« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: Beoving vs. Muscletech in the New York Times: Discussion  (Read 15787 times)

Disgusted

  • Expert
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13610
Re: Beoving vs. Muscletech in the New York Times: Discussion
« Reply #75 on: June 15, 2008, 07:06:44 PM »
Quote from: Chick on June 09, 2008, 07:55:39 PM
No one is given a letter stating why a company chooses NOT to renew a contract...

No, actually they sometimes leave you a voicemail.
Logged

Method101

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8454
Re: Beoving vs. Muscletech in the New York Times: Discussion
« Reply #76 on: June 15, 2008, 10:35:25 PM »
Logged

just_a_pilgrim

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2455
Re: Beoving vs. Muscletech in the New York Times: Discussion
« Reply #77 on: June 16, 2008, 04:17:23 PM »
Quote from: Method101 on June 15, 2008, 10:35:25 PM


Layne isn't close. Layne can get in great condition but everyone looks bigger ripped.
Logged

dknole

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 591
  • Getbig!
Re: Beoving vs. Muscletech in the New York Times: Discussion
« Reply #78 on: June 16, 2008, 05:47:50 PM »
Sepe received over $250k for a 3-book series, not bad i think,...
Logged

saucetradomous

  • Competitors
  • Getbig IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 2967
Re: Beoving vs. Muscletech in the New York Times: Discussion
« Reply #79 on: June 16, 2008, 08:33:59 PM »
Quote from: Ron on June 09, 2008, 06:26:15 PM

Look, if someone is fired, that is something. But if their contract is done, and it is not renewed, it is another thing. There is a big difference between the two. I really don't care what company is it, but a simple answer.  Was he fired, or did the contract not renew?


I don't know why your pretending that the statement he made in the movie had no effect on the outcome of this contract.  It's quite obvious it did.  Ron your becoming a bit biased and that neutral stance you once had seems nonexistent these days.  It's seem as if your arguing points just because BNR has become a competitive entity towards PBW and the fact that your sponsored by Muscletech keeps you hesitant of agreeing that this is the main reason for Beoving being let go. 
Logged

just_a_pilgrim

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2455
Re: Beoving vs. Muscletech in the New York Times: Discussion
« Reply #80 on: June 17, 2008, 05:42:51 AM »
Quote from: saucetradomous on June 16, 2008, 08:33:59 PM
the fact that your sponsored by Muscletech keeps you hesitant of agreeing that this is the main reason for Beoving being let go. 

Which shows that Ron is much smarter than Christian!
Logged

dknole

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 591
  • Getbig!
Re: Beoving vs. Muscletech in the New York Times: Discussion
« Reply #81 on: June 17, 2008, 05:58:03 AM »
having been fired from a muscle magazine due to writing a column that discussed studies sponsored by Muscletech that demonstrated that the product tested did not work, it is not surprising that their model was fired for potentially hurthing their sales. Truth or not, it is about $.

If the companies actually followed advertising rules, the sham supplement game would not be so rude.
Logged

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: Beoving vs. Muscletech in the New York Times: Discussion
« Reply #82 on: June 17, 2008, 08:33:41 AM »
I wonder how many getbiggers consume Muscletech products.  ::)
Logged

saucetradomous

  • Competitors
  • Getbig IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 2967
Re: Beoving vs. Muscletech in the New York Times: Discussion
« Reply #83 on: June 17, 2008, 09:04:21 AM »
Quote from: BayGBM on June 17, 2008, 08:33:41 AM
I wonder how many getbiggers consume Muscletech products.  ::)

I'd hope the people who actually contribute to this site are smart enough to know that muscletech products are not a necessity to bodybuilding.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
« previous next »