Comments on: RIP Dallas Pulls Its Ads with the Ripped Off Soundtracks

By: mbtrt

mbtrt — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:53:43 +0000

A few years back I recognized some of Peter Gabriel’s _Last Temptation of Christ_ on a local news promo. I emailed them asking if they had rights to use the music; they didn’t answer but the promo was gone the next day after having run for a few weeks.

By: Bethany

Bethany — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:02:10 +0000

Because it’s currently in vogue to pretend I’m a junior high school student.

By: Oscar Wilde

Oscar Wilde — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:58:52 +0000

“…your reference to a mistake the RIP Dallas crew made (admittedly, it was a mistake) is childish. ”

Which mistake – stealing Rage Against the Machine’s music, or claiming that fair use allows your group to steal Rage Against the Machine’s music?

And why is it childish for someone to point out that R.I.P. Dallas makes mistakes as a result of poor planning?

By: James the P3

James the P3 — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:30:25 +0000

Grim–if you have an answer to my questions, please email them to Trey who can then email them to me directly. That way, you don’t have to get bend out of shape with the forum.

Alternatively, I can simply take your withdrawal as a concession of my previous criticism–that it is impossible to get a straight answer out of the “No” side. Presumably, that’s because they’ve no good straight answers to give.

By: Bethany

Bethany — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:13:49 +0000

Given the way the last guy flounced off, too, I’m beginning to wonder if Vote No’s version of “playing fair” means a place where everyone agrees with them, or eventually concedes that they are right.

And then I wonder where such a place exists.

By: Trey Garrison

Trey Garrison — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 04:53:40 +0000

Aw. And I was going to nominate you for king of the winter carnival.

Comments were deleted at the poster’s request, my friend.

If he’s changed his mind, he’s welcome to email them to me and I’ll put them back up.

By: I'm with Grim

I'm with Grim — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 04:12:45 +0000

I was really looking forward to responding to these last few comments but it doesn’t look like that is going to happen anytime soon.

I was just informed by a friend I trust that Trey removed comments from another “Vote No” blogger without his permission. While he has not treated me with the same disrespect thus far, I don’t want to risk being in that situation.

I really would like to continue the discussion with you all, but not on a platform that picks and chooses what is posted online.

Off to greener pastures where people play fair…

By: Rico

Rico — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:25:33 +0000

I’m a little late, but as to that list of Vote No supporters I know for a fact that the Dallas Safari Club has not endorsed the Vote No position or the hotel. Makes me wonder what other groups don’t belong on that list.

By: James the P3

James the P3 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:43:35 +0000

Grim–the charter amendment specifically excepts “the adoption of a tax increment financing district or tax abatement agreement in accordance with state law” from its prohibition. So isn’t the answer to my previous question–”Isn’t it a fact that if Prop 1 were to pass, the City could still work with Omni to provide enough tax incentives (and even direct subsidies) to allow the building of the hotel”–”yes”?

And so assuming we can do it strictly with abatements and TIF’s, as was the original plan (and Matthews’ original proposal), why is owning the hotel outright a better deal for the taxpayers? Or is it your contention that the hotel wouldn’t be built with abatements and TIF’s alone?

This is the problem I have had with the “No” campaign from the outset. It’s really impossible to get a straight answer out of them. Why does this make sense? Why is it better than the alternatives? Why do we even need a hotel in the first place?

To the extent anybody knows, nobody wants to talk about it.

By: Trey Garrison

Trey Garrison — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:16:06 +0000

“They CAN form an investment group but if the purpose is to make $$$ (what an investment partnership is trying to do) there are other places in the market that offer better returns.”

Well here I thought you told me they all have the best interest of Dallas at heart.

Surely such altruistic people would be willing to get a slightly smaller profit if they truly believed this hotel was the panacea for what ails downtown, and something that will secure Dallas’ future with glory ever after, or whatever language you people are selling it with today.

I mean — it’s a smaller profit, but it’s guaranteed profit, right? And they so love the city, and there will be all these other benefits on top of their returns?

Or is it maybe none of them want to be directly on the hook when it doesn’t make a profit? Could that be it?