 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / April 2004Tasteless use of cat in advertising
I can only hope that the Brits use standards of not harming animals in production of advertising like this. Still - address your outrage to Ford for even protraying it. http://dpkgi.free.fr/files/ka2.mpg RobZip <robzip.takethisout@eudoramail.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > I can only hope that the Brits use standards of not harming > animals in production of advertising like this. Still - address > your outrage to Ford for even protraying it. > > http://dpkgi.free.fr/files/ka2.mpg That's disgusting.  SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? Brandy Alexandre wrote: > RobZip <robzip.takethisout@eudoramail.com> wrote in > rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's disgusting. So are you, but thats another thread somewhere else. ;-) Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck Holy cow, I thought it was going to be something mildly amusing. That's disturbing. > Holy cow, I thought it was going to be something mildly amusing. > That's disturbing. It is but I highly doubt it is really an ad but a clever mock up by someone with some digital skill and a mean streak. Ford ought to sue them. karen > > Holy cow, I thought it was going to be something mildly amusing. > > That's disturbing. > > > It is but I highly doubt it is really an ad but a clever mock up by someone > with some digital skill and a mean streak. Ford ought to sue them. Sue for what? I love animals of all kinds, and I think the commercial -- real or not -- is hilarious. You would think it is funny. I guess it shows how disgusting an individual you are! SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > > in article gpl870ltlfdlvst6e3ja4gqtpd93n7g16l@4ax.com, Mitch@hotmail.com > at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I love animals of all kinds, and I think the commercial -- real or not -- is > hilarious. >> in article gpl870ltlfdlvst6e3ja4gqtpd93n7g16l@4ax.com, Mitch@hotmail.com > at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I love animals of all kinds, and I think the commercial -- real or not -- is > hilarious. Eee. I don't think its funny and I have a fairly dark sense of humor. I was thinking someone released it saying it was Ford but found out different. Karen Ryan Robbins <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> in article gpl870ltlfdlvst6e3ja4gqtpd93n7g16l@4ax.com, >> Mitch@hotmail.com [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I love animals of all kinds, and I think the commercial -- real or > not -- is hilarious. Trademark infrigment, defamation, probably others. Parody is protected, but you are supposed to make it clear it's a parody. SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? > Ryan Robbins <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote in > rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Trademark infrigment, defamation, probably others. Parody is > protected, but you are supposed to make it clear it's a parody. I'm more cynical than you. I suspect it's real and released as a "viral" ad, as the MSNBC article describes it, with Ford positioned to be able to claim plausible deniability, should they need to. They needed to. However, the ad has caught people's attention, and there's a certain mindset (*cough*/testosterone poisoning/*cough*) which might well think this is funny (see above) and take a look at the car as a result. Presto! Extremely cheap effective advertising for Ford. Don't put it past them. Priscilla Priscilla Ballou <vze23t8n@verizon.net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> Ryan Robbins <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote in >> rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > above) and take a look at the car as a result. Presto! Extremely > cheap effective advertising for Ford. Don't put it past them. I posted that before reading the article about viral ads. I doubt highly that the release of the ad was unapproved and unintentional. Note they didn't release the name of the guilty ad agency. That's a sure sign. SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? >However, the ad has caught people's attention, and there's a >certain mindset (*cough*/testosterone poisoning/*cough*) Ah excuse me - there are plenty of women in the advertizing business, so lets not turn this into something else. Hell, you know nothing about the people involved with this ad. -mhd >>However, the ad has caught people's attention, and there's a >>certain mindset (*cough*/testosterone poisoning/*cough*) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >-mhd Yes, this could just as easily be (*cough*/estrogen poisoning/*cough*) You think every woman in the world loves cats? They don't. >>> However, the ad has caught people's attention, and there's a >>> certain mindset (*cough*/testosterone poisoning/*cough*) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You think every woman in the world loves cats? They don't. No, women can be particularly vicious. And everyone has wierd little thoughts, especially when "brainstorming". However, whoever got it pushed through was just plain stupid and blind. Funny it is not. Had the car then let the cat go, it *might* have been *mildly* amusing and still maintained the "bad boy" aspect, but it was just plain bad. The agency certainl has no pulse of society in mind. Perhaps they were thinking of the squirrel commercial where the squirrels run out in front of the car to make it brake, but that's funny because its the underdog getting back. I certainly wouldn't buy a Ford product now. Karen Karen Chuplis <kchuplis@alltel.net> dumped this in news:BC9A2547.25145% kchuplis@alltel.net on 07 Apr 2004: > I certainly wouldn't > buy a Ford product now. You really have to wonder about marketing techniques these days. I read that it was an "idea" because they were marketing "the ka's evil twin" and not meant to go into "print". But in the same way Janet Jackson's PR stunt went wrong, this did too. Viral email, my a.s. They know contraversial content, especially video, runs rampant through email and they were counting on it. SignatureCheryl "Karen Chuplis" <kchuplis@alltel.net> wrote in > > You think every woman in the world loves cats? They don't. > No, women can be particularly vicious. However, boys tend to snigger at gross-out stuff like maiming a lot more often than girls do. > >>However, the ad has caught people's attention, and there's a > >>certain mindset (*cough*/testosterone poisoning/*cough*) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You think every woman in the world loves cats? They don't. true, there are a few complete bitches that dislike them. bob > > You think every woman in the world loves cats? They don't. > > true, there are a few complete bitches that dislike them. Yes, well, there are more than a few complete bitches that LOVE them! ;) > >>However, the ad has caught people's attention, and there's a > >>certain mindset (*cough*/testosterone poisoning/*cough*) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You think every woman in the world loves cats? They don't. Statistically, more males commit animal abuse than females. You can find a list of your states' animal abusers here: http://www.pet-abuse.com/database/ -L. >> >>However, the ad has caught people's attention, and there's a >> >>certain mindset (*cough*/testosterone poisoning/*cough*) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >-L. Hmmmmmm -- what a VERY useful resource....... eq > > >>However, the ad has caught people's attention, and there's a > > >>certain mindset (*cough*/testosterone poisoning/*cough*) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -L. Thanks for this link. The kinds of cases in our states are frightening, aren't they? And you know this is just the tip of the iceburg! :( K hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com quoth: >>However, the ad has caught people's attention, and there's a >>certain mindset (*cough*/testosterone poisoning/*cough*) >Ah excuse me - there are plenty of women in the advertizing business, >so lets not turn this into something else. Hell, you know nothing >about the people involved with this ad. My slander was about the targets of the ad, not the creators of it. Priscilla Signature"I think I might give growing up a miss. After all, I've left it rather late, and what would be the point?" Chris Malcolm in alt.support.menopause > Trademark infrigment, defamation, probably others. Parody is > protected, but you are supposed to make it clear it's a parody. Although the commercial is real, it would still pass as a parody if it were not. Producers of parodies need not make any announcement to that effect. > > Trademark infrigment, defamation, probably others. Parody is > > protected, but you are supposed to make it clear it's a parody. > > Although the commercial is real, it would still pass as a parody if it were > not. Producers of parodies need not make any announcement to that effect. I think it works better as parody. The Ka is an anodyne little thing and would not be 'evil' even if Lucifer himself was driving a red one at 60mph through a school playground while hurling handfuls of crack pipes out of the sunroof. Steve. circa 8 Apr 2004 07:02:07 -0700, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Steve G (news@stevethepsycho.co.uk) said, > > > Trademark infrigment, defamation, probably others. Parody is > > > protected, but you are supposed to make it clear it's a parody. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > at 60mph through a school playground while hurling handfuls of crack > pipes out of the sunroof. But an ad portraying it doing so would be no more disgusting. Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. I found it funny too. I'm sure it wasn't meant to encourage people to abuse animals. Somehow Super Dave Osbourne comes to mind. > > in article gpl870ltlfdlvst6e3ja4gqtpd93n7g16l@4ax.com, Mitch@hotmail.com > at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I love animals of all kinds, and I think the commercial -- real or not -- is > hilarious. > I can only hope that the Brits use standards of not harming animals in > production of advertising like this. Still - address your outrage to Ford > for even protraying it. > > http://dpkgi.free.fr/files/ka2.mpg That was horrid. I don't suppose you have any contact info to bitch about it, do you? Are you sure it's a real commercial and not some sick person's idea of humor? For those who have problems with mpg files, it's a car (ford focus from the look of it) with an automatic sliding roof thing that decapitates a cat. Signature-- ~kaeli~ Does the name Pavlov ring a bell? http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace > For those who have problems with mpg files, it's a car (ford focus from > the look of it) with an automatic sliding roof thing that decapitates a > cat. Oh no , that is sick . I don't remember seeing that but I should think that would bring a storm of protest. I'll check with the Uk forums. Alison > I can only hope that the Brits use standards of not harming animals in > production of advertising like this. Still - address your outrage to Ford > for even protraying it. > > http://dpkgi.free.fr/files/ka2.mpg I think that is a fake ad. Karen Chuplis <kchuplis@alltel.net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> I can only hope that the Brits use standards of not harming >> animals in production of advertising like this. Still - address [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > I think that is a fake ad. I was thinking it was a spoof because I don't think Ford is that stupid. It's still disgusting, though. I'm wondering what the ad it is spoofing is like. Does it have a cat? Have you guys seen the Nokia ad with the cat and the ceiling fan? Funny, but not. Nowhere near as bad as the Ford. SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? circa Wed, 07 Apr 2004 22:15:31 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Brandy??Alexandre (brandy@kamikaze.orgy) said, > Have you guys seen the Nokia ad with the cat and the ceiling fan? > Funny, but not. Nowhere near as bad as the Ford. Nokia stridently denies that the ad is legit, claiming that it was offered up as a proposal by some company in AU, IIRC. Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. Laura R. <UseFirstInitialPlusRobinson@technologist.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > circa Wed, 07 Apr 2004 22:15:31 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, > Brandy??Alexandre (brandy@kamikaze.orgy) said, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Laura Hmm, isn't that the same excuse Ford just made? SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? wow. that was horrible. what kind of asshat thinks up that kind of advertising? peace, pam "Enjoy every second of your life...it may end at any time and you may come back as some loser with bad taste." -my friend JoeyJojo ***notice spam blocker*** > wow. that was horrible. what kind of asshat thinks up that kind of advertising? Asshat? You a Farker? ;) Signature-- ~kaeli~ Dancing cheek-to-cheek is really a form of floor play. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace > I can only hope that the Brits use standards of not harming animals in > production of advertising like this. Still - address your outrage to Ford > for even protraying it. > > http://dpkgi.free.fr/files/ka2.mpg I guess it is a real ad idea anyway: http://www.newsletters.newsweek.msnbc.com/id/4654169/ Yeesh. I can believe some dork thought this was "clever" advertising. Glad I don't own a Ford. Karen > Yeesh. I can believe some dork thought this was "clever" advertising. Glad I > don't own a Ford. > > Karen There was another ad in this series for the same car. A pigeon flies down from a tree across the street and is swatted by the hood of the vehicle flying up, causing a spray of feathers and the bird landing in the street. I've got a dark side that will rival anyone's and macabre humor to go with it. But even I draw the line at harming animals whether real or not. circa Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:26:16 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, RobZip (robzip.takethisout@eudoramail.com) said, > > Yeesh. I can believe some dork thought this was "clever" advertising. Glad > I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > from a tree across the street and is swatted by the hood of the vehicle > flying up, causing a spray of feathers and the bird landing in the street. That's what the link Karen posted said, as well. Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. Karen Chuplis <kchuplis@alltel.net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> I can only hope that the Brits use standards of not harming >> animals in production of advertising like this. Still - address [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Karen Interesting, but "yeah right." "Ford has been trying to build a "bad boy" image for the SportKa, an overpowered version of its tiny Ka pitched as "the Ka's evil twin". It flatly denied releasing the video deliberately to boost this image." SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? << Yeesh. I can believe some dork thought this was "clever" advertising. Glad I don't own a Ford. Karen >> Great. I have a mac and can't even see this link and we own 2 Fords. I can look at it at work tomorrow but I don't think I want to. Candace (take the litter out before replying by e-mail) See my cats: http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace "One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other than human." (Loren Eisely) > << Yeesh. I can believe some dork thought this was "clever" advertising. Glad > I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other > than human." (Loren Eisely) It's not gross, just disgusting and somewhat disturbing. Karen << It's not gross, just disgusting and somewhat disturbing. Karen >> I saw it right after I posted that. The crappy AOL browser wouldn't open it but I remembered I also have IE and it worked. Yeah, I didn't much care for it either. Candace (take the litter out before replying by e-mail) See my cats: http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace "One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other than human." (Loren Eisely) Ford should be shot for this one! Was that possibly an animotronic cat used for the head cutoff scene? SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > I can only hope that the Brits use standards of not harming animals in > production of advertising like this. Still - address your outrage to Ford > for even protraying it. > > http://dpkgi.free.fr/files/ka2.mpg > Ford should be shot for this one! Was that possibly an animotronic cat used > for the head cutoff scene? I'm sure it is digital. Karen > > Ford should be shot for this one! Was that possibly an animotronic cat used > > for the head cutoff scene? > > I'm sure it is digital. > > Karen Digital, animatronics, real or imagined, the end result is the same. It reinforces the idea that somebody thinks a cat dying a terrible death is a humor item. With the constant stream of cruelty cases - particularly against cats - this is unacceptable. Even though the news article says Ford rejected the idea outright, *somebody* in the ad agency thought it would be cute to turn the ad loose anyways and here we have it. > Digital, animatronics, real or imagined, the end result is the same. No it's not. > It > reinforces the idea that somebody thinks a cat dying a terrible death is a > humor item. People every day laugh at death. It helps us get through life. Death can be funny, especially when it is ironic. You have to look at death in terms of its place in the grand scheme of things. Some people die horrible deaths that are not funny. Some people die in freak accidents -- sort of God's way of demonstrating how bizarre life and death can be. Of course death isn't funny to those close to it. It rarely is. But that doesn't mean death as a phenomenon that has many causes can't be funny. Let's be realistic here. Nobody killed a cat to make that dummy commercial. If somebody had killed a cat to make the commercial, then yes, it would not be funny. But no cat died or was injured. Geez, the commercial was about a possessed car. The commercial did not feature somebody killing the cat. As for anyone who might make the weird leap of logic that the commercial says it's OK to abuse animals and recreate the commercial (which would be hard to do considering that the commercial did not feature a person killing the cat), that person already has problems, problems the commercial certainly did not create. Look at how absurd commercials are getting with disclaimers saying "dramatization" when a pickup truck tows a ship through ice or tows a jetliner so fast that the plane takes off. > As for anyone who might make the weird leap of logic that the commercial > says it's OK to abuse animals The connection really doesn't have to be that direct. What the commercial says is that there are others out there who don't like (hate?) cats and it most definitely validates the idea that abusing them is okay if you don't like them. As far as a direct recreation of the events in that ad, I'd agree - most likely won't ever happen. RobZip <robzip.takethisout@eudoramail.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> As for anyone who might make the weird leap of logic that the >> commercial says it's OK to abuse animals [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > recreation of the events in that ad, I'd agree - most likely won't > ever happen. Agreed mostly. You get some Jackass devotee who thinks, "Dude, would a sun roof, like, totally actually take a cat's head off? My sister has a cat..." SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? > The connection really doesn't have to be that direct. What the commercial > says is that there are others out there who don't like (hate?) cats It's a car that kills the cat in the commercial. No human or other animal killed the cat. > and it > most definitely validates the idea that abusing them is okay if you don't > like them. That's quite a leap in logic. So any television show, movie, play, song, book, poem or story that has a murder in it is "validating" the idea that it's OK to kill? I don't think so. >> Digital, animatronics, real or imagined, the end result is the same. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >"dramatization" when a pickup truck tows a ship through ice or tows a >jetliner so fast that the plane takes off. You hit it right on the head when you stated that people who are already sick will think it is funny and try to do the same thing. That is the problem! Do you work for the company? > You hit it right on the head when you stated that people who are > already sick will think it is funny and try to do the same thing. > That is the problem! Television doesn't make people do things. >> You hit it right on the head when you stated that people who are >> already sick will think it is funny and try to do the same thing. >> That is the problem! > > Television doesn't make people do things. I don't know. I've been known to buy a Whopper when I normally wouldn't have because the commercial makes me think I'm hungry. karen circa Fri, 09 Apr 2004 02:32:17 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Ryan Robbins (redbird007@verizon.net) said, > > You hit it right on the head when you stated that people who are > > already sick will think it is funny and try to do the same thing. > > That is the problem! > > Television doesn't make people do things. Clearly you didn't major in sociology. Stupid, sick people do stupid, sick things. Sometimes even stupid, sick things they see on television. Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. > circa Fri, 09 Apr 2004 02:32:17 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, > Ryan Robbins (redbird007@verizon.net) said, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Stupid, sick people do stupid, sick things. Sometimes even stupid, > sick things they see on television. No, I have a degree in psychology and journalism, and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that no television and no program has ever made a viewer do anything. What world are you living in? There have been court cases and even news stories which some people have done in real life what they saw on television. Kids especially are victims because a lot of them will actually act out what they see in movies, and on TV. You claim to have degrees but you certainly don't seem too educated to me. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > No, I have a degree in psychology and journalism, and I can tell you beyond > a shadow of a doubt that no television and no program has ever made a viewer > do anything. > What world are you living in? There have been court cases and even news > stories which some people have done in real life what they saw on > television. Kids especially are victims because a lot of them will actually > act out what they see in movies, and on TV. You claim to have degrees but > you certainly don't seem too educated to me. Can you read? Do you know the difference between "influence" and "make"? If I do something I saw on television, does that mean the television or the program MADE me do it? I can read. Can you? Apparently you can't tell the difference between give it up or not. It seems to me you hard pressed to convince everyone you are right. For someone who claims to have two degrees you certainly seem un-educated. There have been court cases where kids claimed they saw some violent act on TV and imitated it. Adults have also committed crimes because of something they saw on TV or in a movie. I think you need to stop with your knowitall attitude and listen to what others have to say. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > Can you read? Do you know the difference between "influence" and "make"? > > If I do something I saw on television, does that mean the television or the > program MADE me do it? > I can read. Can you? Apparently you can't tell the difference between give > it up or not. It seems to me you hard pressed to convince everyone you are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of something they saw on TV or in a movie. I think you need to stop with > your knowitall attitude and listen to what others have to say. I really think you need to read better. You're trying to tell me that a television set or a program MADE a viewer do something? Do you know what "made" means? That's a huge difference from "influenced." This is not quibbling over semantics. You might do something because of X. But that does not mean that X MADE you do it. > > I can read. Can you? Apparently you can't tell the difference between give > > it up or not. It seems to me you hard pressed to convince everyone you are [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You might do something because of X. But that does not mean that X MADE you > do it. This is the mark of a person losing an argument. Karen >> > I can read. Can you? Apparently you can't tell the difference between >give [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Karen That's true, but Cat Protector has been losing for a very long time now. eq >>>> I can read. Can you? Apparently you can't tell the difference between >> give [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > eq The attribute is to Ryan. >>>>> I can read. Can you? Apparently you can't tell the difference between >>> give [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >The attribute is to Ryan. Maybe, but the path of least logical resistance flows right to CP...... eq >>>>>> I can read. Can you? Apparently you can't tell the difference between >>>> give [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > eq heh Equalizer can say what he/she wants but I don't think he/she is worth the response. I killfiled that person a long time ago. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > > >>>>>> I can read. Can you? Apparently you can't tell the difference between [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > heh >Equalizer can say what he/she wants but I don't think he/she is worth the >response. I killfiled that person a long time ago. http://makeashorterlink.com/?C1AC42CF7 circa Sat, 10 Apr 2004 06:22:17 -0400, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, equalizer <> (equalizer <>) said, > >Equalizer can say what he/she wants but I don't think he/she is worth the > >response. I killfiled that person a long time ago. > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?C1AC42CF7 <snork> You must be bored this weekend, poking at the wingnut for mild entertainment value. ;-) Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. >circa Sat, 10 Apr 2004 06:22:17 -0400, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, >equalizer <> (equalizer <>) said, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Laura For some reason, it just never gets old. Then again, I'm into climbing mountains, and hurling down untracked snow in the middle of nowhere with two sticks attached to my feet also. Butting heads with CP just confirms that aspect of my personality -- repeating the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. They tell me I must be insane to do the former stuff --there ya go! eq circa Sat, 10 Apr 2004 16:44:21 -0400, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, equalizer <> (equalizer <>) said, > ><snork> You must be bored this weekend, poking at the wingnut for > >mild entertainment value. ;-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > over, and expecting different results. They tell me I must be insane to > do the former stuff --there ya go! BTDT. :-) Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. > > I really think you need to read better. You're trying to tell me that a > > television set or a program MADE a viewer do something? Do you know what [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > This is the mark of a person losing an argument. New to this thread; but had to jump in when I saw this. Particularly because your "mark of someone losing an argument" is a really dumb comment to make about someone trying to repeated explain a solid argument to someone else who isn't refuting it - just ignoring the explaination. I believe what Ryan is trying to explain a very important difference that while it is semantics, it is also what makes a world of difference. (Which is why semantics ARE important). So, to take the explaination to a more basic clear level for those slow on the uptake: If the TV made said hypothetical person do this, then the person would have had no prior inclination and no ability to stop themselves. If however, someone was 'influenced' by the tv, then they saw something that they were already inclined to do and would have done in some form or another. The Big Mac argument made earlier is a great example. I detest mcdonald's food so no amount of advertising is going to make me want a Big Mac. circa 10 Apr 2004 23:12:25 -0700, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Aquagrrl (aquagrrl@my-deja.com) said, > New to this thread; but had to jump in when I saw this. > > Particularly because your "mark of someone losing an argument" is a > really dumb comment to make about someone trying to repeated explain a > solid argument to someone else who isn't refuting it - just ignoring > the explaination. You should have observed context before defending his "explaination" [sic]. " > > > > You hit it right on the head when you stated that people who are > > > > already sick will think it is funny and try to do the same thing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Stupid, sick people do stupid, sick things. Sometimes even stupid, > > sick things they see on television. > No, I have a degree in psychology and journalism, and I can tell you beyond > a shadow of a doubt that no television and no program has ever made a viewer > do anything." If our supposed jounalism-degreed poster *really* meant to differentiate between "influenced" and "forced", then his response was either intentionally unclear or it was a case of somebody with a rather poor mastery of the language whose semantics he claims to embrace not being capable of typing what he really intended to say. Either way, what he typed was not indicative of nor consistent with his subsequent claims. Personally, I think it's "really dumb" to ignore the original post that was being discussed when defending its author's subsequent backpedalling. Laura SignatureThe fellow who thinks he knows it all is especially annoying to those of us who do. -Harold Coffin Aquagrrl <aquagrrl@my-deja.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> > I really think you need to read better. You're trying to tell >> > me that a television set or a program MADE a viewer do [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > earlier is a great example. I detest mcdonald's food so no amount > of advertising is going to make me want a Big Mac. So, Ryan, you ran to Google to sockpuppet yourself some support. That's interesting. SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? You are fighting a losing battle. Instead of being so dense you can admit you are wrong and move on. You claim to have all this education but you seem pretty dumb to me. Perhaps you just made it up just to make yourself look better. That seems to be more and more the case every time you post. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > I really think you need to read better. You're trying to tell me that a > television set or a program MADE a viewer do something? Do you know what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You might do something because of X. But that does not mean that X MADE you > do it. > You are fighting a losing battle. Instead of being so dense you can admit > you are wrong and move on. You claim to have all this education but you seem > pretty dumb to me. Perhaps you just made it up just to make yourself look > better. That seems to be more and more the case every time you post. Someone brought up education. I responded. I think it's pretty dumb for someone to claim they have no control over their actions and that a television program made them do something. >> You are fighting a losing battle. Instead of being so dense you can admit >> you are wrong and move on. You claim to have all this education but you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I think it's pretty dumb for someone to claim they have no control over >their actions and that a television program made them do something. Ryan, I can see that you haven't been in this forum long, at least under your current moniker. Please save yourself the trouble -- MANY before you have gone down the path you now believe yourself to be freshly blazing. Here's a shortcut -- Google Cat Protector and spend a bit of time reading his history. He's considered the Village Idiot here, you'll see why. Don't bother trying to blaze the path again -- it's been tried over and over by unsuspecting "pioneers". CP is most likely a developmentally disabled individual who is incapable of accountability or rational reason. He's most likely living under the care of wealthy relatives in an assisted living situation. Your choice, but you're just going to find you've been knocking your head against a brick wall if you continue. eq You brought up education. Why don't you just quit this argument? SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > Someone brought up education. I responded. > > I think it's pretty dumb for someone to claim they have no control over > their actions and that a television program made them do something. >You are fighting a losing battle. Instead of being so dense you can admit >you are wrong and move on. You claim to have all this education but you seem >pretty dumb to me. Perhaps you just made it up just to make yourself look >better. That seems to be more and more the case every time you post. irony-meter® 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 !----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----! /\ !! > >You are fighting a losing battle. Instead of being so dense you can admit > >you are wrong and move on. You claim to have all this education but you seem [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > !----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----! /\ !! LOL!! Great minds .... > You are fighting a losing battle. Instead of being so dense you can admit > you are wrong and move on. CP knows what he is talking about here, buddy. I'd listen to him. :') circa Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:41:07 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Ryan Robbins (redbird007@verizon.net) said, > This is not > quibbling over semantics. Yes, it is. Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. circa Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:47:58 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Ryan Robbins (redbird007@verizon.net) said, > > What world are you living in? There have been court cases and even news > > stories which some people have done in real life what they saw on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If I do something I saw on television, does that mean the television or the > program MADE me do it? As a supposed journalist, I would think that you would learn to phrase your opinions clearly enough that you wouldn't feel the need to play the pedant in defending them. Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. Laura R. <UseFirstInitialPlusRobinson@technologist.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > As a supposed journalist, I would think that you would learn to > phrase your opinions clearly enough that you wouldn't feel the need > to play the pedant in defending them. You must be joking. So-called "journalists" these day apparently don't have any prerequisites for English. I hear it all over the TV and radio, and even see it in print. Grammar and word choice is very high school, if that. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times in the span of a month they say "less" when it should be "fewer," "regime" when it should be "regimen," "that" when it should be "who," and so on. Not to mention the professional use of word like "stuff" and "busted," interspersed with the extragrammatical use of "like" and "you know." Cringeworthy, I tell you. SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? >You must be joking. So-called "journalists" these day apparently don't >have any prerequisites for English. I hear it all over the TV and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Cringeworthy, I tell you. I learned *long* ago to take anyone boasting of a degree in Journalism with a grain of salt. I worked in print media for 30 years, and I can't count the number of "degreed" reporters who can't spell, can't punctuate, or construct a decent sentence, let alone use the right words ...they somehow manage to continue working in the field, but only thanks to good proofreaders. Apologies to the good, competent reporters/writers out there..obviously this doesn't apply to you...but I often wondered *how* in the world some of those people managed to acquire that degree in the first place. Sherry Sherry > I learned *long* ago to take anyone boasting of a degree in Journalism with a > grain of salt. "Journalism" should be lowercase. :-) > I worked in print media for 30 years, and I can't count the > number of "degreed" You should recast that sentence. It's awkward. And "degree" doesn't work as a verb in that instance. You won't find me making too many mistakes. >> I learned *long* ago to take anyone boasting of a degree in >> Journalism [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You won't find me making too many mistakes. Sentences don't start with "And". SignatureCheryl Cheryl <jlhshadow@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >>> I learned *long* ago to take anyone boasting of a degree in >>> Journalism [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Sentences don't start with "And". To be fair, sometimes they do. It's a rule that has been going out of style. However (and I do know that "however" should be prefaced by a semi-colon, but that's another flagging rule), if you do start a sentence with "and" or "but," it should be followed by a comma. But, it was a good catch. ;) SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? >> Sentences don't start with "And". > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >But, it was a good catch. ;) It's curious how language evolves, and what was once incorrect is now acceptable. It's still bad form, IMO, and looks awkward...especially for someone who is trying to show off his awesome level of ed-ja-ka-shun. Sherry > >> Sentences don't start with "And". > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Sherry Yes, in a technical document, one would not want to start a sentence with "and". I think in a newsgroup its a little less relivant, and definately not a crime that someone using informalities such as "IMO" and randomly place elipses should criticize. Just pointing out that the pot is black as well. circa 10 Apr 2004 23:35:59 -0700, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Aquagrrl (aquagrrl@my-deja.com) said, > > It's curious how language evolves, and what was once incorrect is now > > acceptable. It's still bad form, IMO, and looks awkward...especially for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, in a technical document, one would not want to start a sentence > with "and". I think in a newsgroup its a little less relivant, So, in one breath, you berate people for not taking his words absolutely literally, and then in the next, you say that leeway should be granted in newsgroups. Make up your mind. Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. >Yes, in a technical document, one would not want to start a sentence >with "and". I think in a newsgroup its a little less relivant, and >definately not a crime that someone using informalities such as "IMO" >and randomly place elipses should criticize. Just pointing out that >the pot is black as well. You might want to check the thread again. I'm not the amateur proofreader on this thread--Ryan proofread my post, make a jackass out of himself in the process, and was corrected. You seem to be the pot here...and honey, IMO, you shouldn't be offering your services as a proofreader yourself, or be offering suggestions about what is "relivant" or the placement of "elipses." Sherry circa 11 Apr 2004 07:00:05 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Sherry (sriddles@aol.comkitty) said, > >Yes, in a technical document, one would not want to start a sentence > >with "and". I think in a newsgroup its a little less relivant, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > shouldn't be offering your services as a proofreader yourself, or be offering > suggestions about what is "relivant" or the placement of "elipses." Don't forget "definately". ;-) Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. >circa 11 Apr 2004 07:00:05 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Sherry >(sriddles@aol.comkitty) said, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Laura Or "its." I wonder if she can spell "glue trap." Sherry Laura R. <UseFirstInitialPlusRobinson@technologist.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > circa 11 Apr 2004 07:00:05 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, > Sherry (sriddles@aol.comkitty) said, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Laura Argh!!! I HATE that one. Why do SO MANY people believe it's spelled that way? SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? "Brandy Alexandre" <brandy@kamikaze.orgy> wrote > > Don't forget "definately". ;-) > > > > Laura > > Argh!!! I HATE that one. Why do SO MANY people believe it's spelled > that way? Well now that's a whole SEPERATE issue. :') That's the one I hate the most. "Aquagrrl" <aquagrrl@my-deja.com> wrote i > Yes, in a technical document, one would not want to start a sentence > with "and". I think in a newsgroup its a little less relivant Ooo, ooo, use yer spell check, girl. I wouldn't spelling lame you except for the current content of this diverted thread. Aquagrrl <aquagrrl@my-deja.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > Yes, in a technical document, one would not want to start a sentence > with "and". I think in a newsgroup its a little less relivant, and > definately not a crime that someone using informalities such as "IMO" > and randomly place elipses should criticize. Just pointing out that > the pot is black as well. I don't care about Usenet at all. I don't proofread anything and type much to quickly to have level of consistent accuracy. This is my off- time and I'll be damned if I'll do here what I do at work all day. That said, when someone starts in on what it written and how it's written, I'll start correcting them big time. Because claiming any specialized skill and/or knowledge in writing (such as a degree in journalism) they're just begging for it. And like all spelling flames, the one who starts them usually ends up looking like an idiot. I rather enjoy that in a sick way. ;) SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? > if you do start a > sentence with "and" or "but," it should be followed by a comma. No it shouldn't. Ryan Robbins <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >> if you do start a >> sentence with "and" or "but," it should be followed by a comma. > > No it shouldn't. According to who? What refrence are you using? Chicago? SignatureBrandy??Alexandre http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? --- Why are people with closed minds first to open their mouths? > Ryan Robbins <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote in > rec.pets.cats.health+behav: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > According to who? What refrence are you using? Chicago? It's standard punctuation. circa Sun, 11 Apr 2004 05:09:47 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Brandy??Alexandre (brandy@kamikaze.orgy) said, > >> if you do start a > >> sentence with "and" or "but," it should be followed by a comma. > > > > No it shouldn't. > > According to who? What refrence are you using? Chicago? I doubt that either Chicago or Strunk & White lie nestled in his library. I'm of the opinion, personally, that *if* a sentence is started with a conjunction (which I consider colloquialism rather than proper grammar) that it should not be followed by a comma. Let me emphasize, however, that I do not think that somebody who is critiquing the appropriateness of another's sentence construction should start any of the sentences in his commentary with the word "and". Then again, the boy doesn't know the differences between verbs, adjectives or adverbs, so it's not as if we're dealing with a wordsmith here. Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. > I doubt that either Chicago or Strunk & White lie nestled in his > library. "The Elements of Style." Yup. It's on my bookcase. Gee, I have several other writing reference books as well. > I'm of the opinion, personally, that *if* a sentence is started with > a conjunction (which I consider colloquialism rather than proper [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the boy doesn't know the differences between verbs, adjectives or > adverbs, so it's not as if we're dealing with a wordsmith here. So I made a mistake. At least I admitted it. People do make mistakes. But starting a sentence with a conjunction is not one of them. circa Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:47:45 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Ryan Robbins (redbird007@verizon.net) said, > > I doubt that either Chicago or Strunk & White lie nestled in his > > library. > > "The Elements of Style." Yup. It's on my bookcase. > > Gee, I have several other writing reference books as well. Excellent. Perhaps you should peruse them. > > I'm of the opinion, personally, that *if* a sentence is started with > > a conjunction (which I consider colloquialism rather than proper [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So I made a mistake. At least I admitted it. Actually, you followed up my pointing out that you'd posted an erroneous "correction" with yet another incorrect claim, and referred to me by saying "but someone thought she could get cute by saying it was obvious I didn't major in sociology." If that's admission, your apologies must be truly charming. > People do make mistakes. But starting a sentence with a conjunction is not > one of them. And you apparently suffer difficulty in reading my posts, since *I* quite clearly stated is *colloquialism*, not "mistake". For somebody who is so very insistent on debating the difference between "influenced" and "made", you certainly seem to have an inability to acurately reading what others write. If you'd simply admitted that you'd made a mistake, or better still, not started this discussion of semantics and grammar while lacking the tools to crush your opponents, you'd have been far better off. As I said, it is clear to me, and to others, that you either *intended* to start this pedantic discussion, or you failed to construct your original statement clearly enough to project what you actually meant to say. Either way, you'd have presented yourself much better had you either folded your cards and walked away from the table or explained *graciously* that you'd perhaps not been clear in your original statement. Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. << So I made a mistake. At least I admitted it. >> Really? I guess I missed it. I read where you said you didn't make mistakes. Candace (take the litter out before replying by e-mail) See my cats: http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace "One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other than human." (Loren Eisely) > << So I made a mistake. At least I admitted it. >> > > Really? I guess I missed it. I read where you said you didn't make mistakes. I guess you missed what I said, then. > I doubt that either Chicago or Strunk & White lie nestled in his > library. Is Strunk and White easier to use than the CM of S? I find the latter frustrating when I have to call upon it for something. (Which is rarely now that I am not writing for publication on a regular basis.) circa Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:10:28 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Mary (rosefan@email.com) said, > > I doubt that either Chicago or Strunk & White lie nestled in his > > library. > > Is Strunk and White easier to use than the CM of S? I find the latter > frustrating when I have to call upon it for something. ( |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message