home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky co.general:1829 co.politics:2162
- Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
- Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!boulder!csn!ncar!claven!woods
- From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
- Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
- Message-ID: <1992Nov17.225655.23248@claven.ucar.edu>
- Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
- References: <Nov16.221119.53899@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> <1992Nov17.164158.22880@craycos.com> <1992Nov17.173438.7141@craycos.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:56:55 GMT
- Lines: 22
-
- In article <1992Nov17.173438.7141@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
- >In article <1992Nov17.164158.22880@craycos.com> jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes:
- >>If you want to boycott anybody, consider boycotting Perkins Chrysler-Plymouth
- >>and Colorado football. The heads of both operations were prominent in the
- >>pro-amendment-2 movement.
-
- McCartney has a lifetime contract. Boycotting CU football will most
- likely hurt the University itself, and the future careers of the
- players (regardless of whether or not they supported #2) more than it will
- McCartney.
-
- >However, urging the TV networks to boycott CU football might have some impact.
-
- Same argument. That will hurt the University and the players, but not
- McCartney personally. Exactly the opposite effect from what you want.
- There is certainly no evidence that the University itself, or even the
- athletic department, contributed to the support of #2, and the consequences
- of expecting them to control what one of their employees does with his own
- money and on his own time are, if anything, scarier than the implications of
- #2.
-
- --Greg
-