People are stupid

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:49:11 -0700, "Bob G."
wrote:

I think that calling the person who called the seller stupid is stupid.

Who would have guessed it? DeMayo is trying to pull another thread
into the gutter. He's an unethical trolling dullard who seeks to
disrupt threads. Again and again and again.


Another sock puppet?

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:37:07 +0100, Tony Clayton
wrote:

Sometimes being 'realistic' helps.

A local pub used to advertise 'Warm beer. Bad food' and the place was very popular.
Mind you, I never felt attracted enough to go!

Honesty and advertising are almost by definition contradictory. g
But the best advertising is as much informational as it is
promotional. Problem is there are precious few examples of it.

Among the more interesting ads are debate ads. Two sandwich chains
here in the U.S., Quiznos and Subway, have been going at it. Actually,
it's been Quiznos attacking Subway, with Subway, thus far, not
responding directly. Only Quiznos is attacking stupidly, attacking
Subway for making tasteless sandwiches. Subway has promoted itself for
making healthy sandwiches, low in fat, and in my experience their
sandwiches are both healthy and tasty. Comparatively, the sandwiches
of Quiznos appear to be high in saturated fat and salt, so they're
tasty I guess to people who are used to eating junk food.

Quiznos looked at stupid as any company I can remember looking when it
promoted in one of it commercials a cheesesteak that appears to be
about as unhealthy a sandwich as you could possibly devise. It had a
woman say, "It's not lacking any meat, and that's what real women
need." I just checked the Wikipedia entry for Quiznos, and it seems
that other people felt the same way about the stupidity of that
statement.

Actually, here's my nomination for the unhealthiest sandwich possible:
bacon and American cheese on white bread. Grill it in lard, and throw
in a side order of pork rinds, eat one twice a week, and you're almost
guaranteed to have heart disease in ten years, not to mention cancer
from the nitrates and smoke in the bacon.

Talking about off-topic. g

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:37:07 +0100, Tony Clayton
wrote:

Sometimes being 'realistic' helps.

A local pub used to advertise 'Warm beer. Bad food' and the place was very
popular.
Mind you, I never felt attracted enough to go!

Honesty and advertising are almost by definition contradictory. g
But the best advertising is as much informational as it is
promotional. Problem is there are precious few examples of it.

Among the more interesting ads are debate ads. Two sandwich chains
here in the U.S., Quiznos and Subway, have been going at it. Actually,
it's been Quiznos attacking Subway, with Subway, thus far, not
responding directly. Only Quiznos is attacking stupidly, attacking
Subway for making tasteless sandwiches. Subway has promoted itself for
making healthy sandwiches, low in fat, and in my experience their
sandwiches are both healthy and tasty. Comparatively, the sandwiches
of Quiznos appear to be high in saturated fat and salt, so they're
tasty I guess to people who are used to eating junk food.

Quiznos looked at stupid as any company I can remember looking when it
promoted in one of it commercials a cheesesteak that appears to be
about as unhealthy a sandwich as you could possibly devise. It had a
woman say, "It's not lacking any meat, and that's what real women
need." I just checked the Wikipedia entry for Quiznos, and it seems
that other people felt the same way about the stupidity of that
statement.

Actually, here's my nomination for the unhealthiest sandwich possible:
bacon and American cheese on white bread. Grill it in lard, and throw
in a side order of pork rinds, eat one twice a week, and you're almost
guaranteed to have heart disease in ten years, not to mention cancer
from the nitrates and smoke in the bacon.

I've eaten that kind of stuff for over 60 years and am as healthy and at a
perfect weight as one could expect to be at this age. Most people my age
grew up on it, too, before those dueling scientists began to find fault with
classic food pyramids and just about every type of food along with how it's
prepared. Most all the things you mentioned were part of a healthy diet at
one time. I do eat the "good stuff" du jour, too. It's not as tasty,
though.

Bruce

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:06:48 -0500, "PC"
wrote:

Another sock puppet?

I don't know if DeMayo uses sockpuppets to try to disrupt threads.
Does he? Do you have any evidence for this, other names he uses? I do
know he does this under his real name, typically with picayune
criticisms and gratuitous attacks unrelated to the main subject of the
discussion. I just left an off-topic response, about dumb advertising
but not coin-related, admitting this in the response itself, and the
kind of thing DeMayo does is criticize this as my being hypocritical
because I just said he posts off-topic criticisms and attacks. It's
these kinds of hyperpetty, smarmy actions, combined with a total
absence of acknowledgement and responsibility for anything he does,
that makes what he does here the equivalent of a civics teacher
deliberately and repeatedly scratching his fingernails across the
blackboard in front of his class.

Here's another image, relevant too I think. DeMayo is like Butterbean,
this mixed martial arts heavyweight fighter who's short and fat and
whose main skill seems to be the ability to take a punch. I watch
these UFC fights on TV sometimes. It's boxing taken to the next level,
a combination of boxing and wresting and karate and judo, still with
rules but more akin to street fighting, with combatants using not just
their fists but also their elbows, knees, feet, and so on. Anyway,
this Butterbean gets pummeled horribly but keeps on fighting. That's
DeMayo. He keeps initiating these attacks here, stupidly, and never
knows when to stop, when he's beaten. I included the word "stupidly"
not only because it's relevant here but also because stupidity is one
of the themes of this thread. g

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message news:nrZyi.11737
I've eaten that kind of stuff for over 60 years and am as healthy and at a
perfect weight as one could expect to be at this age. Most people my age
grew up on it, too, before those dueling scientists began to find fault
with classic food pyramids and just about every type of food along with
how it's prepared. Most all the things you mentioned were part of a
healthy diet at one time. I do eat the "good stuff" du jour, too. It's
not as tasty, though.

Bruce



Genetics has more to do with your health issues than all the stuff you eat.
If you have good genetics, you can pretty much eat anything and get away
with it. If you have bad genetics you have to watch what you eat or your
going to pay the price. So it is not so much about choosing betwixt Subway
and Quiznos, but rather the genetics you have and the choices you should
make with that knowledge.

"Ukraina Dvi" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message news:nrZyi.11737
I've eaten that kind of stuff for over 60 years and am as healthy and at
a perfect weight as one could expect to be at this age. Most people my
age grew up on it, too, before those dueling scientists began to find
fault with classic food pyramids and just about every type of food along
with how it's prepared. Most all the things you mentioned were part of a
healthy diet at one time. I do eat the "good stuff" du jour, too. It's
not as tasty, though.

Bruce



Genetics has more to do with your health issues than all the stuff you
eat. If you have good genetics, you can pretty much eat anything and get
away with it. If you have bad genetics you have to watch what you eat or
your going to pay the price. So it is not so much about choosing betwixt
Subway and Quiznos, but rather the genetics you have and the choices you
should make with that knowledge.

That's worked in my favor. I have always bought into that theory. My
father collected coins and stamps, and liked tripe and Indian pudding. My
mother hated my comic books and gum cards, but loved lobster and sherry.
Me? I don't know what the hell to do.

Bruce

On Aug 22, 11:29?am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:06:48 -0500, "PC"
wrote:

Another sock puppet?

I don't know if DeMayo uses sockpuppets....
....ad hominem attack snipped

Uuuh, no, that would be you.

Isn't this the guy who accused me of trying to sabotage this thread
and drag the discussion into the gutter with my one response to
another poster?

In article ,
says...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message news:nrZyi.11737
I've eaten that kind of stuff for over 60 years and am as healthy and at a
perfect weight as one could expect to be at this age. Most people my age
grew up on it, too, before those dueling scientists began to find fault
with classic food pyramids and just about every type of food along with
how it's prepared. Most all the things you mentioned were part of a
healthy diet at one time. I do eat the "good stuff" du jour, too. It's
not as tasty, though.


Genetics has more to do with your health issues than all the stuff you eat.
If you have good genetics, you can pretty much eat anything and get away
with it. If you have bad genetics you have to watch what you eat or your
going to pay the price. So it is not so much about choosing betwixt Subway
and Quiznos, but rather the genetics you have and the choices you should
make with that knowledge.


If I ever get cancer, I'm gonna haul my parents into court, and
sue them for every dollar they have.


--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:35:14 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

Consumer Reports on
its inside back cover has a department titled "Selling It" in which it
reports examples of companies in general doing just this, using hype
and other misrepresentation in ads and on packaging in selling
products and services.


The greatest hype-job going today are the ads for the erectile
disfunction products that warn that if the user has an erection that
last for four hours or more that they should see a doctor.

The first-known negative side-effect that makes the product more
attractive than a product without a negative side-effect.


My understanding is that, if Mister Happy absolutely refuses to
relax for long enough, it starts really hurting. And the
treatment involves making incisions to let the blood drain out.


--
Want Privacy?
http://www.MinistryOfPrivacy.com/

wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message news:nrZyi.11737
I've eaten that kind of stuff for over 60 years and am as healthy and
at a
perfect weight as one could expect to be at this age. Most people my
age
grew up on it, too, before those dueling scientists began to find fault
with classic food pyramids and just about every type of food along with
how it's prepared. Most all the things you mentioned were part of a
healthy diet at one time. I do eat the "good stuff" du jour, too.
It's
not as tasty, though.


Genetics has more to do with your health issues than all the stuff you
eat.
If you have good genetics, you can pretty much eat anything and get away
with it. If you have bad genetics you have to watch what you eat or your
going to pay the price. So it is not so much about choosing betwixt
Subway
and Quiznos, but rather the genetics you have and the choices you should
make with that knowledge.


If I ever get cancer, I'm gonna haul my parents into court, and
sue them for every dollar they have.

I've already got every dollar they had.