egafd.com

One I dispise is Ross Perot the Texan who tries in vain to run for President. He lives in tax-free Bermuda and outraged the islands population by blowing up a coral reef so he could have easier access to the ocean for his boat. The coral reefs are protected in Bermuda and even tourist divers are pre-warned that anyone caught nicking any of it WILL be prosecuted, so when 'Good 'ol Ross dynamites a section for his personal pleasure, you can imagine the furore of the local government and the good people of this beautiful island. He tried to appease the situation by 'donating' some cash, and soon realised his wealth is common in Bermuda, and he wasn't even in the top 5 of 'billionaires' on the island. I think he was the 9th richest on the island all said and done

'The expression 'without obligation' is just immoral....'

So it's a moral obligation, is it? Is freedom of choice immoral? What about a person's individual moral standpoint, especially regarding societies' myriad woes? Is it immoral to have your morals differ from others'?

'I was commenting on the lack of insight entertainers have when it's obvious they should do something constructive with their money even in an artistic sense.'

Such as? and what 'insight' must they have first? I think you'll find most entertainers stick to what they do because a) it takes up all their time, and b) they don't want to lose their standing in an over-crowded market, which is understandable.

And how on earth can you be sure what your attitude towards excessive wealth is if you've not been in that position yourself. Can you put your hand on your heart and say it wouldn't change you? I know I couldn't.


--
"Let's do it..."

not a bad start but then, i wouldn't expect a few facts to get in the way of this forums propensity for hating everything and everyone (especially those who are rich and successful - odd that).

btw, i'm not aiming this at you, caractacus

If we hate the rich and successful, it's only cause we've heard of them

No worries, Woodgnome, I'm only too happy to be put right when my pronouncements are revealed to be without fact. Carry on correcting!

There is also the question of why one person with a strong sense of morals should step in and finance something which governments are supposed to do.

I have no problem with Sir Paul (apart from the Frog Chorus) or Bill Gates. The latter, through his financial acumen, is supporting the jobs of tens of thousands of people worldwide.

'Saying that wealth qualifies you to think and act without a trace of compassion towards other people as you say 'without obligation' is just callous and very nasty.'

True. It is. But you cannot take away a persons right to choose, whoever they are.

'I would like to see 'artists' who have the means doing a lot more and in the larger sense, giving something back.'

Again - such as? This point remains as nebulous as before.

On a lighter note - yes, Handmade Films did have a lot to be proud of. So why they chose to close business with 'Shanghai Suprise' is anyone's guess.


--
"Let's do it..."

> Eastman Kodak?

Linda was NOT part of the Eastman Kodak family, a popular myth,
but she was in the family of New York lawyers called Eastman.

If you remember when the Beatles were setting up Apple, Paul
wanted his wife's family legally involved, John wanted Alan Klein,
which caused friction in the group.

Alan Klein got the job, and got them a vastly improved deal with
EMI, but eventually turned out to be less than honest and was
later sued by some of the Beatles.

Guilbert.