Being a \"tanning salon professional\" isn\'t gender specific!\"]

Don Smith · 04-13-2002, 08:54 AM

FYI: A "post" today by the Administrator of the TrashingTheImageOfTanningToday made my blood boil!

The "theme" of this thread started out to be a protest of ITA's decision to have Erin Brokovich be a "keynote speaker" at the November meeting.

However, it soon disintegrated into a mysogynistic attack on the wonderful women of the indoor tanning industry. He said "How many bimbo's do we have in our salon segment, all like Erin, losers, blonde, can't make good decisions on men, or shall I say...and please forgive me for this,...ALL trailer trasher's of the world? These are the "Hobby Salon Segment" in our business financed by the older man, or the rich hubby, not profitable, but in the tanning business because it looks like a fun thing?"

Then, he "lumps" the "wonderful women of tanning" together unfairly and insultingly when he said "Take those gals, and there are MANY in tanning with salons, WHY will they love to listen to Erin? (Because) They can EMOTE and RELATE to other losers of the world (like you, Bruce?)! This is your Oprah Winfrey fan, the soap opera crowd, they like sob stories, they live for feeling sorry for those, that like themselves, make nothing but endless bad choices in their lives."

What a bunch of crap. Especially from someone who, if my memory serves me correctly (and I think it does!), made some rather bad "choices in his life" recently!

Let me share a secret with you folks. I have, over the past few years, had the pleasure of communicating with a lot of tanning salon owners and I have discovered that being a "tanning salon professional" is a state of mind that IS NOT related to (1) the gender of the person, (2) the size of the tanning salon, and/or, (3) the color of the persons hair!

What "defines" a "tanning salon professional" is very simple. It is the fact that "tanning salon professionals" are INVARAIBLY dedicated to looking out for the best interests of their clients. They spend the extra time conducting a skin typing/subtyping on each and every new client; they have a "formal" exposure schedule protocol; i.e., they WILL NOT allow a client to tan longer than their tolerance to UVR will allow; they make sure that each and every client is given advice about taking care of their eyes; they give their clients helpful advice about taking care of their skin; and they do all of the other "common sense" things that we all know running a professional operation entails.

Being a "tanning salon professional" IS NOT gender specific and running a professional tanning salon is not something that can be done only by (1) men, (2) or large chains! Some of the most "professional" operations that Pat and I have had the privilege of visiting were "single location" operations owned by a woman; conversely, some of the worst we have visited were large operatons owned by men!

Bruce Shoenfelder owes the wonderful women of the indoor tanning industry a public apology! If he wants to protest having Erin Brockovich speak at Nashville, he should send ITA a letter of protest (that is his right as a member). He should not use a protest of having her speak as a "platform" to denigrate and insult the wonderful women of the infoor tanning industry.

"Whose house is of glass, must not throw stones at another. [George Herbert: Jacula Prudentum]

Don

Rayztanning · 04-13-2002, 12:50 PM

Of course Don, you IGNORED the entire meat of the thread, the issue of WHO was being invited to the show, her background, and WHY she is the wrong choice to be speaking to our industry.

In your quest for eyeballs, and stirring up invective against me, you, again, miss the entire point of one of the most informative threads ever run about the show speaker arrangements.

Like:

WHO the real Erin Brockovich is.
WHY she became famous.
HOW she used regulatory issues to fleece legimate business concerns.
WHO gave her all those awards.
HOW much we are paying her to speak.
WHY she should be banned from our shows, let alone featured.
WHO is paying for it.
HOW much is this costing.
THE reasons she is coming.

For the facts, not the spin, I suggest that people actually read the thread.

( Spamming Removed -- chunn )

Then ask yourself, why on Earth is Erin speaking in Nashville. And why isn't Don questioning THAT too, instead of attacking those who are digging up INFORMATION and providing context and insight into these matters?

_________________
"Banty Rooster Bruce"
"Now only doing charcoal freehand sketch's"
"WINNER: TSO "You Made A Positive Difference Award" Nov. 4th, 2000, Chicago's RIP Show.[ This Message was edited by: chunn on 2002-04-13 13:21 ]

MJ · 04-13-2002, 12:57 PM

Wait a minute Don,
I will have to ask my Sugar Daddy if I Am allowed to have an opinion today..
Ok..

Mj

MJ · 04-13-2002, 02:46 PM

Okk I am back.. yes, I am allowed to have an opinion today..
Don,
Thank you, for sheading light on this serious issue that faces our industry and many others...
As for Bruce he knows how I feel about his sexist, rude commentaries of women in this industry.
If he would only use his intelligence and passion for this industry in a more productive avenue, then we would be that much closer the proverbial finish line.

The time and energy he expends to bash small salons and thier owners that don't hang on his every word. (male and female)
Would be better spent trying to increase the knowledge of the owners online seeking help instead of slapping them in the face with constant often unfounded insults.

LOOK, LOOK, There is a large breasted woman with a very low cut half shirt on... oh she dropped her lotion...her skirt is way too short.
Now she is bending down to pick it up!!!

Ok while the pigs of our industry are visualizing that I will continue..

Where was I, Ohh..

Anyways.. I am not saying that this industry is not without the scum salon owners that give us a bad reputation. But to constantly put them in the female ownership catagory is very demeening to the real BUSINESS WOMEN in this industry.
Don,thank you for stating that there are just as many males, that fall under the bottom feeders killing our reputation too.
Ok I am finished for now..BTW I am organizing a bra burning in "gone" at 8:00PM sharp!!.. BYOM...(bring your own match)

MJ
P.S.
Key are you listening stop visualizing!!

MJ · 04-13-2002, 04:41 PM

I just read the post over there.
I still think it was done from a arrogant, sexist stand point.
MY guess is he has to present things in that manner in order to reach the macho pig side of our industry.
(If this does not apply to you then ....do not be offended, If it does then grow up!)

I feel that Erin is a strong woman with a quest.
Inviting her into the world of tanning, could cause future problems..
However, with this said..
I can see how Bruce could be threatened by a intelligent, strong willed women with POWER.

ITA may not have thought this one entirely through... I have great respect for what she
was able to achieve.. but $35,000 is a better spent on a national advertising campaign.
BTW.. I recieved my bumper sticker.

ITA please.... say that isn't your version of a national advertising campaign.
UMM most of us out there are NOT bumper sticker kind of people..
Reguardless of what you have been told by the other site.
MJ

Rayztanning · 04-14-2002, 07:33 AM

MJ wrote:

Quote:I feel that Erin is a strong woman with a quest. Inviting her into the world of tanning, could cause future problems..
However, with this said.. I can see how Bruce could be threatened by a intelligent, strong willed women with POWER.

MJ, you couldn't be more wrong. We RECRUITE all the intellingent STRONG women with POWER we can for our site. My personal hero list includes [towards the very top] Golda Meier, and Margaret Thatcher.

Where you gals miss the mark is when I diss "a" woman, you emote that to "all" women. But, if I trash "a" man does that mean I hate "all" men too? Of course not.

Requires a certain objectivity that you might want to cultivate.

Now, ALL OF you, move off the "Brucie" issue, and start asking the questions I posed in the thread.

Is Erin Brockovich, a "person" [better MJ?] who rose to fame suing business on class action issues where COMPANIES DAMAGED THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON HEALTH ISSUES [can you spell skin cancer here] and almost singlehandedly brought the California power companies into bankruptcy, the one WE AS A TANNING ORGANIZATION want to lionize?

Stop here, move beyond the silly little board game rivalry and really TRY here to move into my game, and that is objectively looking at the issues here.

Our industry is under constant assault from outside forces. And the one thing that could EFFECTIVELY take us down, is if the trial lawyers were to TARGET us, find a few people with Melanoma, and using the pretext that WE contributed to that malady, sue, and do so, with a ditz like Erin being the poster gal for those we have "intentionaly hurt" [the term they will use]. Just like the cigarette firms, you have one, then two, and shortly our way of life is gone.

Initially, when and if, these start to happen, our insurance companies will raise rates through the roof, then our landlords will insert clauses in our leases, our bed costs will skyrocket too, as the bed firms will be named as co-defendents, and on and on.

And Erin Brockovich, is the poster gal for this way of life, these rapacious sharks the contingency fee trial lawyers! Go LOOK at the list of people that have awarded her their highest awards, please. Do you think that THEY are not lusting for MORE purses to pluck?

So, MJ, after thinking, without emoting, can you see why I fear them, and wonder WHY our powers that be are inviting into our show, the very devil incarnate, ONE OF THE VERY threats that could end our industry as we know it?

Again, I humbly ask. Why Erin?

Don Smith · 04-14-2002, 08:22 AM

Rayz:

And I answer:

1. The decision as to whether or not to invite Erin Brockovich to speak at Nashville-2002 is the providence of the ITA Board Of Directors. If she turns out to be a good choice, they get the credit; conversely, if she turns out to be a bad choice, they deserve the blame.

2. Who knows whether or not she will put on a good talk or not? I remember the "dissing" that took place when Mike Ditka was "selected" to speak in Chicago but "da coach" put on one of the best speeches the industry had heard. Who says that Erin Brockovich won't do the same?

3. Why not be positive about having Erin Brockovich speak at Nashville-2002? It wouldn't hurt to "morph" your website into an entitiy that can be other than negative about certain subjects (Smart Tan, for instance!).

4. And if you must be negative (and I have no doubt that you must!), why not just make negative comments about why you didn't think she was a good choice (you have the right to your opinion) and leave it at that. Why did you need to make your ABSURD insulting comments about the wonderful women of the indoor tanning industry?

In summary, Rayz, the decision to have Erin Brockovich speak in Nashville-2002 is not yours to make. Your opinion is worth no more (or no less) than any other ITA members' opinion!

The ITA Board of Directors made the decision to invite Erin Brockovich to speak in Nashville-2002 knowing full well the "baggage" she brings with her. Any ITA member who disagrees with this decision can let the BOD know their feelings. If enough people complain, another "keynote" speaker will undoubtedly be selected.

What I objected to was your "trashing" of the wonderful women of the indoor tanning industry and not your "right" to object to the selection of Erin Brockovich as the keynote speaker at Nashville-2002. You owe them a public appology!

Don

PS: Why hasn't ~~Sheila and some of the other ladies who "moderate" on your website "taken you to the woodshed" because of your insulting remarks? Did they "give you a pass" or did you muzzle them when they protested?[ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-04-14 08:50 ]

Rayztanning · 04-14-2002, 09:10 AM

Don:

Unless you are TOTALLY into the "spin here" you MUST see the COMPLETE parallels between what the REAL Erin Brockovich is, was, is NOW with the endless battles against JUNK SCIENCE that the Derms have dished out against us, and YOU have been fighting for years now.

If you don't see this as a mutual battle with YOU leading the charge against Erin's choice, you have abdicated every article I've read, in every magazine, you have so masterfully penned in recent years.

Now, move off the "Rooster Stuff" and get to the ISSUES I've raised here, Erin Brockovich is the POSTER PERSON for junk science, used to destroy entire industries.

Can't you get it?

And the ITA is not getting a pass from me on this one, they were mislead by those who DID NOT DO THEIR HOMEWORK on this one, they took the easy route and believed the press releases from the booking agents.

THE REAL ERIN BROCKOVICH and what she REPRESENTS ... please read for parallels to our industry.

Quote:Here's a good way to commemorate Earth Day: Skip "Erin Brockovich" and buy your family a good science textbook instead.

Audiences and critics are falling hard for Julia Roberts' low-cut, high-heeled portrayal of the real-life Brockovich. She's a foul-mouthed file clerk who took on an evil utility company that allegedly poisoned residents in the desert town of Hinkley, California. Brockovich scored $2 million in legal bonuses. Roberts made $20 million playing "Pretty Woman" meets "A Civil Action." Over the past four weeks, the box-office smash grossed nearly $90 million.

It's a titillating story about toxic torts, no question. But the movie and the real-life drama behind it contain about as much scientific credibility as Leo DeCaprio's global warming crib notes.

Like many environmentalist crusaders before her, Brockovich catalogued a cornucopia of illnesses in a small town and connected them to a single pollutant. Minute amounts of the heavy metal chromium-six, she claimed, had caused everything from uterine and breast cancer to birth defects, nosebleeds, rashes, immune disorders, and miscarriages. Under pressure from the bull-headed Brockovich and some out-of-town legal heavyweights who collaborated with Brockovich's law firm, the accused polluter – Pacific Gas & Electric – shelled out over $300 million to settle the case.

Did the company's cave-in mean they were guilty as charged? Was science really on the plaintiffs' side? Investigative journalist and science author Michael Fumento checked it out. As he reported in the Wall Street Journal (Feb. 2000), "no one agent could possibly have caused more than a handful of the symptoms described and chromium-6 in the water almost certainly couldn't have caused any of them."

Fumento found that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's own risk information concluded that "No data were located in the available literature that suggested that [chromium-6] is carcinogenic by the oral route of exposure." The substance has been shown to cause cancer only through inhalation of large doses over many years. High-dose tests in rodents and dogs failed to demonstrate ill effects.

Moreover, Fumento discovered, recent research on chromium-6 exposure at the Hinkley plant showed that "not only was there no excess of cancer when compared to the general California population, but that the overall PG&E worker death rate was significantly much lower than those of other Californians. Are we to believe that something causing no harm at the plant itself is nonetheless wreaking havoc on those living nearby?"

In response, the real Brockovich and her high-powered attorney friends point to thousands of pages of poignant testimonials from Hinkley townspeople. "These people are rightfully outraged. And the rest of us should be, too," Brockovich wrote in a letter to the Wall Street Journal." Roberts as "Brockovich" (The complete exchange, including links to Fumento's scientific sources– Brockovich and company provided no such citations in their rebuttal.)

Individual anecdotes always make good witness statements and emotional dramas. They are not, however, scientific proof. Miscarriages are common. Everyone gets rashes and nosebleeds. And just look at the hard data on birth defects: On an average day in the United States, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, 10,860 babies are born. Of those, 412 are born with birth defects and 20 die as the result of a birth defect. Between 80,000 to 120,000 babies out of roughly 4 million born annually have at least one major malformation. The causes of about 60 percent of all birth defects are unknown.

The question is whether the "victims" identified by Brockovich suffered from these various ailments at higher rates than the normal population, and whether the accused pollutant could have possibly been responsible for the entire range of maladies Brockovich recorded. In the only other skeptical piece about "Erin Brockovich" to appear in a major mainstream newspaper, New York Times science reporter Gina Kolata noted this week that "Federal agencies whose scientists were not involved in the litigation said evidence was lacking that chromium (VI) in groundwater caused a myriad of health problems."

In a more scientifically literate nation, movies like "Erin Brockovich" would be properly viewed as farce and the junk lawsuits they glorify would be properly exposed as fraud. Alas, the cold hard facts are no match for a warm smile, dazzling cleavage, and a blinding Hollywood spotlight.

So, "Mr. Science Guy" Don, are you STILL willing to give those responible, a "pass," for this choice of KEYNOTE SPEAKER that was foisted upon the poor leaders depending upon THEM to present to the ITA Board the right keynote speaker for the Nashville show?

This used to be the sort of "investigative journalism" that REAL reporters lived for, those with passion for defending this industry from those with the wherewithal and motives to destroy it with fraudulent premises. This WAS YOU in days of old.

Are you starting to understand, that unlike STN, I've actually done MY homework on this issue, as I usually do?

Now, come onboard, and let's get Erin Brockovich BOOTED and replaced with someone who is GOOD FOR OUR INDUSTRY's issues.

_________________
"Banty Rooster Bruce"
"Now only doing charcoal freehand sketch's"
"WINNER: TSO "You Made A Positive Difference Award" Nov. 4th, 2000, Chicago's RIP Show.

[ This Message was edited by: Rayztanning on 2002-04-14 09:17 ][ This Message was edited by: Rayztanning on 2002-04-14 09:55 ]

fungirlz · 04-14-2002, 11:48 AM

I went and actualy read the post on TT..
Though it is a bit "harsh" in it's wording.. It is my opinion that this should be questioned as to WHY she would be spaking for us..
For the sake of our industry here why don't we question WHY..
How much are they paying her to speak?
There are several qualified individuals right in our industry to present this..and speak for us.. Does she have a dog in this fight??
Don, you are well qualified to speak on this for us..

As a woman who works in and loves this indusrty.. I would like to say.... I am proud of my studio and my staff we have worked hard these years promoting the "positive effects of tanning indoors". and we will continue to support the good news of our industry as a whole in a professional, educated manner.

I would need more information on the Why of this choice..before I would embrace it.

Rayztanning · 04-14-2002, 12:29 PM

Christine:

The "WHY" is patently obvious. Don't you watch Oprah? The people behind this idiotic choice are demeaning you. They think you will love the "story line" of a poor, embattled, single mother, fighting against all odds to seek justice.

They are hoping you, and those who don't read the online sites will think that the ITA cares about you, and wants to back females who struggle, like so many salon owners.

Don, has the spin WRONG HERE, it is not I demeaning female salon owners, but those who bring you Erin, they know that you won't know the the real story, but now you do.

So, are you upset that they think you will be an "Oprah Salon Owner" and cry, wipe tear of support as you hear Erin tell you how she singlehandedly brought down those "nasty businesses" harming all the little downtrodden souls?

Or, will you be one of those who sees the manipulation of your heartstrings, the better to fleece business and line their own pockets.

Just like Jessie Jackson, who for decades has used black empowerment to feather his own nest, and his family, Erin Brockovich is part of the same thing.

Scare you into accepting JUNK SCIENCE to enrich themselves and put legitimate business into the harsh glare of the media so they settle out of court [and this one was NEVER lititgated by the way] in FEAR of the possible outcome with a heartstrung jury.

The parallels to our industry are unmistakable.

So, do you STILL think I'm crying wolf here, are you getting upset, why doesn't THIS board join with the two OTHER boards now and show the industry that we are NOT complete blathering idiots and it is OUR future too, and if they are not willing to protect it, despite their new slogan, we WILLL.

DUMP ERIN BROCKOVICH, NOW.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
In an unregulated State?	Neon Beach	Salon Management	11	06-06-2007 02:57 PM
Somebody outta be SPANKED	Sheila in Minnesota	Open Forum	75	06-26-2005 08:10 AM

04-13-2002, 08:54 AM	#1 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,587 Rep Power: 10	FYI: A "post" today by the Administrator of the TrashingTheImageOfTanningToday made my blood boil! The "theme" of this thread started out to be a protest of ITA's decision to have Erin Brokovich be a "keynote speaker" at the November meeting. However, it soon disintegrated into a mysogynistic attack on the wonderful women of the indoor tanning industry. He said "How many bimbo's do we have in our salon segment, all like Erin, losers, blonde, can't make good decisions on men, or shall I say...and please forgive me for this,...ALL trailer trasher's of the world? These are the "Hobby Salon Segment" in our business financed by the older man, or the rich hubby, not profitable, but in the tanning business because it looks like a fun thing?" Then, he "lumps" the "wonderful women of tanning" together unfairly and insultingly when he said "Take those gals, and there are MANY in tanning with salons, WHY will they love to listen to Erin? (Because) They can EMOTE and RELATE to other losers of the world (like you, Bruce?)! This is your Oprah Winfrey fan, the soap opera crowd, they like sob stories, they live for feeling sorry for those, that like themselves, make nothing but endless bad choices in their lives." What a bunch of crap. Especially from someone who, if my memory serves me correctly (and I think it does!), made some rather bad "choices in his life" recently! Let me share a secret with you folks. I have, over the past few years, had the pleasure of communicating with a lot of tanning salon owners and I have discovered that being a "tanning salon professional" is a state of mind that IS NOT related to (1) the gender of the person, (2) the size of the tanning salon, and/or, (3) the color of the persons hair! What "defines" a "tanning salon professional" is very simple. It is the fact that "tanning salon professionals" are INVARAIBLY dedicated to looking out for the best interests of their clients. They spend the extra time conducting a skin typing/subtyping on each and every new client; they have a "formal" exposure schedule protocol; i.e., they WILL NOT allow a client to tan longer than their tolerance to UVR will allow; they make sure that each and every client is given advice about taking care of their eyes; they give their clients helpful advice about taking care of their skin; and they do all of the other "common sense" things that we all know running a professional operation entails. Being a "tanning salon professional" IS NOT gender specific and running a professional tanning salon is not something that can be done only by (1) men, (2) or large chains! Some of the most "professional" operations that Pat and I have had the privilege of visiting were "single location" operations owned by a woman; conversely, some of the worst we have visited were large operatons owned by men! Bruce Shoenfelder owes the wonderful women of the indoor tanning industry a public apology! If he wants to protest having Erin Brockovich speak at Nashville, he should send ITA a letter of protest (that is his right as a member). He should not use a protest of having her speak as a "platform" to denigrate and insult the wonderful women of the infoor tanning industry. "Whose house is of glass, must not throw stones at another. [George Herbert: Jacula Prudentum] Don

04-13-2002, 12:50 PM	#2 (permalink)
Rayztanning Join Date: Jan 26 2000 Posts: 205 Rep Power: 0	Of course Don, you IGNORED the entire meat of the thread, the issue of WHO was being invited to the show, her background, and WHY she is the wrong choice to be speaking to our industry. In your quest for eyeballs, and stirring up invective against me, you, again, miss the entire point of one of the most informative threads ever run about the show speaker arrangements. Like: WHO the real Erin Brockovich is. WHY she became famous. HOW she used regulatory issues to fleece legimate business concerns. WHO gave her all those awards. HOW much we are paying her to speak. WHY she should be banned from our shows, let alone featured. WHO is paying for it. HOW much is this costing. THE reasons she is coming. For the facts, not the spin, I suggest that people actually read the thread. ( Spamming Removed -- chunn ) Then ask yourself, why on Earth is Erin speaking in Nashville. And why isn't Don questioning THAT too, instead of attacking those who are digging up INFORMATION and providing context and insight into these matters? _________________ "Banty Rooster Bruce" "Now only doing charcoal freehand sketch's" "WINNER: TSO "You Made A Positive Difference Award" Nov. 4th, 2000, Chicago's RIP Show.[ This Message was edited by: chunn on 2002-04-13 13:21 ]

04-13-2002, 12:57 PM	#3 (permalink)
MJ Join Date: Jan 21 2002 Posts: 3,060 Rep Power: 8	Wait a minute Don, I will have to ask my Sugar Daddy if I Am allowed to have an opinion today.. Ok.. Mj

04-13-2002, 02:46 PM	#4 (permalink)
MJ Join Date: Jan 21 2002 Posts: 3,060 Rep Power: 8	Okk I am back.. yes, I am allowed to have an opinion today.. Don, Thank you, for sheading light on this serious issue that faces our industry and many others... As for Bruce he knows how I feel about his sexist, rude commentaries of women in this industry. If he would only use his intelligence and passion for this industry in a more productive avenue, then we would be that much closer the proverbial finish line. The time and energy he expends to bash small salons and thier owners that don't hang on his every word. (male and female) Would be better spent trying to increase the knowledge of the owners online seeking help instead of slapping them in the face with constant often unfounded insults. LOOK, LOOK, There is a large breasted woman with a very low cut half shirt on... oh she dropped her lotion...her skirt is way too short. Now she is bending down to pick it up!!! Ok while the pigs of our industry are visualizing that I will continue.. Where was I, Ohh.. Anyways.. I am not saying that this industry is not without the scum salon owners that give us a bad reputation. But to constantly put them in the female ownership catagory is very demeening to the real BUSINESS WOMEN in this industry. Don,thank you for stating that there are just as many males, that fall under the bottom feeders killing our reputation too. Ok I am finished for now..BTW I am organizing a bra burning in "gone" at 8:00PM sharp!!.. BYOM...(bring your own match) MJ P.S. Key are you listening stop visualizing!!

04-13-2002, 04:41 PM	#5 (permalink)
MJ Join Date: Jan 21 2002 Posts: 3,060 Rep Power: 8	I just read the post over there. I still think it was done from a arrogant, sexist stand point. MY guess is he has to present things in that manner in order to reach the macho pig side of our industry. (If this does not apply to you then ....do not be offended, If it does then grow up!) I feel that Erin is a strong woman with a quest. Inviting her into the world of tanning, could cause future problems.. However, with this said.. I can see how Bruce could be threatened by a intelligent, strong willed women with POWER. ITA may not have thought this one entirely through... I have great respect for what she was able to achieve.. but $35,000 is a better spent on a national advertising campaign. BTW.. I recieved my bumper sticker. ITA please.... say that isn't your version of a national advertising campaign. UMM most of us out there are NOT bumper sticker kind of people.. Reguardless of what you have been told by the other site. MJ

04-14-2002, 08:22 AM	#7 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,587 Rep Power: 10	Rayz: And I answer: 1. The decision as to whether or not to invite Erin Brockovich to speak at Nashville-2002 is the providence of the ITA Board Of Directors. If she turns out to be a good choice, they get the credit; conversely, if she turns out to be a bad choice, they deserve the blame. 2. Who knows whether or not she will put on a good talk or not? I remember the "dissing" that took place when Mike Ditka was "selected" to speak in Chicago but "da coach" put on one of the best speeches the industry had heard. Who says that Erin Brockovich won't do the same? 3. Why not be positive about having Erin Brockovich speak at Nashville-2002? It wouldn't hurt to "morph" your website into an entitiy that can be other than negative about certain subjects (Smart Tan, for instance!). 4. And if you must be negative (and I have no doubt that you must!), why not just make negative comments about why you didn't think she was a good choice (you have the right to your opinion) and leave it at that. Why did you need to make your ABSURD insulting comments about the wonderful women of the indoor tanning industry? In summary, Rayz, the decision to have Erin Brockovich speak in Nashville-2002 is not yours to make. Your opinion is worth no more (or no less) than any other ITA members' opinion! The ITA Board of Directors made the decision to invite Erin Brockovich to speak in Nashville-2002 knowing full well the "baggage" she brings with her. Any ITA member who disagrees with this decision can let the BOD know their feelings. If enough people complain, another "keynote" speaker will undoubtedly be selected. What I objected to was your "trashing" of the wonderful women of the indoor tanning industry and not your "right" to object to the selection of Erin Brockovich as the keynote speaker at Nashville-2002. You owe them a public appology! Don PS: Why hasn't ~~Sheila and some of the other ladies who "moderate" on your website "taken you to the woodshed" because of your insulting remarks? Did they "give you a pass" or did you muzzle them when they protested?[ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-04-14 08:50 ]

04-14-2002, 09:10 AM	#8 (permalink)
Rayztanning Join Date: Jan 26 2000 Posts: 205 Rep Power: 0	Don: Unless you are TOTALLY into the "spin here" you MUST see the COMPLETE parallels between what the REAL Erin Brockovich is, was, is NOW with the endless battles against JUNK SCIENCE that the Derms have dished out against us, and YOU have been fighting for years now. If you don't see this as a mutual battle with YOU leading the charge against Erin's choice, you have abdicated every article I've read, in every magazine, you have so masterfully penned in recent years. Now, move off the "Rooster Stuff" and get to the ISSUES I've raised here, Erin Brockovich is the POSTER PERSON for junk science, used to destroy entire industries. Can't you get it? And the ITA is not getting a pass from me on this one, they were mislead by those who DID NOT DO THEIR HOMEWORK on this one, they took the easy route and believed the press releases from the booking agents. THE REAL ERIN BROCKOVICH and what she REPRESENTS ... please read for parallels to our industry. Quote:Here's a good way to commemorate Earth Day: Skip "Erin Brockovich" and buy your family a good science textbook instead. Audiences and critics are falling hard for Julia Roberts' low-cut, high-heeled portrayal of the real-life Brockovich. She's a foul-mouthed file clerk who took on an evil utility company that allegedly poisoned residents in the desert town of Hinkley, California. Brockovich scored $2 million in legal bonuses. Roberts made $20 million playing "Pretty Woman" meets "A Civil Action." Over the past four weeks, the box-office smash grossed nearly $90 million. It's a titillating story about toxic torts, no question. But the movie and the real-life drama behind it contain about as much scientific credibility as Leo DeCaprio's global warming crib notes. Like many environmentalist crusaders before her, Brockovich catalogued a cornucopia of illnesses in a small town and connected them to a single pollutant. Minute amounts of the heavy metal chromium-six, she claimed, had caused everything from uterine and breast cancer to birth defects, nosebleeds, rashes, immune disorders, and miscarriages. Under pressure from the bull-headed Brockovich and some out-of-town legal heavyweights who collaborated with Brockovich's law firm, the accused polluter – Pacific Gas & Electric – shelled out over $300 million to settle the case. Did the company's cave-in mean they were guilty as charged? Was science really on the plaintiffs' side? Investigative journalist and science author Michael Fumento checked it out. As he reported in the Wall Street Journal (Feb. 2000), "no one agent could possibly have caused more than a handful of the symptoms described and chromium-6 in the water almost certainly couldn't have caused any of them." Fumento found that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's own risk information concluded that "No data were located in the available literature that suggested that [chromium-6] is carcinogenic by the oral route of exposure." The substance has been shown to cause cancer only through inhalation of large doses over many years. High-dose tests in rodents and dogs failed to demonstrate ill effects. Moreover, Fumento discovered, recent research on chromium-6 exposure at the Hinkley plant showed that "not only was there no excess of cancer when compared to the general California population, but that the overall PG&E worker death rate was significantly much lower than those of other Californians. Are we to believe that something causing no harm at the plant itself is nonetheless wreaking havoc on those living nearby?" In response, the real Brockovich and her high-powered attorney friends point to thousands of pages of poignant testimonials from Hinkley townspeople. "These people are rightfully outraged. And the rest of us should be, too," Brockovich wrote in a letter to the Wall Street Journal." Roberts as "Brockovich" (The complete exchange, including links to Fumento's scientific sources– Brockovich and company provided no such citations in their rebuttal.) Individual anecdotes always make good witness statements and emotional dramas. They are not, however, scientific proof. Miscarriages are common. Everyone gets rashes and nosebleeds. And just look at the hard data on birth defects: On an average day in the United States, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, 10,860 babies are born. Of those, 412 are born with birth defects and 20 die as the result of a birth defect. Between 80,000 to 120,000 babies out of roughly 4 million born annually have at least one major malformation. The causes of about 60 percent of all birth defects are unknown. The question is whether the "victims" identified by Brockovich suffered from these various ailments at higher rates than the normal population, and whether the accused pollutant could have possibly been responsible for the entire range of maladies Brockovich recorded. In the only other skeptical piece about "Erin Brockovich" to appear in a major mainstream newspaper, New York Times science reporter Gina Kolata noted this week that "Federal agencies whose scientists were not involved in the litigation said evidence was lacking that chromium (VI) in groundwater caused a myriad of health problems." In a more scientifically literate nation, movies like "Erin Brockovich" would be properly viewed as farce and the junk lawsuits they glorify would be properly exposed as fraud. Alas, the cold hard facts are no match for a warm smile, dazzling cleavage, and a blinding Hollywood spotlight. So, "Mr. Science Guy" Don, are you STILL willing to give those responible, a "pass," for this choice of KEYNOTE SPEAKER that was foisted upon the poor leaders depending upon THEM to present to the ITA Board the right keynote speaker for the Nashville show? This used to be the sort of "investigative journalism" that REAL reporters lived for, those with passion for defending this industry from those with the wherewithal and motives to destroy it with fraudulent premises. This WAS YOU in days of old. Are you starting to understand, that unlike STN, I've actually done MY homework on this issue, as I usually do? Now, come onboard, and let's get Erin Brockovich BOOTED and replaced with someone who is GOOD FOR OUR INDUSTRY's issues. _________________ "Banty Rooster Bruce" "Now only doing charcoal freehand sketch's" "WINNER: TSO "You Made A Positive Difference Award" Nov. 4th, 2000, Chicago's RIP Show. [ This Message was edited by: Rayztanning on 2002-04-14 09:17 ][ This Message was edited by: Rayztanning on 2002-04-14 09:55 ]

04-14-2002, 11:48 AM	#9 (permalink)
fungirlz Join Date: Jan 17 2002 Posts: 4,753 Rep Power: 8	I went and actualy read the post on TT.. Though it is a bit "harsh" in it's wording.. It is my opinion that this should be questioned as to WHY she would be spaking for us.. For the sake of our industry here why don't we question WHY.. How much are they paying her to speak? There are several qualified individuals right in our industry to present this..and speak for us.. Does she have a dog in this fight?? Don, you are well qualified to speak on this for us.. As a woman who works in and loves this indusrty.. I would like to say.... I am proud of my studio and my staff we have worked hard these years promoting the "positive effects of tanning indoors". and we will continue to support the good news of our industry as a whole in a professional, educated manner. I would need more information on the Why of this choice..before I would embrace it.

04-14-2002, 12:29 PM	#10 (permalink)
Rayztanning Join Date: Jan 26 2000 Posts: 205 Rep Power: 0	Christine: The "WHY" is patently obvious. Don't you watch Oprah? The people behind this idiotic choice are demeaning you. They think you will love the "story line" of a poor, embattled, single mother, fighting against all odds to seek justice. They are hoping you, and those who don't read the online sites will think that the ITA cares about you, and wants to back females who struggle, like so many salon owners. Don, has the spin WRONG HERE, it is not I demeaning female salon owners, but those who bring you Erin, they know that you won't know the the real story, but now you do. So, are you upset that they think you will be an "Oprah Salon Owner" and cry, wipe tear of support as you hear Erin tell you how she singlehandedly brought down those "nasty businesses" harming all the little downtrodden souls? Or, will you be one of those who sees the manipulation of your heartstrings, the better to fleece business and line their own pockets. Just like Jessie Jackson, who for decades has used black empowerment to feather his own nest, and his family, Erin Brockovich is part of the same thing. Scare you into accepting JUNK SCIENCE to enrich themselves and put legitimate business into the harsh glare of the media so they settle out of court [and this one was NEVER lititgated by the way] in FEAR of the possible outcome with a heartstrung jury. The parallels to our industry are unmistakable. So, do you STILL think I'm crying wolf here, are you getting upset, why doesn't THIS board join with the two OTHER boards now and show the industry that we are NOT complete blathering idiots and it is OUR future too, and if they are not willing to protect it, despite their new slogan, we WILLL. DUMP ERIN BROCKOVICH, NOW.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)