EDIT; It sold for AUD$6.12 which is obviously over my max at AUD$2.00 i think i will buy them for this price in the near future once i get some money into paypal.

Im definatly thinking of getting these at such a cheap price. Currently AUD$1.07 with 2bids (neither mine), Ive got some MDR-EX300’s lined up aswell and ill pay $2.00 max for these 700’s.

(ebay seller pareshop description)

The new “closed-type vertical-ear” design, allows you to wear comfortable

Driver unit: 16 mm diameter drive unit

magnets: high-density neodymium magnetic (440kJ/m3)

Frequency response: 20-20KHz

Sensitivity: 108dB/mW

Impedance: 32 ohms

power handling capacity: 200mW

Plug: 3.5mm gold-plated stereo mini-plug

Weight: about 7g-free headset line

Cable length: about 1.2M

100% Brand New SONY MDR-Ex700 Headphone earphone.

Listen to your favorite music on a MP3 player with these high quality stereo earphones.

Excellent Stereo Sound Quality

Best bass experience and noise attenuation

Standard 3.5mm Earphone Plug suit for all Audio Devices with 3.5mm earphone jack

What I’m going to get;

1 x Sony MDR EX-700 Earphones

1 x Carry bag

2 pair x replace Ear Buds (S & L size)

I just hope they aren’t fake. But I’m guessing they are.

Ausschreibung für MDR-Literaturpreis 2010:

Der MITTELDEUTSCHE RUNDFUNK schreibt einen Kurzgeschichten-Wettbewerb aus, der mit der Vergabe des 15. MDR-Literaturpreises für das Jahr 2010 abschließt.

Der Wettbewerb ist offen für deutschsprachige Autorinnen und Autoren, die bereits literarische Texte veröffentlicht haben. Er ist eine Einladung, sich mit einem bisher unveröffentlichten Prosa-Text (Kurzgeschichte, Short Story) zu beteiligen.

Einsendeschluss ist der 31. Januar 2010.

Die Auszeichnung ist mit Geldpreisen dotiert und bietet den Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmern eine Möglichkeit, ihren Text im Rundfunk vorzustellen.
Folgende Bedingungen sind zu beachten:

• Der Wettbewerb gilt ausschließlich für erzählende Texte (Kurzgeschichte, Short Story).

• Die Länge des Manuskripts ist auf 15-Vorlese-Minuten (ca. 6 Manuskriptseiten mit je 30 Zeilen ä 60 Anschläge pro Seite oder rund 11.000 Zeichen/mit Leerzeichen) begrenzt. Das Manuskript muss in zwei Exemplaren eingereicht werden (Computer-Druck).

• Jeder Einsender kann nur einen unveröffentlichten Text für den Wettbewerb einreichen.

• Der Zusendung muss eine Übersicht über bisherige literarische Veröffentlichungen (gewertet werden belletristische Bücher, aber auch Beiträge in literarischen Anthologien, Literaturzeitschriften, ausgewiesenen Literatur-Portalen im Internet) sowie eine Kurzvita (höchstens 12 Zeilen) beigefügt werden. Bitte geben Sie Ihre E-Mail-Adresse an.

• Um die Anonymität des Bewertungsverfahrens zu garantieren, bitte keinen Autorennamen auf dem Manuskript.

Der Hauptpreis ist mit 5.000 Euro, der zweite mit 2.000 Euro und der dritte mit 1.500 Euro dotiert. Die anderen Teilnehmer an der Endrunde erhalten ein Honorar.

Alle Teilnehmer an der Endrunde (öffentliches Wettlesen vor einer Jury) erhalten bis spätestens zum 10. April 2010 eine Einladung. Die Finalrunde findet am 3. Mai 2010 von 19:30 bis 23:00 Uhr in Leipzig im Haus des Buches statt.

Für die Teilnehmer an der Finalrunde werden die Reisekosten übernommen. Im Anschluss an die Finalrunde findet mit den Endrundenteilnehmern eine Lesereise in die Städte Köthen (4. Mai), Sangerhausen (5. Mai) und Chemnitz (6. Mai) statt. Die Teilnahme wird honoriert.

Rund 25 der Kurzgeschichten des 15. MDR-Literaturwettbewerbs werden vom Herausgeber Michael Hametner in einer Anthologie “Das Beste aus dem MDR-Literaturwettbewerb” veröffentlicht, darunter die Geschichten der Finalisten. Die Autoren aller anderen für die Anthologie ausgewählten Geschichten erhalten bis zum 10. April 2010 davon Kenntnis. Die Rechte der Kurzgeschichten werden gegen ein Honorar ab Veröffentlichung für zwei Jahre dem ROTBUCH-Verlag übertragen. Veröffentlichungen an anderem Ort sind in diesem Zeitraum nicht möglich.

Achtung: Eine Bestätigung über den Eingang Ihrer Zusendung erfolgt nicht. Wenn Sie dies wünschen, fügen Sie bitte Ihrer Zusendung einen frankierten Freiumschlag bei.

Ihre Zusendung richten Sie bitte unter Angabe Ihres Absenders bis spätestens zum 31. Januar 2010 (Poststempel) an folgende Anschrift:

MITTELDEUTSCHER RUNDFUNK
FIGARO
Postfach 100122
06140 Halle
Kennwort: Literaturwettbewerb

Zur Originalausschreibung

Bereits am Dienstag wurde bekannt, dass der MDR Bluttests im Zuge des Einstellungsverfahren bei seinen Bewerben durchführt. Auch NDR, WDR und der Bayrische Rundfunk räumten erst letzte Woche entsprechende Untersuchungen ein – um die Bewerber auf ihren Gesundheitszustand zu testen, womöglich mit Folgen für eine etwaige Einstellung.

Einen Arbeitsvertrag gebe es erst nach bestandener Untersuchung, berichtete die Dresdner Morgenpost am Mittwoch, 11. November 2009. Der Sprecher des MDR, Dirk Thärichen, bestätigte den Bericht gegenüber mephisto 97.6 und teilte mit, dass entschieden wird, ob ein Bewerber im Anschluss der Untersuchung für die Tätigkeit beim Sender gesundheitlich geeignet wäre oder nicht.
Wie man die Untersuchung besteht, wollte er nicht sagen, sicherlich jedoch nicht mit journalistischer Handfertigkeit und Intelligenz, die kann man nämlich nicht im Blut nachweisen. Hier weiterlesen…

Pauschale Bluttests, die durch den Arbeitgeber veranlaßt werden, sind nach Ansicht des DJV Sachsen nicht rechtmäßig. Das Bundesarbeitsgericht hat dies bereits am 12.08.1999 entschieden.  Nachdem NDR und WDR diese Praxis bestätigt haben, hat nun auch der Mitteldeutsche Rundfunk (MDR) Bluttests bei Bewerbern eingestanden. Der DJV hat bereits Anfang November die ARD-Anstalten aufgefordert, die umstrittenen Bluttests einzustellen. Es ist völlig überzogen, dass Journalistinnen und Journalisten mit dieser Methode auf ihre Eignung für die Redaktionsarbeit getestet würden, stellt DJV-Bundesvorsitzender Michael Konken fest.  DJV-Pressemeldung vom 6.11.2009

Reuters:   Markets hit their 2009 highs.

Reuters:   Dodd is set to unveil his financial reform bill which calls for merging many bank regulators.

Reuters:   Kraft’s (NYSE:KFT) bid for Cadbury turned hostile.

Reuters:   A survey of economists predicted strong GDP growth in 2010.

Reuters:   The Fed says that 9 out of 10 of the largest banks that needed to raise capital have done so.

Reuters:   The EC objected to the Oracle (NASDAQ:ORCL) deal to buy Sun (NASDAQ:JAVA).

Reuters:   Energy construction companies reported diverging results with Flour (NYSE:FLR) doing poorly and McDermott (NYSE:MDR) doing well.

Reuters:   The Activition (NADAQ:ATVI) “Call to Duty” video game is expected to have a huge debut.

Reuters:   Pfizer (NYSE:PFE) will close an R&D facility and lay off more people.

WSJ:   Investors are putting more money into commodities and junk bonds.

WSJ:   Barclays (NYSE:BCS) was hit with an impairment charge.

WSJ:   Congress is considering a bill to limit the size and scope of some of the largest banks.

WSJ:   Buffett will sell his stake in Union Pacific (NYSE:UNP) and Norfolk Southern (NYSE:NCS) now that he is buying Burlington Northern (NYSE:BNI).

WSJ:   Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) will buy mobile ad company AdMob.

WSJ:   New data show that few banks are tightening credit.

WSJ:   Sprint (NYSE:S) will cut 2,500 jobs.

WSJ:   Google (NYSE:GOOG) and Verizon (NYSE:VZ) are deepening their ties to fight Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and AT&T (NYSE:T).

WSJ:   EA (NASDAQ:EA) will cut 17% of its staff and buy online game company Playfish.

WSJ:   Big pay bonuses at banks could help the New York economy.

WSJ:   China’s economy could be hurt by a credit crisis.

WSJ:   A World Bank chief is against letting the yuan rise.

WSJ:   Sony (NYSE:SNE) will break ranks with studios by allowing early rental of one of its films over the internet.

WSJ:   Rising demand in China and Brazil is helping BMW and Mercedes.

NYT   Even good customers are seeing credit card interest rates rise as banks try to make money on consumers.

NYT:   Fuel from dismantled nuclear bombs including some from Russia provide about 10% of American electricity.

NYT:   Renault-Nissan plan to release a low-cost car in India.

NYT:   Obama said he will raise the yaun issue with China.

FT:  Banks around the world are facing $7 trillion in short-term funding that will expire in the next three years.

FT:   Murdoch of News Corp (NYSE:NWS) says he will sue the BBC and Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) over copyright.

Douglas A. McIntyre

[Dieser Artikel ist Teil der Serie 'Leipzigs Straßen']

Martin ist 24 Jahre alt. Er kommt auf mich zu als ich mich gerade mit einem Freund vor dem Uniriesen unterhalte. “Habt ihr mal’n bisschen Geld.” Ich ziehe das Portemonnaie, er redet weiter, ohne dass ich ihn dazu auffordere. “Ich bin seit sechs Wochen auf der Straße. Nur ne kleine Hilfe.” Ich: “Du lebst auf der Straße?” “Ey, ich bin seit 5 Monaten von der Nadel weg. Ich wurde rausgeschmissen und jetzt sitz ich hier auf der Straße”. Ich frage weiter und er erzählt mir seine Geschichte. Martin ist seit 10 Wochen arbeitslos. Sein Chef hatte ihm sein Monatsgehalt nicht mehr überwiesen, er konnte seine Wohnung nicht mehr bezahlen, war aber bereits im Rückstand und wurde rausgeworfen. Wie es seien konnte, dass sein Chef ihn nicht bezahlen konnte. “Ich hab dem gesagt, dass ich auf der Straße sitze, wenn er mir mein Geld nicht zahlt. Und der, der hat mich nur angegrinst und gesagt: Das ist nicht mein Problem. Da habe ich den dümmsten Fehler meines Lebens gemacht und gekündigt.” Dumm daran war die gesetzliche Regelung, die vorsieht, dass bei einer Kündigung aus eigenen Stücken über drei Monate keine ALG II Leistungen mehr gezahlt werden. Die Konsequenz: 3 Monate aus eigener Tasche leben, Krankenkasse zahlen, Sozialversicherung zahlen. Theoretisch. Martin war nicht gleich auf der Straße, er konnte bei einem Bekannten und dessen Freundin unterkommen. “Aber die hatten selbst Probleme. Auch wegen mir. Nach zwei Wochen war mir klar, dass ich da nicht bleiben konnte und da bin ich raus”. Mein Einwand, da müsse man doch irgendetwas machen können entgegnet er “Ich bin schon von der Bahnhofsmission, über Caritas von Pontius zu Pilatus alles abgeklappert – nichts.” Als ich die Obdachlosenheime erwähne lacht er. Da sei er auch gewesen, aber da säßen die Leute mitten im Zimmer und fixten. “Irgendwann hätte ich da auch mitgemacht. Aber als ich da was gesagt habe, waren auf einmal 10 Leute gegen mich. Ich bin dann nur noch raus.” Martin hat drei Pullover übereinander angezogen, der eine ist fast ganz durchgeschlissen. Es ist kalt an diesem Tag, hier in der Sonne geht es, nur der Wind zieht die Kälte durch den Kanal zwischen neuer Mensa und  Gewandthaus. “Pass auf dich auf”, sage ich zu ihm und frage mich, wo man wohl bei diesem Wetter eine warme Unterkunft findet. Er bedankt sich bei uns: “Ich lauf hier schon drei Stunden rum, und ihr seid die ersten, die mir Geld gegeben haben.” Dann versucht er es 100m weiter bei einer Gruppe Touristen.

Was an der Geschichte stimmt? Schwer zu sagen. Die Geschichte, so wie sie geschehen ist, existiert nicht und jeder neigt dazu (auch sich selber) Dinge zu verheimlichen, die unschön sind – besonders gegenüber Fremden. Aber was können wir mehr erwarten? Vielleicht sind die Dinge nicht so ungerecht, wie sie erscheinen. Andererseits: was spricht dafür, dass sie so gerecht sind?

unser Tierheim ist am 11.11.2009 19.50 Uhr

beim

MDR “tierisch tierisch” mit Uta Bresan

Link zum MDR http://www.mdr.de/tierisch/tierheime/165316.html

Für die vierte Amtszeit des MDR-Rundfunkrates, die am 1. Dezember 2009 beginnt, haben die Arbeitnehmerverbände DGB Sachsen, Sächsischer Beamtenbund und der DJV Sachsen vereinbart, das Mandat in zweijährigem Wechsel zu besetzen. Nach dem DGB Sachsen wird der DJV-Landesverband Sachsen das Mandat ab dem 1. Dezember 2011 übernehmen. Außerdem haben sich die drei Verbände darauf geeinigt,  sich halbjährlich einmal zu treffen, um aktuelle Themen aus dem MDR-Rundfunkrat und der Medienpolitik zu diskutieren. Im  1. Halbjahr 2010 richten die Verbände eine gemeinsame Medienpolitische Tagung aus, an der auch Vertreter aus der Politik teilnehmen sollen.

.

Gesucht: Short-Storys und Kurzgeschichten

Der Mitteldeutsche Rundfunk MDR schreibt einen Kurzgeschichten-Wettbewerb aus, der offen ist für deutschsprachige Autorinnen und Autoren, die bereits literarische Texte veröffentlicht haben. Er ist eine Einladung, sich mit einem bisher unveröffentlichten Prosa-Text (Kurzgeschichte, Short Story) zu beteiligen. Der Wettbewerb gilt ausschließlich für erzählende Texte (Kurzgeschichte, Short Story). Die Länge des Manuskripts ist auf 15-Vorlese-Minuten (ca. 6 Manuskriptseiten mit je 30 Zeilen à 60 Anschläge pro Seite oder rund 11.000 Zeichen mit Leerzeichen) begrenzt. Der Hauptpreis ist mit 5′000 Euro, der zweite mit 2′000 Euro und der dritte mit 1′500 Euro dotiert. Einsende-Schluss ist am 31. Januar 2010, die weiteren Details finden sich hier. ■

.

.

.

.

Einfach nur krass, welche Wellen dieser Prozess schlägt. Vor allem die Wirkung auf das Ausland wird sehr stark vom Prozessausgang abhängen. Der Angeklagte scheint aber auch alles dafür zu tun, sich noch unbeliebter zu machen, als er es eh schon ist!

Angeklagter Russlanddeutscher rastet im Gericht aus

Kai Diekmanns Blog

Damit hätte vermutlich niemand gerechnet: Der BILD-Chefredakteur Kai Diekmann ist unter die Blogger gegangen. Kai Diekmann neben Markus Beckedahl und Stefan Niggemeier – eine tolle Vorstellung. Endlich kommt mal Schwung in die elitäre Blogosphäre ,die sich selbst viel zu wichtig nimmt. Schaut man sich die Seiten von Diekmann an, dann hat man leicht das Gefühl,

da hat einer eine Menge Dampf unter dem Kessel der endlich mal raus muss. Vielleicht ist das Projekt Blog deshalb fürs erste auf 100 Tage beschränkt. Wer jetzt dachte, Diekmann sitzt selbst am Laptop und opfert seine kostbare Zeit, der irrt. Ich kann an dieser Stelle die taz beruhigen, Kai Diekmann lässt bloggen. Dafür hat er seine Sekretärinnen. Der Chef diktiert und die “Tippsen” tippen. Am besten finde ich die Rubrik “Mein Fanclub” unter der Diekmann seine schärfsten Kritiker in Bild, Video und Text zu Wort kommen lässt. Eins kann man dem BILD-Chef nicht vorwerfen: Zu ernst nimmt er sich nicht.

Für die Sendung SPUTNIK Update um Sechs habe ich mit Kai Diekmann telefoniert und ihn zum Blog befragt. Die erste Hälfte des ungeschnittenen Interviews gibt es hier:

Nachtrag am 28.10.2009

Der Diekmann-Blog hat zu heftigen Reaktionen in der Internetgemeinde geführt.

BILDblog-Betreiber Stefan Niggemeier (Quelle:WDR)

Besonders Diekmanns Aussage, den wahren BILDblog zu betreiben, hat beim Bildblog-Betreiber Stefan Niggemeier für Gelächter gesorgt. Ich habe mit Niggemeier gesprochen, das Interview gibt es hier.

taz-Chefin Ines Pohl (Quelle:WDR)

Aber auch Diekmanns Kollegen nehmen seine  Netzaktivitäten nicht ernst. Die Chefredakteurin der taz, Ines Pohl, freut sich eher über Werbung in eigener Sache. Das Interview mit Ines Pohl gibt es hier.

Nachtrag vom 31.10.2009

Ein paar Tage hat es schon gedauert, bis Kai Diekmann auf das Interview mit Frau Pohl reagiert hat. Gegenargumente zu recherchieren dauert ja auch eine Weile.

So vermeldet der Radiosender “Jump” in seinen Nachrichten. Da ich beruflich ab und an im Mittleren Osten unterwegs bin, habe ich den Sender schon ab und an gehört (anscheinend haben die nur Lizenzen für 2 Dutzend Lieder eingekauft?).

Natürlich finde ich es sehr beruhigend, dass in Deutschland auch gegen Tierseuchen vorgegangen wird. Das trifft sich auch wunderbar mit dem Start der Impfung gegen die Schweinegrippe, die wohl auch heute angelaufen ist.

Und wenn Euch der mdr-eigene Sender mal wieder etwas davon erzählt, dass ein 14-jähriger zu Haftstrafe verurteilt worden sei – dann ist lediglich ein Haftbefehl ergangen.

Und dafür zahlt ihr diese seltsamen Gebühren?

Le député UMP Jean-François Lamour assure que son «doigt a ripé» au moment du vote, ce qui a permis à l’amendement, proposé par le camp socialiste, d’être adopté de justesse. Le gouvernement réclame un nouveau vote.

Sacré imbroglio vendredi soir à l’Assemblée nationale. Les députés ont adopté de justesse une taxe additionnelle de 10% sur les bénéfices des banques en 2010 suite à l’ «erreur technique » du député UMP Jean-François Lamour. Ce dernier, qui en plus de sa voix disposait par procuration de celle d’un collègue, se serait en effet trompé de bouton au moment du vote. Une «mégarde» qui a permis à l’amendement, proposé par la gauche, d’être adopté par 44 voix contre 40. Sans la «bourde» du député, le vote aurait donné 42 voix partout (pour et contre), ce qui aurait empêché son adoption.

Le gouvernement, qui s’est toujours opposé à cet amendement défendu par le président socialiste de la Commission des Finances Didier Migaud, a fait savoir qu’il allait réclamer lundi un nouveau vote. Il y a peu, la ministre de l’économie Christine Lagarde avait estimé qu’il n’était «pas question de prendre une mesure pareille (…) qui plomberait le système bancaire français».

Invraisemblable pour certains députés
Reste que la théorie de l’erreur technique passe difficilement dans les rangs de l’opposition. «Si je comprends bien, les responsables de la majorité sont en train de nous expliquer que certains de leurs membres ne savent toujours pas faire la différence entre le vote pour et le vote contre», explique Jérôme Cahuzac, député socialiste, au micro d’RTL. «Je laisse soin (…) d’apprécier la vraisemblance de cet argument».

Vendredi soir, les députés ont également adopté à l’unanimité un amendement présenté par le gouvernement qui instaure une contribution pour frais de contrôle bancaire. La ministre a précisé que cette contribution pérenne, qui devrait rapporter 100 millions d’euros par an, sera intégralement affectée à la Banque de France «qui fournit actuellement à titre gratuit les moyens humains et matériels de la supervision bancaire».
le figaro

C’est pas stupéfiant cette histoire, lisez les commentaires, vous verrez comment tous les lecteurs du Figaro sont sciés.
Bon, vous vous rendez compte du délire, le Député Lamour(UMP) aurait voter OUI par inadvertance, après avoir pourtant défendu cet amendement dans l’assemblé !!!! Nous nageons en plein délire.
À QUOI SERT LE VOTE SI ON LE RECOMMENCE QUAND çA NE VA PAS ?
Mais c’est quoi ce délire, soyons sérieux, c’est quoi cette république, quelle est l’utilité du parlement si celui ci n’est qu’une chambre d’enregistrement, si les débats ne servent à rien, autant se passer des députés.

En plus,surtaxer de 10% les bénéfices des banques est la moindre des choses, surtout par les temps qui court.L’état n’a gagné que des clopinettes en aidant les banques, certains économistes chiffrent à 12 milliards d’euros le manque à gagner, c’est ce que l’état aurait gagné à la revente de ses part au prix du marché. C’est pour cela que la surtaxe de 10% est le strict minimum.

Sinon, on ne reparlera pas du gosse à sarko le mongolien, c’est tellement démentiel que je ne reviendrai pas dessus.

Non, il y a quelque de plus grave, je viens d’apprendre que le préfet de l’Isère a INTERDIT PAR ARRÉTÉ PRÉFECTORAL.
” Le spectacle que l’humoriste controversé Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala devait donner le 25 octobre à Grenoble a été interdit par arrêté préfectoral, a annoncé samedi dans un communiqué la préfecture de l’Isère, qui craint des “troubles à l’ordre public”.
La préfecture explique sa décision par les “prises de positions extrêmement controversées” de l’humoriste au cours de ces dernières années, qui “ont amené le Crif (Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France), la Licra (Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme) et SOS-racisme Grenoble-Isère” à appeler “les démocrates, élus et citoyens, à se mobiliser pour exprimer leur indignation et s’opposer au spectacle “. source

Regardez par exemple au Maroc ou les caricaturistes sont condamnés ou en Algérie et également en Tunisie.

La France ne vaut pas mieux que ces régimes autocratiques, interdire un spectacle humoristique en démocratie est un non sens complet.Cela démontre la main mise des extrémistes juifs sur la France, d’ou le lynchage médiatique de notre pauvre Dieudonné.

Regardez ce spectacle, c’est magnifique, j’ai été plié de rire du début à la fin :

Today, I bought the Shaw Group (SHAW, formerly SGR) at 28.20.

Shaw got slammed today by a triple team of two downgrades (to Neutral from Buy), a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report about a Westinghouse (of which SHAW owns a 20% stake) reactor saying it needed some more work, and pressure as the market reacted to GE’s and BAC’s unconvincing earnings reports.  This morning, the stock was down almost 10%, and I saw that as a buying opportunity.

Despite the government standing in its way at every step, I feel the time is right for Nuclear. It is the only fuel source that can be effectively used in a large scale, for very few pennies per KWH, and emitting no greenhouse gases.  Europeans, and the French in particular, have been using nuclear for decades, and get a significant amount of their electricity from uranium.  While there are waste disposal issues, they are not insurmountable, and the plants have operated accident free.  While many view Shaw’s minority stake in Westinghouse as a negative, I view it as a positive as it makes Shaw, which is primarily an infrastructure company, well positioned for when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) begins issuing permits.

I will admit some luck in the timing of my purchase, as barely an hour after my purchase, Shaw issued a release concerning the NRC’s report on the Westinghouse reactor saying that the issues that were raised are surmountable, and they remain on schedule to have the first reactor installed and turned on by 2016.  This caused their stock to rise by a percent and takes away a lot of the uncertainty that was swirling around.

The stock is priced at about a PE of 14 given analyst estimate of fiscal 2009 EPS of $2.00.  This compares favorably with the PEs of their infrastructure peers like MDR (PE: 20), and nuclear peers like ES (PE: 26).  During the times I have held the stock before, around $28 seems to be the sweet spot for accumulation, and the numbers corroborate that fact as I explained above. I will be holding the stock waiting for a price in the low-to-mid 30s, although should other news materialize I will of course adjust that target.

Shaw will report Q4 and Fiscal 2009 earnings at 5 pm EST on Thursday, October 29th.  Analysts expect FY09 earnings of $2.00 and Q4 of $.47.

Disclosure: Long SHAW, no position in ES or MDR.

-AH

Label: Marcel Dettmann Records
Catalog#: MDR 06

Tracklist:

A1: Apron

Buy here

Recommended!

With a very anticipated label comes the expectations of extremely good quality with every release, as well as the ability to deliver with each rising catalogue number.

WIth ‘MDR 06′, Marcel displays a new take on his traditional sound. This side of his music feels probably a bit strange, but at the same time familiar with all elements included. ‘Apron’ keeps things at the peak just like the previous tracks, but it has a certain calm feeling to it that lets the strength of the attitude behind the track take most of the space. A unclear rhythmic ground, going from one path to another, constantly shifting between them, brings a more subtle and concentrated power and punch from the percussive elements.

‘Kernel’ shows a somewhat certain Sähkö influence behind the feelings of the track, a very static melody that feels extremely transistor generated, is acompanied by a extremely scary bassline and drum. Not leaving a single element behind, ‘Kernel’ kicks (litterary) the shit out of the speakers with full force, creating a track that will take a lot of momentum to make fit in a DJ set.

As for the other side of the record, ‘Rerun’ starts off with full force, only this time with a more classic and less spare sense. The direct feel of the track shines through as the mesmerizing rhythmic melody slowly goes into itself and then back out again, creating a feeling of everything going forward – horisontal energy at it’s best.

‘Tattered’ has the same aspects of ‘Kernel’, but it feels a lot different due to it’s more IDM-like nature. Unidentifiable elements combine each other in a way that feels very forgotten for 2009, as well as a very new and fresh take by Dettmann. The track is the one that feels most honest of all four, leaving the record in a perfect state of full content.

Excellent material that takes the direction of techno into a state of absolute cluelessness.

I have rarely commented on the topic of MDR because it is a topic of tradition based opinion hot bed of controversy. 

It has been brought to my attention that some preachers, therefore, some church members, in the church today feel that Jesus decreed a universal law that is forever in His statements of Matthew 19 and the corresponding passages in the other Gospels.

The present idea of MDR that the church holds came from Catholicism.  From what I have read, the church (universal) was not worried about MDR until around the 600’s when the Roman Church decreed the marriage was a sacrament of God.  Up until then, divorce and remarriage was not an issue.

I often wonder why on the day of Pentecost, when Peter preached the 1^st recorded gospel sermon, that the 3000 that believed and were baptized were not required to pass the present day MDR salvation test that some in the church requires? 

The reason we do not see a requirement in scripture baring divorce people to remarry is that God never made one.  The rules we try to force everyone to follow concerning the issue of MDR; all came from the Roman Catholic Church in the 600’s AD.  It is a false study when based our doctrine upon just Matt. 19:9 and not the complete picture of biblical facts presented by scripture.  Therefore, the conclusions we have reached within the church are false.  This is what the church of today has done for the past 150 or so years concerning MDR:  Followed a false doctrine of man and not what God said.

The Bible does not lie and it does not contradict its self.  Jesus did not make a universal forever law in Matt. 19 because if He did then Paul is a liar and a false teacher in his letters to the Corinthians and to Timothy.

The Bible is not in conflict between Jesus and Paul as they both are guided by the Holy Spirit of God in what they said.  So with this understanding, the teachings of the church since about 600 AD must be wrong and therefore false.

What I do know is simple: 

A.   The gospel is a simple path to follow and leads to salvation. 

B.   God is NOT looking for away to send me to hell as the fear preachers seem to think. 

C.   If salvation were a “restitution” system and not a grace system, none of us could ever be saved. 

D.   If God was looking for away to send me to hell, He would not have sent Jesus as a sin payment for me and everyone who believes and is baptized. 

Further more:  My only hope and prayer is that other’s will study what I have posted and see that the things that have been taught by the church are not correct because they would make Paul out to be a liar and would place most of the New Testament in doubt because most is written by Paul and therefore, it would make our faith void because it would be based on lies.

However, to really and truthfully understand the topic of MDR in light of working out your own salvation; I humble submit the following unbiased study I conducted on this topic considering all relevant passages of the Bible I could think of at the time.

                        ******************************************

If salvation is based on a “restitution” system then none could be saved – My study of MDR = Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage
By Guy Lewis

My premise concerning my study of this topic is that all of the scripture covering divorce and remarriage in the New Testament must agree with each other and that if any passage of scripture does not seem to agree with another then it is mankind’s opinion that is wrong and not scripture.  I will take a simple look at each of the passages of scripture that is concerned with the issue of divorce in the New Testament and look at the simple language of what it has to say and see if we can not see the simple message offered and if it in fact agrees with all other passages of New Testament scripture.  Therefore, I hope to show that there is no prohibition on remarriage of divorced person and that Paul was not contradicting Jesus in 1 Cor. 7 when he said that divorced person’s do not sin if they marry.

De 24:1-4

1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;
4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Jehovah: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. (ASV)

First off we must understand what the Law of Moses had to say about divorce and see if we can understand why this Law was given. 

In verse 1 the Hebrew word for “unseemly thing” is “ervah” which means indecency or nakedness or shame, that the husband shall give her (the wife) a bill or certificate of divorcement or divorce and send her out of the house.  This verse implies that there was a need of the Hebrew nation to protect the wives from just being sent out or being put out of a house by the husband and being discarded and destitute with no way to provide for themselves.

Verse 2 provides the remedy of the destitution indicated in verse 1.  That she may be the “wife” of another man.  This is a legal wife before God and before man.

Verses 3 and 4 says that if the second husband finds some “ervah” with her and divorces her or he dies, the first husband is bared from taking her as his wife again.   This is said to be an abomination before God and therefore a sin.  This may have been done to protect the woman from a wicked ex husband as or an effort to keep the nation pour in their bloodlines, but I am not sure but might be indicated by the use of the term “cause the land to sin” in verse 4.

Now this was the Law of God handed down through Moses to the people of Israel, concerning divorce and remarriage.

Mt 5:17-20

17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. (ASV)

Jesus did not come to destroy the Law of Moses.  Jesus did not come to change the Law of Moses.  Jesus says in verses 17 to 19 that He did not come to do away with the Law of Moses and that whoever keeps and teaches the Law will be great in the kingdom of heaven.  Jesus did not come to change but to keep the Law.  In verse 20 Jesus says that keeping the commandments is not an outward show it is a matter of ones heart that matters most.

Mt 5:31-32

31 It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery. (ASV)

These two verses must be read in the same context as the rest of the verses in this section of the Sermon on the Mount such as Matt. 5: 17-20, Matt. 5:21-22 and Matt 5:27-28.  Verse 31 says simply that the Law of Moses says to give a certificate of divorce (i.e. divorce your wife not just send her out or put her away).  Jesus was saying in verse 32 that to (apoluo) send her away or put her out would make her an adulteress because to survive she would have to join with another man who could support her or become a prostitute.  The only way she could be an adulteress was if she was still married.  So the word (apoluo) in this text can not mean divorce or she would not be an adulteress.  Because to divorce according to Deuteronomy 24 would have ended the marriage in the eyes of God and man and she would have been free to remarry whom ever she desired because that was the Law and Jesus did not come to change the Law.  Therefore the correct translation of (apoluo) in verse 32 is send out or put away and not to divorce.  This translation is in keeping with and fits with all other passages in the New Testament concerning MDR.

Mt 19:9

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.  (ASV)

Once again in verse 9 Jesus was saying that to (apoluo) send away a wife or put a wife out and marry another would cause adultery because of being still married.  So the word (apoluo) in this text can not mean divorce or there would be no adultery.  Because to divorce according to Deuteronomy 24 would have ended the marriage in the eyes of God and man and both the man and woman would have been free to remarry whom ever they desired because that was the Law and Jesus did not come to change the Law.  Therefore the correct translation of (apoluo) in verse 9 is send out or put away and not to divorce.  This translation is in keeping with and fits with all other passages in the New Testament concerning MDR.

Mr 10:11

11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: (ASV)

Again the word (apoluo) in verse 11 does not mean divorce in this passage either but to put away without divorce thus causing the adultery because the two are still married.  Because to divorce according to Deuteronomy 24 would have ended the marriage in the eyes of God and man and both the man and woman would have been free to remarry whom ever they desired because that was the Law and Jesus did not come to change the Law.  It is interesting to note that here Mark also tell us to whom any adultery is committed against and that is the wife who is put away and not the new person married.  This is the only passage that specifically tells us this information.

Lu 16:18

18 Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery. (ASV)

Once again the word (apoluo) used in verse 18 does not mean divorce in this passage either but to put away without divorce thus causing the adultery because the two are still married.  Because to divorce according to Deuteronomy 24 would have ended the marriage in the eyes of God and man and both the man and woman would have been free to remarry whom ever they desired because that was the Law and Jesus did not come to change the Law.

Mt 16:18-19

18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
19 “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (ASV)

What does Jesus mean when He tells the apostles that what they “DO” require on earth will be required in heaven and what they ‘do not” require will not be required in heaven?  Jesus is speaking directly to Peter in this passage but He was also talking to the other eleven by the context.  See the context of the nature of the conversation in:

Mt 16:13-16

13 “When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (ASV)

Jesus started the conversation out by addressing all the disciples not just Peter.  Peter just happens to be the one who answered for the group. (Also see John 20:23 where Jesus tells the disciples that whom ever they forgive on earth will also be forgiven in heaven.)

Jesus was talking about the new kingdom or church once it was established in Act’s chapter two.  Jesus was not addressing the apostles concerning events prior to the establishment of the church in this conversation because they were still under the Law of Moses.

Now the question is “Which of the apostles”, if any, established rules concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage after the church was established in Acts chapter two.

Ro 7:2-3

2 For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband.
3 So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man.  (ASV)

This passage is talking about a MARRIED couple not a DIVORCED couple.  So if she is still a married wife to the husband and she joins with another man then yes she become an adulteress because she was never given a divorce according to the Law because to divorce according to (Deuteronomy 24 which Jesus did not change) would have ended the marriage in the eyes of God and man and woman would have been free to remarry whom ever she desired.

1Cor 6:9-11

9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God. (ASV)

This passage is important because it says that no matter what your sin, verses 9 and 10 the blood of Jesus and the Spirit of God washes you clean; sanctifying you and justifying you.  This means you are made new again.  Made whole again.  Your prior sins are washed away as if they never happened.  In the book of Hebrew it says that God remembers your sins no more.  This is what verse 11 is also saying.  What ever the sin, including adultery according to verse 9, it is wiped away and remembered no more by the blood of Jesus.

1Cor 7:27-28

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.
28 But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I would spare you. (ASV)

Paul in verses 27 and 28 is clearly saying that if you are divorced and you remarry you have not sinned.  In verse 27 the word loosed (which is released in the NASB) indicates that one was married or attached to another (wife by the passage) so that they could not be released from her.  In the Greek it is number 3080 is translated “seek release or to be loosed.”  Whereas in the Greek number 3089 is also translated “Are you released or loosed?” within the same verse.  Two different Greek words have been translated into the same English word release in the NASB or loosed in the ASV in verse 27.  Also in the KJV and the NKJV this word is “loosed”.  In the NIV this word is “divorced” and “unmarried” respectfully.  In the RSV and NRSV the word is “free.”

The Greek word with the number 3080 = lusis meaning a loosing (by divorce) or released.

The Greek word with the number 3089 = luo meaning to loose, to release, to dissolve: – annuls, break, breaking, broke down, broken, destroy, destroyed, loose, loosed, putting an end to, released, removed, take off, unbind, untie, untied, untying.

Therefore, with this in mind, Paul, the inspired writer, by the power of the Holy Spirit of God, said in verse 28 that divorce person’s, who choice to, have not sinned if they remarry. 

This does not violate Matt. 19:9 because Jesus never changed or altered the Law of Moses.  Divorce according to Deuteronomy 24 would have ended the marriage in the eyes of God and man and both the man and woman would have been free to remarry whom ever they desired because that was the Law and Jesus did not come to change the Law

1Tim 4:1-5

1 But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron;
3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 for it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer.  (ASV)

In this passage, Paul tells Timothy that a time will come where people, false teachers, will tell other people they can not marry.  In verses 1 through 3 we see this clearly.  And as we have seen, if we apply usage of “put away” for the Greek word (apoluo) and not divorce, then all of the passages commonly referred to marriage and divorce fit together without any problem.  Also when we use “put away” for the word (apoluo) we have not reason to refuse anyone the right to remarry provided they were legally divorced from their prior spouse.  We will not be one of the people Paul warns Timothy about in verse 3 when we use the proper meaning for the Greek work (apoluo) in our translations.

Summary:  The Bible does not prohibit remarriage, but wants people to remain as they are or marry. 

The over all context of 1 Corinthians 7 is to remain in what ever state you are in but that you have not sinned if you can not stay unmarried or if you decide to seek marriage.  Jesus did not change or alter the Law of His time; he explained it in simple understanding to get it back to its simple meaning.  No where in the Old Testament Law or the New Testament is the Bible saying an unmarried person (never married, widowed, or divorced) can’t marry. 

By the direct authority of Jesus to the apostles:  Jesus leaves it up to them to set policy on this matter.

Yes God’s plan from the beginning was that it was “not good for man to be alone.”  Yes God hate’s divorce but that does not negate the fact that God Himself said that it was not good for man to be alone. 

As I have shown, all the New Testament passages agree and none are in conflict with each other with this translation.  The apostle Paul established the rules of the new church or kingdom concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage by the authority of Jesus Himself and Paul said that “if you are divorced and remarry you have not sinned.”

Who are we to continue to rule where God has already ruled in this matter?

Original study was completed on 5/26/2007
(Updated to this study was completed on 6/27/09)

Vor wenigen Tagen habe ich für den mdr ein Radiointerview gegeben.

Ich habe nun den Mitschnitt hochgeladen:  http://www.weightofperfection.de/DBT_interview_mdr.mp3

Freue mich auf eure Kommentare.

Den “Du bist Terrorist” blog habe ich nun geschlossen weil er doch für einige Verwirrung gesorgt hat. Deswegen werden alle News zu beiden Filmen ab sofort hier zu lesen sein.

I get emails –

Hi Jay,

While on a CofC discussion board regarding the subject, I happened onto a link to your article, “But If I Do Remarry…” I wanted to share my personal situation with you and ask you to prayerfully give me your counsel.

Although I was baptized while very young and always attended church services, while I was a teenager I began a relationship with a young man separated from his wife.  Of course looking back now, I see what a terrible sin that was, and to be honest, I really knew it at the time.  But my walk was with the world and not God at that time.  They divorced, she remarried, and he and I were married.

After I had children, I very much wanted to be restored to God and since then have grown substantially in my Christian walk. (Although my husband attends church services, he has never obeyed the gospel.) Having said that, I still struggle with whether or not I am forgiven since we are still married.  I have spoken with several church leaders, who have said they believe I am forgiven.  But for some reason, I cannot get past it.  I very much want to be a good wife and mother, and I also very much want to be within God’s will, and it is frightening to me that in the end, I may find that I wasn’t.

I would very much appreciate it if you would pray for the correct counsel to offer me.  Thank you so very much for your time.

You are unquestionably forgiven — and the last thing you should do is divorce your current husband.

God expects Christians to continue in their faith in Jesus and to be penitent. Tragically, some church leaders have horribly misunderstood this teaching, concluding that one cannot repent without making “restitution.” Therefore, a divorced and remarried person must divorce her current spouse and seek to re-marry her first spouse — even if this means breaking up a Godly family and bringing untold heartache to her husband and children — and even if her first husband is a wife beater. Yes, I’ve seen it taught.

Anyone who teaches such a thing is far removed from the heart of God.

(Psa 51:10-17)  Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will turn back to you.
14 Save me from bloodguilt, O God, the God who saves me, and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.
15 O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise.
16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

When David sinned with Bathsheba, God forgave him. Even though their relationship was born in sin, they married and their second son was named Solomon. God did not consider Solomon illegitimate. Rather, God himself chose Solomon to be king after David.

If God required sinful relationships to be healed by ending that relationship, David would have cast Bathsheba out of the palace as a condition to being forgiven. But our God is a God of mercy and compassion. He forgave David and healed that relationship.

(Of course, David suffered very severe penalties for his sin in this life, including the death of his firstborn by Bathsheba. And anyone who has been through a divorce understands that there are often penalties to be suffered in this life.)

The way you repent from covenant breaking is by no longer breaking covenants. What God wants from you is not misery and a broken home. God wants a changed heart — a broken and contrite heart. And this sacrifice is enough. You honor God by being a good wife to your current husband and a good mother for your children. You honor God by letting the grace he’s given you transform you into a woman filled with his Spirit.

You see, another lesson from Ps 51 is that you pray to God for a pure heart and a steadfast spirit. You aren’t alone: the God who created the Universe is working in you and in your life to transform you –

(Eph 5:8)  For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light …

Through his Spirit, God has already washed your sins away, and he is at work in you remaking you. Indeed, when you finally realize that you are forgiven it will be by God’s Spirit that you understand –

(Eph 3:16-19)  I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge–that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

This is grace — a grace so great that we need supernatural power to grasp it. But it’s grace for a purpose — grace that compels you to greater obedience and service to the Lord who forgives those who love him.

This calls for a song –

Lol, ah ah ah, mdr. Depuis le lancement de la nouvelle version de Désirs d’avenir par la queen des Charentes, la toile s’esclaffe.

Attendez un instant. Est-ce vraiment un problème ? Peut-on juger Ségo à l’aune de son mauvais design graphique ? Il faut tout de même reconnaitre que sa capacité à créer du buzz laisse rêveur. Royale risée du web ? Une coqueluche du web, vus voulez dire (et non pas rire) !

Beaucoup de marques rêveraient de créer un tel bruit. Très peu y parviennent. Petite leçon de buzz marketing à la sauce poitevine à l’adresse des marketeurs en herbe ou confirmés :

Premièrement, personne ne peut nier la prise de pouvoir du consommateur. Les mass médias étaient le royaume des marques, elles contrôlaient les messages émis. L’avènement des médias digitaux signe la revanche des utilisateurs qui peuvent désormais infléchir les discours des marques (commentaires, comparaisons, recommandation, etc.) :

L’excellent planneur Faris Yacob – Chief Technology Strategist chez McCann – défend cette nouvelle défintion de l’advocacy mieux que quiconque : nous sommes entrés dans l’ère du remix. Les gens échangent, partages, mash-up, crée à partir d’existant… Tout cela au bénéfice des marques avec qui les utilisateurs sont en interaction. Explications :

Résultat : les marques doivent accepter d’être malaxées, mélangées, mémétisées pour passer à la postérité (repensez au rick rolling ou aux millions de trips vidéos avec des figurines Lego). Qui l’a compris avant les autres ? Ségolène. Entre les milliers de parodies ou les générateurs de pages ayant fleuri quasi instantanément, c’est du beau boulot. Très peu de marques non-geeks peuvent se targuer d’être aussi remixées ou parodiées (depuis quand la parodie fait systématiquement du mal à une marque?). Reconnaissance absolue : Ségo est félicitée par une parodie très 4chan-esque du film La chute :

+ bonus :

Le design de Désirs d’avenir est vintage ? Et alors ? Le label Kitsuné a fait le pari du web vintage et low tech depuis son lancement il y a quelques années, cela ne le pénalise pas, loin de là. Il y a d’ailleurs des tas d’études qui montrent que le succès des sites comme Google, Digg, Delicious ou Flickr dépendent étroitement de leur design moche, simple et immuable. Preuve supplémentaire ? Google vient de breveter le dessin de sa page d’accueil. Cerise sur le gâteau : le fond d’écran du site est open-source. Qui peut affirmer que cela n’est pas une conception juridique d’avenir ?

[MàJ] La nouvelle version du site de Ségolène ajoute une brique à sa stratégie 2.0 : suite à un message posté (checker le post de Zeina Bourdais) il y a deux jours sur la page Fan de Facebook (marketing communautaire !), Ségolène intègre le crowdsourcing à sa stratégie. Une graphiste lui propose sur sa page de lui refaire un site, 2 jours plus tard, mission accomplie. Ahh, elle est fortiche !

On a beau dire ce qu’on veut, mais le lancement du nouveau site de Ségolène est un succès énorme. Il a attiré plus de visites en quelques jours que bon nombre de sites de politiciens. Pas besoin de lever les yeux au ciel à propos du non-référencement des zones de textes en jpeg, le buzz a fait son travail et le site caracole en tête du page rank.

Reste à définir si cette stratégie paiera, on ne choisit pas un candidat présidentiel – ou lors de primaires dans un premier temps – comme un yaourt.

Désirs d’avenir demeure dans tous les cas un cas d’école en matière de marketing en ligne. Le site ne semble plus répondre actuellement, serait-il sur le point de sortir de sa phase bêta en vue de nous surprendre à nouveau ?

[MàJ2] Trendhunter semble d’accord avec Ségo… Checkez la prévision #4 (merci Mathilde pour la vidéo)

Just amazing to hear Prince Rama Varma sing this exceptional piece by MDR  in raga Bageshree.