NEWS: You Can Shove Your Fucking Candy Bar . . .

See previous posts about "generating profits" at the false enticement of others.

Maybe a good example of this is your post. Let’s say I put it in a book, and sell the book for $100,000. You had NO INTENTION of selling your post. NO INTENTION of ever using this post in any way, other than to speculate on something and forget about it.

But, if I suddenly make some cash off your efforts, even though you had NO INTENTION of doing ANYTHING with this post....then suing me because I made money off YOUR EFFORTS is being a “whiney, give me everything, American?”

There is no doubt the radio station made money off this “prank”...either in the form of increased listening demographics or the publicity. There is no doubt she gave up her time and efforts to assist the radio station in making money on the basis of a false pretense. So is she whining?

Hey, by the way...I would like to include your post in a book. I’ll pay you a “100 grand” for it.

[NOTE: I’M JUST FUCKING KIDDING ON THE BOOK THING...since almost every “anti-litiganist” I have ever encountered will sell out their beliefs if they see an opportunity to sue for a buck.]


[Edited on Jun 25, 2005 3:10PM]

Aside from the fact that you cannot make misrepresentations for profit...which is what this ultimately comes down to. Contests have been shown unquestionably to improve ratings and allow for better advertising budgets. This woman was used in a misrepresentation scheme for profit.

The difficulty with a society of “equal law for all” is that one slip leads to another. If let off the hook this time, how far will it pushed next time. If let slip next time, how far the time after.

If I were to lure you into doing photography modeling with a promise of “100 grand” and gave you a candy bar...have you been injured? How about someone just luring you to their office and spending an hour of your time discussing a non-existent job by reference of “a Payday” (also a candy bar) because they like talking to good looking women...have you been injured? What if he does it three times a week? What if it happens to you five times in a week, ‘cause its legal and he passed your name around? Have you been injured? What if she had made financial obligations on the promise...which was INTENTIONALLY INTENDED to be misleading?

But ultimately, from a sociological standpoint, should government be allowed into the personal honesty of its population? All the above discounted...should one entity be allowed to publicly, and intentionally, lie to another without ramification (there is no argument that is what happened? The “I had my fingers crossed”...or “By 100 grand I meant a candy bar” defense...by no means changes the fact that this was an entirely intentional lie.) And if so...when does “harm” come into the picture? Does personal humiliation count as harm?

Not to be an asshole, honestly, but I don't think that your example could have any less to do with the issue at hand. It concerns various issues in copyright law. If you plagarize somebody's written, intellectual, or other type of work, yes, they are owed something. This isn't remotely what we have here.

The part that I think you DO mean to be pertenant is that they somehow used something of hers to profit?

This woman didn't create anything. They didn't steal anything. She CHOSE to waste her own time at the damn radio! And that's the point. She chose to try at this "contest" and then didn't like the prize. Unfortunately, it was still a contest, it's something given freely to her, and she has no right to bitch at the end when she doesn't like it.

Going a bit past responding to your post, kinda just following my own train of thought...you know what it might simply come down to? Not to harp on the "Old Fashioned American" crap (though it might have a point here...), but all of us with any moral sense and class know what we deserve, deep down. When we fuck up and something shitty happens, we know we deserve it. The opposite is true, too. And we know, whether we admit it to others or even ourselves, what kind of job we do at any project when we've done it. And she did NOTHING. I'm not saying contests like this are evil or we shouldn't give 'em a go when we can, just that we should keep them in perspective and realize what they really are. She tried to get ahead doing nothing. To acheive things the rest of us have to kick ass for. And deep down, I think she probably knows it. And she should also have expected something like this, or at least realize that it's exactly what she deserves.

I don't know, man... but I really like candy bars.

Why don't they just give the lady 100,000 candy bars and be done with it?

I'm kinda baffled that some of you think this is about whether this lady "earned" a prize or not. The only thing that seems particularly relevant is whether the radio station engaged in willful deception in a bid to boost ratings.

I mean, there are a hell of a lot of things I think should be legalized -- but fraud just ain't one of them.

I'm down with that.

I don't agree that this lady deserves the money in any meaningful sense of the word. But if you want her distress to be unwarranted you have to change the culture in a way other than being able to decieve people with no comeback.

Possibly the radio station should be made to donate $100,000 to charity and allow the woman to sue said charity for 'her' money if she wants to look like that much of an avaricious bitch.

But the radio station has to honour their promised payout somehow. Because they attracted listeners with a false promise. And that's not right either.

And if someone was willing to cop to the gag I'd still feel the radio station deserve to get nailed for fraud.

Although having said that if everyone believed that they couldn't trust big prize giveaways then no one would be willing to listen to shitty radio just to get their hands on the money...

I don't know if this would be considered a follow-up sort of, but I was searching the net for some more additional information about this situation, and I found some more on the smoking gunthe smoking gun
And also:
the smoking gun: print screen of webblog

As far as I can tell, the DJ and the PR persons both lost their jobs over this, and legal action is being taken (as the original post about this mentioned).

Also, here is this:
which is the radio station's responce to the situation on their site.

And, upon reading some of the comments on the webblog's page (the main page is now gone) webblog's url

I noticed a specific item from someone using the name "Jason Hamman" (which if you notice, is hte DJ's real name via smoking gun) stating that the person might have ended up at a different postion in KY. (though, the station listed is real, it doesnt have a web address to verify thie information)

I think that just about sums it all up (except for all the legal stuff that is going on with the radio station for this)

Later

When did they change it to "100 Grand"? When I was a kid those were called a "$100,000 Bar".

Wish I knew the full story on that one (although I've guessed the basics) she sure does look pissed off (kinda hot too)

As for the topic at hand...
The station broke FCC rules. They were running a misleading and fraudulent competition, so they should be made to pay out properly. The woman may not deserve the money, as Al and Dunx have pointed out, but she is entitled to it, because the station made a promise (albeit a missleading one) and have then used a lame payout as an excuse.

it took me a while to process that she did not win win a contest by sticking a candy bar in her anus.


please make more specific titles.

posted for no particular reason.

Its not a prank, its a lottery. Thats how lotteries work. You contribute something of minor value for a remote chance at winning something of major value. This isn't some distorted protestant work ethic issue. They committed a fraud, violated federal law, and yes, she is entitled to collect because she was the one chosen to receive the benefit, collectively, of all the people who listened to the show that made the station a shitload of advertising money. Its pure commerce and governed by the laws of commerce, not the laws of wacky hijinks.

Okay, then damn I'm old...