is that wherever there is such an emotional appeal over something of perceived value, there will be people around who try to leverage on that for their own profit... nothing wrong or unethical about that.

Yes. So, your point / question being? Is conversion wrong? Well, if forcibly then yes. If people convert out of their own free will, then no.

Would accepting an offer for food and shelter to convert be considered under 'free will'?

[feverpitch]

applause, achu!

[feverpitch]

From wiki:

NOWC claims more than 100 million votes were cast through the Internet or by telephone. They include multiple votes that could be bought from NOWC. In its Terms and Conditions, NOWC reserved "the right at its absolute discretion to exclude [any] votes" that were cast.[2] No information has been given as to any excluded votes. Besides revenue from the sale of votes, NOWC relied on private donations, the sale of merchandise such as shirts and cups, and revenue from selling broadcasting rights.

what a noble cause!

 

Why are you so skeptical? It's all good bizzness. 

[keep-it-cool]

a. i agree there would be an outcry about the 10C. any idea why there would be such an outcry?

probably because people feel very strongly about the original 10 commandments

Why would 'the people' feel so strongly about the 10 C? Who would be 'the people' here?

Those who hold it dear. I do not know.

You seemed so sure there would be an outcry. And yet you are unsure who would cause the outcry. Doesn't add up.

I said I "imagine" there would be an outcry, since it has a religious base. I wouldnt be creating one, I know. But I am sure there are several people out there who hold it dear to them.

b. also, do u think there should have been a similar outcry in case of this seven wonders thinggy? why then do u think that such an event hasn't happened?

probably because people dont feel as strongly about the original list

Why wouldn't 'the people' feel so strongly about the 7W? Who would be 'the people' here?

I dont know why they did not. But they clearly did not, as there was no outcry. Anyways, at least here I can give you an example. I do not feel very strongly about them.

Right. so it can be reasonably agreed that the same reasons for an outcry as in the case of the 10C don't exist in case of the 7W. So just answer my previous q [on the 10C] and that should give you a fair idea about why there was no outcry about 7W.

So? There is no outcry. People dont care much. What now?

c. also, do u think the evangelists converting the poor in India is "fair game"?

I dont understand where this is coming from.

To quote ur previous post:

The fact is that wherever there is such an emotional appeal over something of perceived value, there will be people around who try to leverage on that for their own profit... nothing wrong or unethical about that.

Yes. So, your point / question being? Is conversion wrong? Well, if forcibly then yes. If people convert out of their own free will, then no.

Would accepting an offer for food and shelter to convert be considered under 'free will'?

That depends on each person again. He / she has to decide what is the tilting factor that drives them to convert. If it is food and shelter, so be it. I cannot make that call for anyone.

[keep-it-cool]

there is difference between unfair practice and unethical practice.

the former borders on the unlawful and causes the bending of rules for eg. ) cartels.

but unethical practice is usually taking advantage of loopholes in the law and it boils down to whether one whould do that or not. eg.) chappel's underarm bowling , though i do not know why micheal chang's cheeky underarm service did not create the same furour.
unethical practice in its worst form is taking advantage of people's gullibilty. most people are trusting. they trust corporates to give thema  fair deal and do not read the fine print where the company protects its extra profits. in this case too people have been gullible. the roping in of celebrities to the cause of championing taj's inclusion (especially someon like shabana azmi or sanjay nirupam who has been an MP) really gives it an official NGO air about the whole enterprise. yes people do know that mobile compaines will charge for the SMS but they did not know that a company behind it will make money. no ad says that. they also did not know that companies like Levers that were suporting the cause were doing it only after payign huge endorsement monies to the promoters, the public only could make out that the companies were in it for the cause. it is only apparent it is not so when you read the fine print in the backpages of the newspaper where some stray journalist makes some noise about it or on the net where some blogger writes about it. indian public likes to still trust its "NGO"*** celebs. which is why shabana makes logical sense for corporate advertising. or an amitabh endorses the fact that cadbury's is not  wormfull.

the whole tone of the campaign was such that this was an officlal world event. that all of the people associated with it had a cause. but in reality celebs made money, channels made money, mobile cos made money and the promoters made money. all under the blanket of national prestige. this is what made it unethical. you took advantage of the audience who inherently trusts you.


***NGO celebs = shabana, amitabh, mamoothy, rahul bose (for india'a uber chic) = intelligent, thinking celebs who support a whole lot of causes

Sir, if you go to the website, on the first page, it is clearly outlined what this poll is all about. If people do not want to check things out for themselves, that is their problem.

[feverpitch]

a. i agree there would be an outcry about the 10C. any idea why there would be such an outcry?

probably because people feel very strongly about the original 10 commandments

Why would 'the people' feel so strongly about the 10 C? Who would be 'the people' here?

Those who hold it dear. I do not know.

You seemed so sure there would be an outcry. And yet you are unsure who would cause the outcry. Doesn't add up.

I said I "imagine" there would be an outcry, since it has a religious base. I wouldnt be creating one, I know. But I am sure there are several people out there who hold it dear to them.

Do you also imagine that the 10C has a 'religious base'; or do you mean that you imagine that if there is an outcry it will be because of the really existing religious base?

b. also, do u think there should have been a similar outcry in case of this seven wonders thinggy? why then do u think that such an event hasn't happened?

probably because people dont feel as strongly about the original list

Why wouldn't 'the people' feel so strongly about the 7W? Who would be 'the people' here?

I dont know why they did not. But they clearly did not, as there was no outcry. Anyways, at least here I can give you an example. I do not feel very strongly about them.

Right. so it can be reasonably agreed that the same reasons for an outcry as in the case of the 10C don't exist in case of the 7W. So just answer my previous q [on the 10C] and that should give you a fair idea about why there was no outcry about 7W.

So? There is no outcry. People dont care much. What now?

Try again.

c. also, do u think the evangelists converting the poor in India is "fair game"?

I dont understand where this is coming from.

To quote ur previous post:

The fact is that wherever there is such an emotional appeal over something of perceived value, there will be people around who try to leverage on that for their own profit... nothing wrong or unethical about that.

Yes. So, your point / question being? Is conversion wrong? Well, if forcibly then yes. If people convert out of their own free will, then no.

Would accepting an offer for food and shelter to convert be considered under 'free will'?

That depends on each person again. He / she has to decide what is the tilting factor that drives them to convert. If it is food and shelter, so be it. I cannot make that call for anyone.

But would converting under the lure of something be considered an expression of free will in your worldview or naat?

[feverpitch]

do check the several cases about misleading adverts by corporates kic. including about smoking. then tell us all what you think about them.

[keep-it-cool]

a. i agree there would be an outcry about the 10C. any idea why there would be such an outcry?

probably because people feel very strongly about the original 10 commandments

Why would 'the people' feel so strongly about the 10 C? Who would be 'the people' here?

Those who hold it dear. I do not know.

You seemed so sure there would be an outcry. And yet you are unsure who would cause the outcry. Doesn't add up.

I said I "imagine" there would be an outcry, since it has a religious base. I wouldnt be creating one, I know. But I am sure there are several people out there who hold it dear to them.

Do you also imagine that the 10C has a 'religious base'; or do you mean that you imagine that if there is an outcry it will be because of the really existing religious base?

I meant the latter. I have no idea about the former.

b. also, do u think there should have been a similar outcry in case of this seven wonders thinggy? why then do u think that such an event hasn't happened?

probably because people dont feel as strongly about the original list

Why wouldn't 'the people' feel so strongly about the 7W? Who would be 'the people' here?

I dont know why they did not. But they clearly did not, as there was no outcry. Anyways, at least here I can give you an example. I do not feel very strongly about them.

Right. so it can be reasonably agreed that the same reasons for an outcry as in the case of the 10C don't exist in case of the 7W. So just answer my previous q [on the 10C] and that should give you a fair idea about why there was no outcry about 7W.

So? There is no outcry. People dont care much. What now?

Try again.

Try what?

c. also, do u think the evangelists converting the poor in India is "fair game"?

I dont understand where this is coming from.

To quote ur previous post:

The fact is that wherever there is such an emotional appeal over something of perceived value, there will be people around who try to leverage on that for their own profit... nothing wrong or unethical about that.

Yes. So, your point / question being? Is conversion wrong? Well, if forcibly then yes. If people convert out of their own free will, then no.

Would accepting an offer for food and shelter to convert be considered under 'free will'?

That depends on each person again. He / she has to decide what is the tilting factor that drives them to convert. If it is food and shelter, so be it. I cannot make that call for anyone.

But would converting under the lure of something be considered an expression of free will in your worldview or naat?

Logically, conversion would always be under the lure of something. Very few would convert just for the heck of it.

[keep-it-cool]

do check the several cases about misleading adverts by corporates kic. including about smoking. then tell us all what you think about them.

When we discuss misleading advertisements etc, we can do that ... my point was not a generalised umbrella one for all advertisements or polls.

[feverpitch]

do check the several cases about misleading adverts by corporates kic. including about smoking. then tell us all what you think about them.

When we discuss misleading advertisements etc, we can do that ... my point was not a generalised umbrella one for all advertisements or polls.

to quote you:

There are umpteen contests that select an American Idol or an Indian Idol or India Ki Voice ... there may also be contests that select the best Indian batsman ever, several organisations run their own cricket ratings ... are all of these unethical because they play on people's emotions and urge to get interactive?

im sure you'll now claim that AI, II, IkV and other cricketing polls are all related to the 7W, in effect they are the same adv for the same product, and not diff advs for diff products, effectively bringing in other misleading adverts into the equation, something you seem to deny now. and, as u will notice, it was YOU who brought them into the discussion, not me!

[feverpitch]

a. i agree there would be an outcry about the 10C. any idea why there would be such an outcry?

probably because people feel very strongly about the original 10 commandments

Why would 'the people' feel so strongly about the 10 C? Who would be 'the people' here?

Those who hold it dear. I do not know.

You seemed so sure there would be an outcry. And yet you are unsure who would cause the outcry. Doesn't add up.

I said I "imagine" there would be an outcry, since it has a religious base. I wouldnt be creating one, I know. But I am sure there are several people out there who hold it dear to them.

Do you also imagine that the 10C has a 'religious base'; or do you mean that you imagine that if there is an outcry it will be because of the really existing religious base?

I meant the latter. I have no idea about the former.

OK. so you do know WHY the outcry would take place, if it did. I thought so.

b. also, do u think there should have been a similar outcry in case of this seven wonders thinggy? why then do u think that such an event hasn't happened?

probably because people dont feel as strongly about the original list

Why wouldn't 'the people' feel so strongly about the 7W? Who would be 'the people' here?

I dont know why they did not. But they clearly did not, as there was no outcry. Anyways, at least here I can give you an example. I do not feel very strongly about them.

Right. so it can be reasonably agreed that the same reasons for an outcry as in the case of the 10C don't exist in case of the 7W. So just answer my previous q [on the 10C] and that should give you a fair idea about why there was no outcry about 7W.

So? There is no outcry. People dont care much. What now?

Try again.

Try what?

why was there no outcry and why dont 'the ppl' care much about the misleading aspects of the 7W polls? who are 'the ppl' in this case anyway?

c. also, do u think the evangelists converting the poor in India is "fair game"?

I dont understand where this is coming from.

To quote ur previous post:

The fact is that wherever there is such an emotional appeal over something of perceived value, there will be people around who try to leverage on that for their own profit... nothing wrong or unethical about that.

Yes. So, your point / question being? Is conversion wrong? Well, if forcibly then yes. If people convert out of their own free will, then no.

Would accepting an offer for food and shelter to convert be considered under 'free will'?

That depends on each person again. He / she has to decide what is the tilting factor that drives them to convert. If it is food and shelter, so be it. I cannot make that call for anyone.

But would converting under the lure of something be considered an expression of free will in your worldview or naat?

Logically, conversion would always be under the lure of something. Very few would convert just for the heck of it.

OK. But would converting under the lure of something TANGIBLE be considered an expression of free will in your worldview or not?

[keep-it-cool]

do check the several cases about misleading adverts by corporates kic. including about smoking. then tell us all what you think about them.

When we discuss misleading advertisements etc, we can do that ... my point was not a generalised umbrella one for all advertisements or polls.

to quote you:

There are umpteen contests that select an American Idol or an Indian Idol or India Ki Voice ... there may also be contests that select the best Indian batsman ever, several organisations run their own cricket ratings ... are all of these unethical because they play on people's emotions and urge to get interactive?

im sure you'll now claim that AI, II, IkV and other cricketing polls are all related to the 7W, in effect they are the same adv for the same product, and not diff advs for diff products, effectively bringing in other misleading adverts into the equation, something you seem to deny now. and, as u will notice, it was YOU who brought them into the discussion, not me!

Well, you lost me there.

But, the examples I quoted are all contests where one is claiming to select "the idol for Americans" or "the idol for Indians" or "the Voice of India" .. just like this effort to select "the Seven Wonders of the World". Not sure how advertisements and cigarettes come into this.

[keep-it-cool]

a. i agree there would be an outcry about the 10C. any idea why there would be such an outcry?

probably because people feel very strongly about the original 10 commandments

Why would 'the people' feel so strongly about the 10 C? Who would be 'the people' here?

Those who hold it dear. I do not know.

You seemed so sure there would be an outcry. And yet you are unsure who would cause the outcry. Doesn't add up.

I said I "imagine" there would be an outcry, since it has a religious base. I wouldnt be creating one, I know. But I am sure there are several people out there who hold it dear to them.

Do you also imagine that the 10C has a 'religious base'; or do you mean that you imagine that if there is an outcry it will be because of the really existing religious base?

I meant the latter. I have no idea about the former.

OK. so you do know WHY the outcry would take place, if it did. I thought so.

Did I give you any reason to think otherwise? Am not sure what you are trying to get at here.

b. also, do u think there should have been a similar outcry in case of this seven wonders thinggy? why then do u think that such an event hasn't happened?

probably because people dont feel as strongly about the original list

Why wouldn't 'the people' feel so strongly about the 7W? Who would be 'the people' here?

I dont know why they did not. But they clearly did not, as there was no outcry. Anyways, at least here I can give you an example. I do not feel very strongly about them.

Right. so it can be reasonably agreed that the same reasons for an outcry as in the case of the 10C don't exist in case of the 7W. So just answer my previous q [on the 10C] and that should give you a fair idea about why there was no outcry about 7W.

So? There is no outcry. People dont care much. What now?

Try again.

Try what?

why was there no outcry and why dont 'the ppl' care much about the misleading aspects of the 7W polls? who are 'the ppl' in this case anyway?

I dont know why there was no outcry at large. I can only talk for myself ... I dont really consider the list - this one or the earlier one - to be of any great relevance. Maybe there are many others like me. I did not define any class of people here. Anyone who wants is free to come out against or for something.

c. also, do u think the evangelists converting the poor in India is "fair game"?

I dont understand where this is coming from.

To quote ur previous post:

The fact is that wherever there is such an emotional appeal over something of perceived value, there will be people around who try to leverage on that for their own profit... nothing wrong or unethical about that.

Yes. So, your point / question being? Is conversion wrong? Well, if forcibly then yes. If people convert out of their own free will, then no.

Would accepting an offer for food and shelter to convert be considered under 'free will'?

That depends on each person again. He / she has to decide what is the tilting factor that drives them to convert. If it is food and shelter, so be it. I cannot make that call for anyone.

But would converting under the lure of something be considered an expression of free will in your worldview or naat?

Logically, conversion would always be under the lure of something. Very few would convert just for the heck of it.

OK. But would converting under the lure of something TANGIBLE be considered an expression of free will in your worldview or not?

Whether a person wants something tangible or intangible in order to convert should be down to him / her. As long as he / she is allowed to make that choice, it is fine with me.

[achutank]

there is difference between unfair practice and unethical practice.

the former borders on the unlawful and causes the bending of rules for eg. ) cartels.

but unethical practice is usually taking advantage of loopholes in the law and it boils down to whether one whould do that or not. eg.) chappel's underarm bowling , though i do not know why micheal chang's cheeky underarm service did not create the same furour.
unethical practice in its worst form is taking advantage of people's gullibilty. most people are trusting. they trust corporates to give thema  fair deal and do not read the fine print where the company protects its extra profits. in this case too people have been gullible. the roping in of celebrities to the cause of championing taj's inclusion (especially someon like shabana azmi or sanjay nirupam who has been an MP) really gives it an official NGO air about the whole enterprise. yes people do know that mobile compaines will charge for the SMS but they did not know that a company behind it will make money. no ad says that. they also did not know that companies like Levers that were suporting the cause were doing it only after payign huge endorsement monies to the promoters, the public only could make out that the companies were in it for the cause. it is only apparent it is not so when you read the fine print in the backpages of the newspaper where some stray journalist makes some noise about it or on the net where some blogger writes about it. indian public likes to still trust its "NGO"*** celebs. which is why shabana makes logical sense for corporate advertising. or an amitabh endorses the fact that cadbury's is not  wormfull.

the whole tone of the campaign was such that this was an officlal world event. that all of the people associated with it had a cause. but in reality celebs made money, channels made money, mobile cos made money and the promoters made money. all under the blanket of national prestige. this is what made it unethical. you took advantage of the audience who inherently trusts you.


***NGO celebs = shabana, amitabh, mamoothy, rahul bose (for india'a uber chic) = intelligent, thinking celebs who support a whole lot of causes

Sir, if you go to the website, on the first page, it is clearly outlined what this poll is all about. If people do not want to check things out for themselves, that is their problem.

most people do not have thet ime/inclination/or even the undertanding of reading a business page
so that is why i said that this is a question of ethics
if a client comes to me for example i believe it is my duty to tell him all the pros and cons before he takes a decision
in this case there was a deliberate packaging of the real scenario, nothing wrong with that you may argue, but still untethical

the point i was making was one of ethics and not of fairness

of course when your investment company recommends a stock they can always say that read the offer document carefully and there somewhere between para 3 and para 4 in point size of 7.5 there are a few drawbacks of the investment mentioned of course clouded in certain legalese. now unless you yourself are an expert at these matters you probably may even read it and not understand it. the public will not read it. the public will go by who is promoting the investment. and that is what they trust. when you play with that trust it does become unethical.

now it is completely up to you to decide whether business has to be ethical or just lawful. sir.

[keep-it-cool]

there is difference between unfair practice and unethical practice.

the former borders on the unlawful and causes the bending of rules for eg. ) cartels.

but unethical practice is usually taking advantage of loopholes in the law and it boils down to whether one whould do that or not. eg.) chappel's underarm bowling , though i do not know why micheal chang's cheeky underarm service did not create the same furour.
unethical practice in its worst form is taking advantage of people's gullibilty. most people are trusting. they trust corporates to give thema  fair deal and do not read the fine print where the company protects its extra profits. in this case too people have been gullible. the roping in of celebrities to the cause of championing taj's inclusion (especially someon like shabana azmi or sanjay nirupam who has been an MP) really gives it an official NGO air about the whole enterprise. yes people do know that mobile compaines will charge for the SMS but they did not know that a company behind it will make money. no ad says that. they also did not know that companies like Levers that were suporting the cause were doing it only after payign huge endorsement monies to the promoters, the public only could make out that the companies were in it for the cause. it is only apparent it is not so when you read the fine print in the backpages of the newspaper where some stray journalist makes some noise about it or on the net where some blogger writes about it. indian public likes to still trust its "NGO"*** celebs. which is why shabana makes logical sense for corporate advertising. or an amitabh endorses the fact that cadbury's is not  wormfull.

the whole tone of the campaign was such that this was an officlal world event. that all of the people associated with it had a cause. but in reality celebs made money, channels made money, mobile cos made money and the promoters made money. all under the blanket of national prestige. this is what made it unethical. you took advantage of the audience who inherently trusts you.


***NGO celebs = shabana, amitabh, mamoothy, rahul bose (for india'a uber chic) = intelligent, thinking celebs who support a whole lot of causes

Sir, if you go to the website, on the first page, it is clearly outlined what this poll is all about. If people do not want to check things out for themselves, that is their problem.

most people do not have thet ime/inclination/or even the undertanding of reading a business page
so that is why i said that this is a question of ethics
if a client comes to me for example i believe it is my duty to tell him all the pros and cons before he takes a decision
in this case there was a deliberate packaging of the real scenario, nothing wrong with that you may argue, but still untethical

the point i was making was one of ethics and not of fairness

of course when your investment company recommends a stock they can always say that read the offer document carefully and there somewhere between para 3 and para 4 in point size of 7.5 there are a few drawbacks of the investment mentioned of course clouded in certain legalese. now unless you yourself are an expert at these matters you probably may even read it and not understand it. the public will not read it. the public will go by who is promoting the investment. and that is what they trust. when you play with that trust it does become unethical.

now it is completely up to you to decide whether business has to be ethical or just lawful. sir.

If a person cannot read through the first two or three pages of a website to understand what he or she is going to participate in, it is that person's fault. The company cannot call up each person who is going to vote and tell him / her verbally what the exercise is all about. That is the reason it is out there on the web. There is no burying under multiple other things either. It is clearly stated as to what the original wonders were all about and what this exercise seeks to do. If you do not have the inclination to do your homework, dont blame anyone else for any consequences.

Would the same set of people be as flippant if they were, say, applying for a US visa?

It is a different matter that in this case people may have thought that anyways what is at stake is only a few rupees and hence there is no need to think so much about this ... which is something I am ok with. But again, I see no way one can blame the organisation either on legal or ethical grounds.

What is really unethical about the whole thing is voting for one landmark that is part of your country - without probably even having seen the others upfront - and that too not once, but over and over again. Just so that "our own national monument" gets voted in by sheer strength of numbers. And, it is not the organiser of the list which has been doing that.

On your last point about investment recommendation - here there is no recommendation, there is no advice and there is no clouding of any facts behind a lot of legalese. It is a mere forum through which someone has openly (having laid down the criteria) invited people to exercise their opinion.

[achutank]

If a person cannot read through the first two or three pages of a website to understand what he or she is going to participate in, it is that person's fault. The company cannot call up each person who is going to vote and tell him / her verbally what the exercise is all about. That is the reason it is out there on the web. There is no burying under multiple other things either. It is clearly stated as to what the original wonders were all about and what this exercise seeks to do. If you do not have the inclination to do your homework, dont blame anyone else for any consequences.

this is where i question business houses. you know people are people and time pressures, inclinations, understanding being what it is, is it ehtical to take advantage of it?

in this case the projection in the media made it look very official. the sense of urgency was heightened to the extent that people felt that this list was written in gold and that once thislist is put up no other monument can ever be a seven wonder of the world thingy.

and this is where a business house has to question how it wants to conduct its business. and how it wants to make its money. its a simple question of that.

the point you are missing is i am not questioning fair business practices but the ethics of the event.

Would the same set of people be as flippant if they were, say, applying for a US visa?

this is irrelevant really to what we are talking about, but to answer your question yes people do not read enough even for a visa application simply because they know they will not comprehend.

It is a different matter that in this case people may have thought that anyways what is at stake is only a few rupees and hence there is no need to think so much about this ... which is something I am ok with. But again, I see no way one can blame the organisation either on legal or ethical grounds.

this is exactly the mentality the promoters have played upon nothing much you or i can do about that

What is really unethical about the whole thing is voting for one landmark that is part of your country - without probably even having seen the others upfront - and that too not once, but over and over again. Just so that "our own national monument" gets voted in by sheer strength of numbers. And, it is not the organiser of the list which has been doing that.

no prblem if it is free, but they made money of what is essentially a public domain

On your last point about investment recommendation - here there is no recommendation, there is no advice and there is no clouding of any facts behind a lot of legalese. It is a mere forum through which someone has openly (having laid down the criteria) invited people to exercise their opinion.

again the principles of investment solicitation are the basics of business ethics, whatever the business teh ethics do not change, you cannot play on the inherent nature of people and therefore there are severe guidelines which are laid down and what makes differntiates a good investment advisor from a bad one is the fact that he ensures his clients do not not go into any investment blind to the minuses of any investment

[keep-it-cool]

If a person cannot read through the first two or three pages of a website to understand what he or she is going to participate in, it is that person's fault. The company cannot call up each person who is going to vote and tell him / her verbally what the exercise is all about. That is the reason it is out there on the web. There is no burying under multiple other things either. It is clearly stated as to what the original wonders were all about and what this exercise seeks to do. If you do not have the inclination to do your homework, dont blame anyone else for any consequences.

this is where i question business houses. you know people are people and time pressures, inclinations, understanding being what it is, is it ehtical to take advantage of it?

in this case the projection in the media made it look very official. the sense of urgency was heightened to the extent that people felt that this list was written in gold and that once thislist is put up no other monument can ever be a seven wonder of the world thingy.

and this is where a business house has to question how it wants to conduct its business. and how it wants to make its money. its a simple question of that.

the point you are missing is i am not questioning fair business practices but the ethics of the event.

I am sorry. If people do not have the time or inclination and feel so strongly about it, they should not participate. If you go around believing what everyone around you says without bothering to check for yourself what the facts of the matter are then its your problem.

What is official about the seven wonders? Who is the official body that fixes the seven wonders? The original seven wonders were penned down by one man. What is so official about it? Who in your mind has the official right to go ahead and fix up such a list?

This was a poll to arrive at a list. In order to get people participating in the poll, the poll would be publicised. At the same time, everything that needed to be known about the poll was there on a public platform. It is a different issue that a Zee TV and a Star TV felt that this is an issue which would go down well with its viewers and played it up. I dont see any need to blame any of the people concerned out there - on fairness or legality or ethics.

Would the same set of people be as flippant if they were, say, applying for a US visa?

this is irrelevant really to what we are talking about, but to answer your question yes people do not read enough even for a visa application simply because they know they will not comprehend.

Why is it irrelevant? I just brought that point out to show that if people know that what they are paying for matters a lot or if they are paying a lot in order to get something, they would end up doing more research of their own. You underestimate to what extent people go to prepare themselves for a US visa application - right down to practicing answers to likely questions - and checking ten times over whether all their documents are in place.

It is a different matter that in this case people may have thought that anyways what is at stake is only a few rupees and hence there is no need to think so much about this ... which is something I am ok with. But again, I see no way one can blame the organisation either on legal or ethical grounds.

this is exactly the mentality the promoters have played upon nothing much you or i can do about that

So, are you saying that you or I or some other individual should sit down in judgment ... about how any person should spend his money? It is very evident that there is a market for polls in India - in some sense a demand. What is unethical about catering to that demand with everything laid out in black and white?

What is really unethical about the whole thing is voting for one landmark that is part of your country - without probably even having seen the others upfront - and that too not once, but over and over again. Just so that "our own national monument" gets voted in by sheer strength of numbers. And, it is not the organiser of the list which has been doing that.

no prblem if it is free, but they made money of what is essentially a public domain

What is not a problem? Voting several times to get your monument in the list? And why should the making or not making of money determine whether something is ethical?

On your last point about investment recommendation - here there is no recommendation, there is no advice and there is no clouding of any facts behind a lot of legalese. It is a mere forum through which someone has openly (having laid down the criteria) invited people to exercise their opinion.

again the principles of investment solicitation are the basics of business ethics, whatever the business teh ethics do not change, you cannot play on the inherent nature of people and therefore there are severe guidelines which are laid down and what makes differntiates a good investment advisor from a bad one is the fact that he ensures his clients do not not go into any investment blind to the minuses of any investment

Again, you go on about investments and recommendations ... where is there any recommendation here? It is a forum for people to express their opinion. They got to do so - with the entire context laid out appropriately.