Books

I have published 4 books since 2002, each of them is featured here in the submenu.

Popularity: 4% [?]

About the Author

No Comments

STEVEN

Posted September 12, 2008 at 5:08 AM

wat did it look like? who cares its are things happen.
Andy Miah

Posted September 16, 2008 at 9:48 AM

ah, well, i’m not sure about annual, but definitely 2009!
Rick Hart

Posted September 29, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Just a quick note: I wonder if Mr Sofroniou is the same Chris Sofroniou I knew at school (Edgware Comprehensive School). We shared the same teacher in a number of classes. I cannot really make out the face too clearly in the picture.
Henry

Posted December 22, 2008 at 6:37 PM

Hi Andy,

Here’s what I read: an article in Trinidad & Tobago’s Daily Express dated 22nd December 2008 which was headlined “Gene doping – the next sporting frontier?” Your views wer prominently featured. For what it’s worth, I was very impressed with you way of thinking.

For years I have been saying that athletes who wish to take performance enhancing medications should be allowed to do so under controlled circumnstances and be made to share the benefits derived therefrom with the less fortunate – healthwise – in the wider community. If these athletes want to and agree to be human guinea pigs then that’s their right. Anyhow you take it, they will find ways to beat the traditional ways of doing things.

I admire your thinking.

Henry
James Kennell

Posted January 2, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Hi, just caught this on my post-Christmas podcast binge. A quality performance. I’m enjoying the book too…..James
coffee

Posted February 7, 2009 at 6:09 PM

it seems ridiculous that Michael Phelps is getting so much flak from this supposed marijuana scandal… Since when have we taken the reporting of trashy tabloids so seriously?
Heartburn Home Remedy

Posted April 15, 2009 at 11:46 AM

The style of writing is quite familiar to me. Did you write guest posts for other bloggers?
Heartburn Home Remedy

Posted April 15, 2009 at 11:53 AM

After reading this article, I just feel that I really need more information on the topic. Could you share some more resources ?
Ronbeance

Posted May 20, 2009 at 9:47 PM

Fantastic site! i will come back again soon..
chilliam

Posted June 26, 2009 at 11:14 PM

check out http://www.veryvoo.com

It’s a new site, but it has potential to grow into the social network for creative people who don’t like social networks and self-promotion, because it focuses on collaboration.
Jay Jay

Posted June 27, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Thanks for coming down and speaking yesterday Andy – I think it inspired most people and ruffled more than a few tail feathers. I’ll be in touch very soon.:-)

- JJ
Ray Mumme

Posted October 8, 2009 at 8:18 PM

Great information Stem Cells are the way to go, they are the future of our wellness. Wouldn’t it be nice just to take two capsules that would trigger the increase the number of your own adult stem cells in your blood stream to aid the body??? How about 3.5 million!!! Read on visit some of my sites to learn how. We have all the science to prove it take my tour of both sites a wealth of knowledge in the hands of the right person. Published Peer Review Studies, I can send to you when you are ready.

http://www.adultstemcellsrelease.com & http://www.rmumme.stemtechbiz.com
Thanks,
Ray
314-488-4454
tateSexinice

Posted November 17, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Hello
Cash
http://zwyourpornof.blogspot.com

Only Adult

Tiamo
Article Submission

Posted November 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Hi, I found your page when I was searching for websites related to article submission. I must say, your site is good. I like the design too, its pleasing. I don’t have much time at the moment to fully read your website but I have noted it and I also registered for your RSS feed. I will read again in a day or two. Thanks for such a great website!
Albert Wells

Posted November 23, 2009 at 10:55 PM

Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and needed to say that I have genuinely enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way, I will be signing up to receive your feed and I hope you post again very soon.
len

Posted November 28, 2009 at 2:42 PM

what should be legal allowed is a hard debate, after all is it not up to the individual what he or she wants?
Jess Tyrrell

Posted December 11, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Andy, Would love to know more about your work. Graham Jeffrey connected us – in relation to a citizen media project we’re planning in Newham. Have you been researching only, or been involved in any actual projects? Would really welcome links to research etc. For more on what we’re doing, see here – http://generalapp.newschallenge.org/SNC/ViewItem.aspx?pguid=6aee8166-fb7c-4a2e-8581-fa6f6ff036dd&itemguid=eec8e3e1-b456-4549-815f-bbb66ff54967

Jess
Katelynn Lockwood

Posted December 14, 2009 at 2:23 PM

The thing about a beginner is that they’re eager. This is both good and bad. It’s good because they’ll put full effort into things and learn as much as they can, it’s bad because their eagerness makes them impatient! Many’s the beginner who didn’t get dramatic results in the first month and gave up because of it.
Robert Kerr

Posted December 27, 2009 at 7:11 AM

Nanotechnology in the biological field will be utilized in the form of Eugenics to ‘enhance’ those few and to rid the many of ‘undesired’ genetic traits, or it will be used for simple genocide. What other purpose can it possibly serve when most of the cures or improvements it is aiming to provide are argued to be available from natural resources being supressed? I can’t imagine humankind would benefit from such a technology, specially since most of the consumer technology to date has been used for, and proved to be, nothing more than supression/retardation/radiation poisoning of the human mind.
Epiphanie

Posted January 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Not many people get to travel to three continents in the same year – well done! Congratulations on your marriage and I hope becoming a father brings you all sorts of unexpected joys! :) Do you know if it’s a girl or a boy yet?
Christopher Jenkins

Posted January 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Hey, I stumbled across your site through Msn and just wanted to say that I really like it. I’ll definitely be bookmarking it!
Ana

Posted January 14, 2010 at 4:27 PM

In the case of professional communicators, retweets (RTs) that endorse clients are usually marked as such ie Check out this great article from…+ link (client) or Interesting piece on … Link. Please RT (client). To me, most of the other tweets fall into the news category and they get to be RTed because a user has deemed them worthy to be shared.
Maurice Cardinal

Posted January 14, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Best to keep it simple and let the reader interpret the tweets intent. I don’t want twitter interfering in the process.

I know the background of everyone I follow respective of the Olympics and consequently know their agenda.

http://twitter.com/MauriceCardinal
littleshotlarry

Posted January 14, 2010 at 6:36 PM

I’m not sure I see what the problem is with vanity tweets. Even if one tweets information in order to be liked, the information is still passed on in the exact same way as if the poster genuinely felt strongly about the news.

What definition of vanity are we assuming? Do I actually care if the intention of an unknown person who does not punch me in the face, for example, is actually that s/he wants to be liked by my friends and not that they actually care about me? No, I simply care that I am not randomly punched in the face. It has no baring on the actual punch.

Just as the intention has no baring on the truth or falsity of the information being dispersed.

If someone spreads virtue for non-virtuous reasons, I don’t think it follows that the thing being spread is altered in its virtuousness.
Keith

Posted January 14, 2010 at 7:08 PM

I think this question is a good one for re-tweets, for sure. Not so sure how it applies for many other tweets; most of the people I follow, for example, either chat with others they’re friends will or offer up random status, their own news and articles, etc. Some of which could fall into one of the three categories you mention here, but many do not.

As far as re-tweeting goes though, I think they can fall in all three categories, either singly or all three at once, and that it’s perfectly ok to retweet for vanity’s sake. There is another re-tweet type that I’m not as comfortable with: the “please re-tweet my news/service/etc” or promotional re-tweet. I try to look at them on a case-by-case basis, but they feel inherently spammy most of the time. So maybe ad a “spam” category to the three?
luck ryans

Posted January 26, 2010 at 3:48 AM

Helpful info you have displayed here thanks.
Arron Bourbon

Posted January 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM

A friend urged me to look at this website, brill post, fascinating read… keep up the nice work!
Huey Colon

Posted January 29, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Very informative text. I’ve found your site via Bing and I’m really happy about the information you provide in your articles. Btw your sites layout is really messed up on the Kmelon browser. Would be cool if you could fix that. Anyhow keep up the great work!
Errol

Posted February 1, 2010 at 1:32 AM

Ah yes, the scrutiny of the arm-chair heroes; those who would say that Linford only won because of drugs. Do they not recall that Linford stood at the line in Barcelona, in Stuttgart, in Paris, in Madrid, in so many places, lined up next to the very best (and probably equally doped up) and that it was his mind not his body that allowed him to win.
Linford is a ‘god’ not so much in body, but in the vastness of his understanding of what it takes for a man to let himself win, to over-come the doubt and the panic, the weak legs, the nausea, the pending sense of failure. Yet Linford did not crawl under a rock; he won the damn races for himself, his family, his culture and, yes, also for Britain.
Sorry to be so emphatic but anyone who suggests that Linford is not a true champion is an absolute fool, who know neither themselves, not what it takes to be great. I say to those people, stand up and face your own fears, and be the judge of yourself only.

Errol
Maurice Cardinal

Posted February 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM

I agree Andy that doping & new media activism are at the forefront of Olympic controversy. Doping has always been a challenge, but new media is the issue having the most impact on the health of the Games.

For example, Chicago lost the 2016 bid to Rio partially because the new media resistance in Chicago was so well organized, but also because in general, the sophistication of new media is less advanced in Brazil, which poses less of an ambush marketing threat to official Olympic sponsors like Coca-Cola and Visa. Granted, Brazil is a growing South American power with a stronger economy than most, but not in relation to global impact.

If I were the IOC, I’d much rather deal with Rio than Europe or America in this respect, at least until social media is more defined and the IOC has a better understanding of it. The challenge the IOC has however is similar to that of newspapers who ignored and undermined the internet for years naively believing they could eventually control it.

For the record, I’m pro-Olympics – with a Twist, which means I love the sport, but hate the politics.

I’ve cautioned traditional street protestors in Vancouver for years that the fight is no longer on the ground. It is in the Ethernet and that they are foolish to go head to head with a patriotic IOC army that is hundreds if not thousands of times their size physically and economically.

Anti-Olympic activists will never be successful in their goal to kill the Olympics. You can’t kill an institution so ingrained in society, but if they use social media properly they can help fix it. The IOC purposely polarizes anti and pro Olympic groups because it keeps people in Host communities fighting among themselves instead of finding fault with the IOC – an old Sun Tzu strategy.

Vancouver is the first Olympic city to be in such a powerful “new media” position, but alas we are not organized enough to leverage it properly to force Olympic sponsors to be more accountable respective of athletes and Host communities, which means it will be up to London 2012 to push it over the edge. Social media was almost sophisticated enough in 2008, but the secret partnership between the IOC and communist China regarding mainstream news media caught activists off guard.

The biggest mistake 2010 Vancouver made was to allow, once again, local mainstream news media to partner with the IOC. It should be illegal for an advertiser to have so much economic influence over local newspapers and television, especially when such a large part of the community trusts and mistakenly believes news media to be non partisan. Surprisingly, self titled social media experts in Vancouver don’t see bias as a problem, at least not enough to challenge the conflict of interest relationship. Many were too busy trying to figure out how they could personally benefit from the Olympics instead of helping to improve the system. They literally helped local newspapers sell out our community.

Anti-Olympic activists too were actually more concerned about seeing their names in local newspapers, which basically is a tempest in a teapot from the perspective of Olympic sponsors like McDonalds or GE, than they were about engaging the IOC on a global platform.

Olympic sponsors like Coca-Cola are not intimidated in the least by local complaints in a Host community, but they will however think much differently when complaints from Vancouver of IOC abuse ricochet around the world to future Olympic regions like London, Sochi and Rio. If the IOC can’t attract sponsors they will be forced to treat athletes and Host communities with more respect, or they will go bankrupt. Follow the money.

For new media Olympic activists to succeed they must first address the issue of the IOC partnering with local mainstream news media in Host regions. If this incestuous relationship is undermined, or ideally prohibited, the IOC’s mouthpiece is in effect gagged and a more truthful, realistic message to the community can be more easily distributed. When the IOC no longer controls the message Olympic sponsors will very seriously question whether they can risk associating their brands with an event that has a long history of harming Host communities. At the end of the day it won’t be the IOC that will take the direct hit, it will be companies like Coca-Cola. It’s not a coincidence that four TOPs Olympics sponsor bailed out last year. Kodak, Lenovo, Manulife Financial, and Johnson & Johnson all said adios to the IOC, a record number in all of Olympic history, and all but J&J did so well before the recession was an issue.

One small company in Vancouver that was bullied mercilessly by the IOC, but stood their ground was the Olympia restaurant on Denman. Their story is groundbreaking. I worked with them from the very beginning and used new media strategies to bring their fight with the IOC to a world stage. This little restaurant is a perfect example of the impact new media has on an Olympic region and the IOC.

Here’s their story
http://www.998denman.com/Page2.html

And here’s what Vancouverites think about the IOC respective of the restaurant.
http://www.olyblog.com/f/09/998Denman.shtml

Social media represents the new face of Olympic activism where the mantra is FIX IT! Instead of KILL IT!

Cheers,

Maurice Cardinal

Editor: http://www.OlyBLOG.com
Author: http://www.LeverageOlympicMomentum.com
Timothy Post

Posted February 24, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Is there an online video of your keynote?
Tom Tresser

Posted March 4, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Can we we get copies of the papers from this event? We are the volunteers at No Games Chicago and we successfully organized to stop the 2016 Olympics from coming to our city.

Tom Tresser
Chicago
312-804-3230
tom@tresser.com