| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340463 is a reply to message #340423] |
Mon, 27 March 2017 23:52   |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-26, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd like to be able to understand the commercials which are airing.
>>>> I have no idea what ~25% of them are selling.
>>>
>>> You don't have to. You're just supposed to buy it.
>>
>> How am I supposed to buy it if I have no idea what they're selling?
>>
>>>
>>>> These are ussually the ones which emulate the MTV model of filming.
>>>
>>> Why not? Their target audience watches MTV.
>>
>> Once upon a time, advertising used to convey information about the
>> product, including a description of the product and its name.
>>
> I thought there were rules about drug ads, so they have to be kind of
> vague. They want you to point it out to your doctor, but they aren't
> selling you the drug directly. So you get some vague context from the ad,
> and then when you have a similar symptom ask the doctor "but I saw this ad
> on tv for...". Of course, the fine print of side effects make the drugs
> sound so bad, hardly worth the fix that it brings you.
I usually start to crack up at about the point where they list paralysis
and death as side effects, but I guess some of the things these drugs are
supposed to be for I'd take my chances too.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340464 is a reply to message #340431] |
Mon, 27 March 2017 23:52 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 8:46:08 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time, advertising used to convey information about the
>> product, including a description of the product and its name.
>
> Prescription drugs, though, can't be marketed directly to consumers. Plus, some
> of them treat conditions that can't be discussed on television. Take sildenafil
> citrate, for example.
>
> Well, actually, don't, unless you have low blood pressure, or...
>
Maybe in Canada, but in the US there seem to be no limits on what they can
discuss in prime time.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340465 is a reply to message #340448] |
Mon, 27 March 2017 23:52 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-03-27, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I just quit watching PBS for two weeks. I would contribute money but
>> I am quite sure I would end up on mailing lists I do not want to be on.
>
> We sent a donation to PBS some years ago. Towards a year later,
> the renewal notices started coming in relentlessly. We gritted
> our teeth and waited for the flood to subside. It discouraged
> us from ever contributing again. And that's a shame, really.
>
Same here. Now I sometime consider sticking $20 bill in an envelope with
no return address and sending it to them.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340482 is a reply to message #340449] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 05:34 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-27, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-03-27, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-03-26, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd like to be able to understand the commercials which are airing.
>>>> I have no idea what ~25% of them are selling.
>>>
>>> You don't have to. You're just supposed to buy it.
>>
>> How am I supposed to buy it if I have no idea what they're selling?
>
> Oh, there you go, thinking again. The goal of advertising is to
> bypass your reasoning. They don't want you to think about why
> you want what they're selling - they just want you to want it.
> (Or better still, believe that you _need_ it.)
>
>>>> These are ussually the ones which emulate the MTV model of filming.
>>>
>>> Why not? Their target audience watches MTV.
>>
>> Once upon a time, advertising used to convey information about the
>> product, including a description of the product and its name.
>
> And then the advertisers realized that this is a waste of time.
> All they need to do is create a desire - the less rational, the better.
>
Instance, there are adverts on TV here, first it shows pictures of
Ghandi, Mandela, that sort, then a young girl is making a speech
about cutting waste, world hunger, etc.
AFAIcanmakeout, the advert is in favour of irradiating (sp?) food, so
it will last longer on supermarket shelves, which the public do
not want. It seems that the ad is paid for by Lever Bros.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340513 is a reply to message #340424] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 09:47 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>> Michael Black wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017, Osmium wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> Take a look at PBS' mess; their programming is 1-1/2 months of
commercials
>>>> >> out of 3 months; and PBS gets funding from the Federal government.
>>>> > Their story is that they only get partial funding; if they got full
funding
>>>> > the pledge drive wouldn't be needed. I think it is about 13 days out of
90
>>>> > days.
>>>> >
>>>> I find it a tad misleaing. They aren't having pledge breaks during
>>>> regular programming (which is how NPR operates), but they put on
"special"
>>>> programming and then interrupt that. "We can only offer you this fine
>>>> programming because of support from viewers like you", except the
>>>> programming isn't regular programming. Or wouldn't be except they have
>>>> the pledge drives so much.
>>>
>>> Right. All regular programming disappears until the station stops its
>>
>> This is not the way it works out here. There are a handful of
>> pledge breaks (note the word break, which derives from a break
>> in the programming) each day between long stretches of regular programming.
>>
> For US Public TV? They don't interrupt Nova or the other regular shows,
> at least here. They will schedule time for "favorites" which presumably
> have brought in money in the past. Vermont PBS was fundraising during a
> repeat of a local show about maple syrup, but that seems an exception now.
In my area, NOVA disappears.
>
>
>> I can still listen to Terry Gross each day at 13:00, even during
>> the two or three-week pledge window. Her show may be shorter to
>> accomodate a pledge break, but the programming is still there.
>>
> Terry Gross is on NPR, the radio network, and they do just interrupt
> regular programming for pledge breaks.
I like to listen to Market Watch at 18:30 every night but Saturday.
The begging doesn't start as early as the PBS TV; however, they
use half the minutes of Market Watch to beg which really is annoying.
Market watch is the only show which consistently reports the
closing numbers of the stock exchanges instead of a percentage gain/loss.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340514 is a reply to message #340433] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 09:47 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Osmium wrote:
>
>
>>> For US Public TV? They don't interrupt Nova or the other regular shows,
at
>>> least here. They will schedule time for "favorites" which presumably have
>>> brought in money in the past. Vermont PBS was fundraising during a repeat
>>> of a local show about maple syrup, but that seems an exception now.
>>
>> No, they don't interrupt Nova, they just don't show Nova at all; they show
>> Lawrence Welk instead. I just quit watching PBS for two weeks. I would
>> contribute money but I am quite sure I would end up on mailing lists I do
not
>> want to be on. I changed my phone number a few years ago and vanished from
>> the face of the earth. That's mostly, how I like it. Sadly, a side effect
is
>> that old friends who have lost touch can't find me either.
>
> You said it more properly than I did.
>
> I've thought about sending some money, anonymously. "Here's $20, I like
> your programming, but don't bother me".
>
> My mother got endless "please donate" envelopes, and nine months after she
> died, some still come. I know my sister has sent some back writing
> "deceased" on the envelope, but it takes time and there are so many.
>
> Sadly, once they get you, you are seen as more likely to contribute again,
> so they spend endless money and effort on getting you to repeat than to
> try to find a wider selection of donors.
<snip>
I finally sent back their form with a note written on it. I poiinted
out that they would "save" a lot of money if they stopped harrassing
me with their letters. The letters stopped.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340515 is a reply to message #340431] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 09:47 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 8:46:08 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time, advertising used to convey information about the
>> product, including a description of the product and its name.
>
> Prescription drugs, though, can't be marketed directly to consumers.
They can in the US now. I don't remember when the law changed; IIRC,
sometime in the 90s, maybe late 80s.
> Plus, some
> of them treat conditions that can't be discussed on television.
> Take sildenafil
> citrate, for example.
>
> Well, actually, don't, unless you have low blood pressure, or...
Some of the drug commercials do not mention what it's for. If
they can talk about sex enhancements, I don't know what would
be an unmentionable here.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340517 is a reply to message #340449] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 09:47 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2017-03-27, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-03-26, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd like to be able to understand the commercials which are airing.
>>>> I have no idea what ~25% of them are selling.
>>>
>>> You don't have to. You're just supposed to buy it.
>>
>> How am I supposed to buy it if I have no idea what they're selling?
>
> Oh, there you go, thinking again.
<GRIN> I realize it's an annoying habit but I do like to think; it's a
favorite passtime for me.
> The goal of advertising is to
> bypass your reasoning. They don't want you to think about why
> you want what they're selling - they just want you to want it.
> (Or better still, believe that you _need_ it.)
Well, ads used to identify the "it" and tell me where to get "it".
There are ads which do not do this.
>
>>>> These are ussually the ones which emulate the MTV model of filming.
>>>
>>> Why not? Their target audience watches MTV.
>>
>> Once upon a time, advertising used to convey information about the
>> product, including a description of the product and its name.
>
> And then the advertisers realized that this is a waste of time.
> All they need to do is create a desire - the less rational, the better.
An unrequited need since there's no info about where to get it
assuaged.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340520 is a reply to message #340515] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 10:37 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 8:46:08 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> Once upon a time, advertising used to convey information about the
>>> product, including a description of the product and its name.
>>
>> Prescription drugs, though, can't be marketed directly to consumers.
>
> They can in the US now. I don't remember when the law changed; IIRC,
> sometime in the 90s, maybe late 80s.
>
>> Plus, some
>> of them treat conditions that can't be discussed on television.
>> Take sildenafil
>> citrate, for example.
>>
>> Well, actually, don't, unless you have low blood pressure, or...
>
> Some of the drug commercials do not mention what it's for. If
> they can talk about sex enhancements, I don't know what would
> be an unmentionable here.
I've never noticed that, maybe it's subtle. What's the point of the ad if
you don't know what they're selling. I have noticed that they use
abbreviations and initials. This started with the "BO" commercials back in
the 50s, but now everything is shorthand.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340535 is a reply to message #340463] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 12:44 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Peter Flass wrote:
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2017-03-26, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I'd like to be able to understand the commercials which are airing.
>>>> > I have no idea what ~25% of them are selling.
>>>>
>>>> You don't have to. You're just supposed to buy it.
>>>
>>> How am I supposed to buy it if I have no idea what they're selling?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > These are ussually the ones which emulate the MTV model of filming.
>>>>
>>>> Why not? Their target audience watches MTV.
>>>
>>> Once upon a time, advertising used to convey information about the
>>> product, including a description of the product and its name.
>>>
>> I thought there were rules about drug ads, so they have to be kind of
>> vague. They want you to point it out to your doctor, but they aren't
>> selling you the drug directly. So you get some vague context from the ad,
>> and then when you have a similar symptom ask the doctor "but I saw this ad
>> on tv for...". Of course, the fine print of side effects make the drugs
>> sound so bad, hardly worth the fix that it brings you.
>
> I usually start to crack up at about the point where they list paralysis
> and death as side effects, but I guess some of the things these drugs are
> supposed to be for I'd take my chances too.
>
It is fine print, so they list the possibilities. Hopefully one person
doesn't get all the side effects.
Though, a decade ago someone I sort of knew killed himself, jumped off a
bridge (though the body never found). ANd his widow started fussing about
how it was the anti-depression drug he was taking. That's an odd case.
Maybe the drug worked, and made him feel better enough to kill himself.
At the same time, he might have tried to kill himself without the
anti-depression drugs. Where does the illness leave off and the drug take
over?
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340536 is a reply to message #340461] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 12:47 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Peter Flass wrote:
> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>> Michael Black wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017, Osmium wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> Take a look at PBS' mess; their programming is 1-1/2 months of commercials
>>>> >> out of 3 months; and PBS gets funding from the Federal government.
>>>> > Their story is that they only get partial funding; if they got full funding
>>>> > the pledge drive wouldn't be needed. I think it is about 13 days out of 90
>>>> > days.
>>>> >
>>>> I find it a tad misleaing. They aren't having pledge breaks during
>>>> regular programming (which is how NPR operates), but they put on "special"
>>>> programming and then interrupt that. "We can only offer you this fine
>>>> programming because of support from viewers like you", except the
>>>> programming isn't regular programming. Or wouldn't be except they have
>>>> the pledge drives so much.
>>>
>>> Right. All regular programming disappears until the station stops its
>>
>> This is not the way it works out here. There are a handful of
>> pledge breaks (note the word break, which derives from a break
>> in the programming) each day between long stretches of regular programming.
>>
>> I can still listen to Terry Gross each day at 13:00, even during
>> the two or three-week pledge window. Her show may be shorter to
>> accomodate a pledge break, but the programming is still there.
>>
>> You could actually send in a donation to reduce the time required
>> to raise the necessary funds.....
>>
>>
>
> This is a datapoint from radio rather than TV, but IME the two are
> similar. The last few days I have waited in the car while wife went
> shopping or running an errand. Every time I have tried to listen to NPR
> (several times) all I got was begging.
>
So much for the line I keep hearing on NPR, that it's programming people
will sit in the car in the driveway to listen to, they won't just turn
things off when they get home.
Vermont Public Radio has definitely been cutting back, a sort of half way
pledge drive where they start announcing early that if people send in
their pledges, they can cut days off the pledge drive. So it's there, but
less obnoxious, and it seems to work, because they routinely announce that
they have cut off two days or some figure off the pledge drive.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340538 is a reply to message #340457] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 12:54 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, JimP. wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2017 19:26:50 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Osmium wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> > For US Public TV? They don't interrupt Nova or the other regular shows, at
>>>> > least here. They will schedule time for "favorites" which presumably have
>>>> > brought in money in the past. Vermont PBS was fundraising during a repeat
>>>> > of a local show about maple syrup, but that seems an exception now.
>>>>
>>>> No, they don't interrupt Nova, they just don't show Nova at all; they show
>>>> Lawrence Welk instead. I just quit watching PBS for two weeks. I would
>>>> contribute money but I am quite sure I would end up on mailing lists I do not
>>>> want to be on. I changed my phone number a few years ago and vanished from
>>>> the face of the earth. That's mostly, how I like it. Sadly, a side effect is
>>>> that old friends who have lost touch can't find me either.
>>>
>>> You said it more properly than I did.
>>>
>>> I've thought about sending some money, anonymously. "Here's $20, I like
>>> your programming, but don't bother me".
>>>
>>> My mother got endless "please donate" envelopes, and nine months after she
>>> died, some still come. I know my sister has sent some back writing
>>> "deceased" on the envelope, but it takes time and there are so many.
>>>
>>> Sadly, once they get you, you are seen as more likely to contribute again,
>>> so they spend endless money and effort on getting you to repeat than to
>>> try to find a wider selection of donors.
>>>
>> In this country, what you are writibg about is called a `cow list',
>> ay someone is running a charity, and people send in money, with their names.
>> You raise more money by selling the list to other charities. Its getting
>> to be common in other businesses.
>
> Thats also why I stopped, decades ago, filling out those customer
> catalog request post cards in magazines I subscribed to.
I filled those out when I was young. One day, when I happened to be home
for lunch, from high school, the doorbell rings and it's a salesman,
following a lead from one of those numbers I circled on the card. What a
disappointment for him. I wasn't a business, and really didn't have the
money to buy anything even if it was something I could use.
But my thought was that they'd send more information than was in the ad.
But sometimes that didn't happen, they'd just send a copy of the ad. I
also worked for a company that made small kits for hams, and the owner
would get an envelope each month of the addresses people had sent in on
those cards. If I recall, the magazine actually sent address labels. And
the owner would look over them and remove the ones he recognized, no sense
sending out the same thing to the same guy. I seem to recall they did just
send out the ad. But the same people probably kept circling the number
because they expected more details, after all, something wsa being
offered, while for the company owner, it was a waste of money.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340552 is a reply to message #340482] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 13:52 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 3:34:42 AM UTC-6, ma...@mail.com wrote:
> AFAIcanmakeout, the advert is in favour of irradiating (sp?) food, so
> it will last longer on supermarket shelves, which the public do
> not want.
Yes, because of irrational hysteria created by anti-scientific nutcases.
So the fact that the ignorant don't want it, keeping food prices higher,
doesn't make me think that Lever Brothers is up to anything sinister by
trying to overcome this superstition for the benefit of everyone.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340557 is a reply to message #340535] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 15:11 |
osmium
Messages: 749
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/28/2017 11:44 AM, Michael Black wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> > On 2017-03-26, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I'd like to be able to understand the commercials which are airing.
>>>> >> I have no idea what ~25% of them are selling.
>>>> >
>>>> > You don't have to. You're just supposed to buy it.
>>>>
>>>> How am I supposed to buy it if I have no idea what they're selling?
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >> These are ussually the ones which emulate the MTV model of filming.
>>>> >
>>>> > Why not? Their target audience watches MTV.
>>>>
>>>> Once upon a time, advertising used to convey information about the
>>>> product, including a description of the product and its name.
>>>>
>>> I thought there were rules about drug ads, so they have to be kind of
>>> vague. They want you to point it out to your doctor, but they aren't
>>> selling you the drug directly. So you get some vague context from
>>> the ad,
>>> and then when you have a similar symptom ask the doctor "but I saw
>>> this ad
>>> on tv for...". Of course, the fine print of side effects make the drugs
>>> sound so bad, hardly worth the fix that it brings you.
>>
>> I usually start to crack up at about the point where they list paralysis
>> and death as side effects, but I guess some of the things these drugs
>> are
>> supposed to be for I'd take my chances too.
>>
> It is fine print, so they list the possibilities. Hopefully one
> person doesn't get all the side effects.
>
> Though, a decade ago someone I sort of knew killed himself, jumped off
> a bridge (though the body never found). ANd his widow started fussing
> about how it was the anti-depression drug he was taking. That's an odd
> case. Maybe the drug worked, and made him feel better enough to kill
> himself. At the same time, he might have tried to kill himself without
> the anti-depression drugs. Where does the illness leave off and the
> drug take over?
>
My hare-brained doctor gave me a prescription for one of the very
popular anti-depressants - I don't feel it's fair to name it. I took
about three pills and saw that this was not going to end well *at all*.
I am prepared to believe almost any cockamamie story of side effects -
especially suicide - of drugs that fiddle with the brain.
I discovered later that my mother and also a friend of mine took the
pill, and apparently liked it. I gave my leftover pills, an almost full
bottle, to the friend.
If anyone wants the name of the drug, subtract 100 from my e-mail address.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340559 is a reply to message #340538] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 15:32 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, JimP. wrote:
>
>> On 27 Mar 2017 19:26:50 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-03-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Osmium wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> For US Public TV? They don't interrupt Nova or the other regular shows, at
>>>> >> least here. They will schedule time for "favorites" which presumably have
>>>> >> brought in money in the past. Vermont PBS was fundraising during a repeat
>>>> >> of a local show about maple syrup, but that seems an exception now.
>>>> >
>>>> > No, they don't interrupt Nova, they just don't show Nova at all; they show
>>>> > Lawrence Welk instead. I just quit watching PBS for two weeks. I would
>>>> > contribute money but I am quite sure I would end up on mailing lists I do not
>>>> > want to be on. I changed my phone number a few years ago and vanished from
>>>> > the face of the earth. That's mostly, how I like it. Sadly, a side effect is
>>>> > that old friends who have lost touch can't find me either.
>>>>
>>>> You said it more properly than I did.
>>>>
>>>> I've thought about sending some money, anonymously. "Here's $20, I like
>>>> your programming, but don't bother me".
>>>>
>>>> My mother got endless "please donate" envelopes, and nine months after she
>>>> died, some still come. I know my sister has sent some back writing
>>>> "deceased" on the envelope, but it takes time and there are so many.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, once they get you, you are seen as more likely to contribute again,
>>>> so they spend endless money and effort on getting you to repeat than to
>>>> try to find a wider selection of donors.
>>>>
>>> In this country, what you are writibg about is called a `cow list',
>>> ay someone is running a charity, and people send in money, with their names.
>>> You raise more money by selling the list to other charities. Its getting
>>> to be common in other businesses.
>>
>> Thats also why I stopped, decades ago, filling out those customer
>> catalog request post cards in magazines I subscribed to.
>
> I filled those out when I was young. One day, when I happened to be home
> for lunch, from high school, the doorbell rings and it's a salesman,
> following a lead from one of those numbers I circled on the card. What a
> disappointment for him. I wasn't a business, and really didn't have the
> money to buy anything even if it was something I could use.
>
> But my thought was that they'd send more information than was in the ad.
> But sometimes that didn't happen, they'd just send a copy of the ad. I
> also worked for a company that made small kits for hams, and the owner
> would get an envelope each month of the addresses people had sent in on
> those cards. If I recall, the magazine actually sent address labels. And
> the owner would look over them and remove the ones he recognized, no sense
> sending out the same thing to the same guy. I seem to recall they did just
> send out the ad. But the same people probably kept circling the number
> because they expected more details, after all, something wsa being
> offered, while for the company owner, it was a waste of money.
Or they just forgot. I'd regularly circle a bunch from Byte, I was
considering what type of system I wanted, and things were changing so fast
I couldn't keep track. (I wound up buying a 6089 kit I couldn't get
working, probably due to poor soldering skills, and later a bare-bones PC
clone).
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340561 is a reply to message #340535] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 15:32 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> > On 2017-03-26, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I'd like to be able to understand the commercials which are airing.
>>>> >> I have no idea what ~25% of them are selling.
>>>> >
>>>> > You don't have to. You're just supposed to buy it.
>>>>
>>>> How am I supposed to buy it if I have no idea what they're selling?
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >> These are ussually the ones which emulate the MTV model of filming.
>>>> >
>>>> > Why not? Their target audience watches MTV.
>>>>
>>>> Once upon a time, advertising used to convey information about the
>>>> product, including a description of the product and its name.
>>>>
>>> I thought there were rules about drug ads, so they have to be kind of
>>> vague. They want you to point it out to your doctor, but they aren't
>>> selling you the drug directly. So you get some vague context from the ad,
>>> and then when you have a similar symptom ask the doctor "but I saw this ad
>>> on tv for...". Of course, the fine print of side effects make the drugs
>>> sound so bad, hardly worth the fix that it brings you.
>>
>> I usually start to crack up at about the point where they list paralysis
>> and death as side effects, but I guess some of the things these drugs are
>> supposed to be for I'd take my chances too.
>>
> It is fine print, so they list the possibilities. Hopefully one person
> doesn't get all the side effects.
>
> Though, a decade ago someone I sort of knew killed himself, jumped off a
> bridge (though the body never found). ANd his widow started fussing about
> how it was the anti-depression drug he was taking. That's an odd case.
Pretty common, actually, although teenagers seem to be more susceptible.
> Maybe the drug worked, and made him feel better enough to kill himself.
> At the same time, he might have tried to kill himself without the
> anti-depression drugs. Where does the illness leave off and the drug take
> over?
>
> Michael
>
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340586 is a reply to message #340538] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 10:04 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:54:43 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, JimP. wrote:
>
>> On 27 Mar 2017 19:26:50 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-03-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Osmium wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> For US Public TV? They don't interrupt Nova or the other regular shows, at
>>>> >> least here. They will schedule time for "favorites" which presumably have
>>>> >> brought in money in the past. Vermont PBS was fundraising during a repeat
>>>> >> of a local show about maple syrup, but that seems an exception now.
>>>> >
>>>> > No, they don't interrupt Nova, they just don't show Nova at all; they show
>>>> > Lawrence Welk instead. I just quit watching PBS for two weeks. I would
>>>> > contribute money but I am quite sure I would end up on mailing lists I do not
>>>> > want to be on. I changed my phone number a few years ago and vanished from
>>>> > the face of the earth. That's mostly, how I like it. Sadly, a side effect is
>>>> > that old friends who have lost touch can't find me either.
>>>>
>>>> You said it more properly than I did.
>>>>
>>>> I've thought about sending some money, anonymously. "Here's $20, I like
>>>> your programming, but don't bother me".
>>>>
>>>> My mother got endless "please donate" envelopes, and nine months after she
>>>> died, some still come. I know my sister has sent some back writing
>>>> "deceased" on the envelope, but it takes time and there are so many.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, once they get you, you are seen as more likely to contribute again,
>>>> so they spend endless money and effort on getting you to repeat than to
>>>> try to find a wider selection of donors.
>>>>
>>> In this country, what you are writibg about is called a `cow list',
>>> ay someone is running a charity, and people send in money, with their names.
>>> You raise more money by selling the list to other charities. Its getting
>>> to be common in other businesses.
>>
>> Thats also why I stopped, decades ago, filling out those customer
>> catalog request post cards in magazines I subscribed to.
>
> I filled those out when I was young. One day, when I happened to be home
> for lunch, from high school, the doorbell rings and it's a salesman,
> following a lead from one of those numbers I circled on the card. What a
> disappointment for him. I wasn't a business, and really didn't have the
> money to buy anything even if it was something I could use.
>
> But my thought was that they'd send more information than was in the ad.
> But sometimes that didn't happen, they'd just send a copy of the ad. I
> also worked for a company that made small kits for hams, and the owner
> would get an envelope each month of the addresses people had sent in on
> those cards. If I recall, the magazine actually sent address labels. And
> the owner would look over them and remove the ones he recognized, no sense
> sending out the same thing to the same guy. I seem to recall they did just
> send out the ad. But the same people probably kept circling the number
> because they expected more details, after all, something wsa being
> offered, while for the company owner, it was a waste of money.
>
> Michael
I noticed in some magazines not all advertisers were on those cards,
and some magazines all advertisers were.
I remember reading in Whole Earth Quarterly that some small companies,
in responding to more info requests from listings/reviews in the Whole
Earth Catalog, had gone out of business. This was back in the 1970s or
1980s. Apparently these were the ones who said request free info. The
ones who said sent a dollar or 50 cents, etc. didn't have such
problems.
I remember one guy telling me about 1970 that everyone should just
request the free stuff like food and clothes. I pointed out that not
everyone could do that as otherwise there would be no one to grow the
food, make the clothes, provide the transportation down to the store,
etc. that he felt everyone should take advantage of. He became upset
and never talked to me again, which was fne with me. I don't know if
reality ever gobsmacked him one day or not. Probably it did.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340592 is a reply to message #340586] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 12:47 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, JimP. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:54:43 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, JimP. wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 Mar 2017 19:26:50 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Osmium wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>> For US Public TV? They don't interrupt Nova or the other regular shows, at
>>>> >>> least here. They will schedule time for "favorites" which presumably have
>>>> >>> brought in money in the past. Vermont PBS was fundraising during a repeat
>>>> >>> of a local show about maple syrup, but that seems an exception now.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No, they don't interrupt Nova, they just don't show Nova at all; they show
>>>> >> Lawrence Welk instead. I just quit watching PBS for two weeks. I would
>>>> >> contribute money but I am quite sure I would end up on mailing lists I do not
>>>> >> want to be on. I changed my phone number a few years ago and vanished from
>>>> >> the face of the earth. That's mostly, how I like it. Sadly, a side effect is
>>>> >> that old friends who have lost touch can't find me either.
>>>> >
>>>> > You said it more properly than I did.
>>>> >
>>>> > I've thought about sending some money, anonymously. "Here's $20, I like
>>>> > your programming, but don't bother me".
>>>> >
>>>> > My mother got endless "please donate" envelopes, and nine months after she
>>>> > died, some still come. I know my sister has sent some back writing
>>>> > "deceased" on the envelope, but it takes time and there are so many.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sadly, once they get you, you are seen as more likely to contribute again,
>>>> > so they spend endless money and effort on getting you to repeat than to
>>>> > try to find a wider selection of donors.
>>>> >
>>>> In this country, what you are writibg about is called a `cow list',
>>>> ay someone is running a charity, and people send in money, with their names.
>>>> You raise more money by selling the list to other charities. Its getting
>>>> to be common in other businesses.
>>>
>>> Thats also why I stopped, decades ago, filling out those customer
>>> catalog request post cards in magazines I subscribed to.
>>
>> I filled those out when I was young. One day, when I happened to be home
>> for lunch, from high school, the doorbell rings and it's a salesman,
>> following a lead from one of those numbers I circled on the card. What a
>> disappointment for him. I wasn't a business, and really didn't have the
>> money to buy anything even if it was something I could use.
>>
>> But my thought was that they'd send more information than was in the ad.
>> But sometimes that didn't happen, they'd just send a copy of the ad. I
>> also worked for a company that made small kits for hams, and the owner
>> would get an envelope each month of the addresses people had sent in on
>> those cards. If I recall, the magazine actually sent address labels. And
>> the owner would look over them and remove the ones he recognized, no sense
>> sending out the same thing to the same guy. I seem to recall they did just
>> send out the ad. But the same people probably kept circling the number
>> because they expected more details, after all, something wsa being
>> offered, while for the company owner, it was a waste of money.
>>
>> Michael
>
> I noticed in some magazines not all advertisers were on those cards,
> and some magazines all advertisers were.
>
> I remember reading in Whole Earth Quarterly that some small companies,
> in responding to more info requests from listings/reviews in the Whole
> Earth Catalog, had gone out of business. This was back in the 1970s or
> 1980s. Apparently these were the ones who said request free info. The
> ones who said sent a dollar or 50 cents, etc. didn't have such
> problems.
>
I remember something along those lines. Of course, a new business may
stumble early on, not enough money to keep going until the business comes
in. And sometimes failing due to success, they can't keep up with the
sudden increase in business, or they get money to deal with that increase,
but the rate of business falls a bit later, and they have too much
production line for the business.
And I seem to recall that Mother Earth News when mentioning something
"free" would add "but send them a dollar or something to cover postage".
> I remember one guy telling me about 1970 that everyone should just
> request the free stuff like food and clothes. I pointed out that not
> everyone could do that as otherwise there would be no one to grow the
> food, make the clothes, provide the transportation down to the store,
> etc. that he felt everyone should take advantage of. He became upset
> and never talked to me again, which was fne with me. I don't know if
> reality ever gobsmacked him one day or not. Probably it did.
At the time, things were pretty lush. Some could live off the free stuff
and the leftovers (and do that today too)m but it didn't work if everyone
did it.
Abbie Hoffman got into trouble for pointing out where to get free food,
because existing organizations had been going to farmers markets and the
like to get leftovers, and suddenly everyone was going that way,
increasing competition.
Even today, I see stories and there's a romantic angle to dumpster diving.
On one hand they are saving food, and making a statement, but what about
the people who need to live off that stuff? ANd it's always about food,
while one can dig up interesting things that are thrown out which isn't
food. I'm certainly looking forward to the end of the university term
here next month, there are areas where the students live very densely, and
it's worth looking, all kinds of things tossed out.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340601 is a reply to message #340463] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 14:39 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-28, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> I thought there were rules about drug ads, so they have to be kind of
>> vague. They want you to point it out to your doctor, but they aren't
>> selling you the drug directly. So you get some vague context from the ad,
>> and then when you have a similar symptom ask the doctor "but I saw this ad
>> on tv for...". Of course, the fine print of side effects make the drugs
>> sound so bad, hardly worth the fix that it brings you.
>
> I usually start to crack up at about the point where they list paralysis
> and death as side effects, but I guess some of the things these drugs are
> supposed to be for I'd take my chances too.
Perhaps, but IMHO erectile dysfunction isn't one of them.
If it is, then you have bigger problems.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340611 is a reply to message #340557] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 15:44 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-28, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> My hare-brained doctor gave me a prescription for one of the very
> popular anti-depressants - I don't feel it's fair to name it. I took
> about three pills and saw that this was not going to end well *at all*.
> I am prepared to believe almost any cockamamie story of side effects -
> especially suicide - of drugs that fiddle with the brain.
I heard an item the other night about how very small doses of ketamine
seemed to work well with a number of test subjects in a recent experiment.
Even in those whose depression wasn't much affected, their thoughts of
suicide usually vanished.
Still, not being part of Big Pharma, I don't want to encourage
people to think that solutions to everything come in a pill.
"One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small,
And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all."
-- Jefferson Airplane
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340617 is a reply to message #340601] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 15:53 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-03-28, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> I thought there were rules about drug ads, so they have to be kind of
>>> vague. They want you to point it out to your doctor, but they aren't
>>> selling you the drug directly. So you get some vague context from the ad,
>>> and then when you have a similar symptom ask the doctor "but I saw this ad
>>> on tv for...". Of course, the fine print of side effects make the drugs
>>> sound so bad, hardly worth the fix that it brings you.
>>
>> I usually start to crack up at about the point where they list paralysis
>> and death as side effects, but I guess some of the things these drugs are
>> supposed to be for I'd take my chances too.
>
> Perhaps, but IMHO erectile dysfunction isn't one of them.
> If it is, then you have bigger problems.
>
I like the line "call your doctor if you have an erection lasting longer
than four hours." Heck, I'd call the National Inquirer.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340621 is a reply to message #340611] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 16:14 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2017 19:44:04 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small,
> And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all."
> -- Jefferson Airplane
Also (and earlier) The Great Society, that was one of two great
songs Grace Slick brought with her to Jefferson Airplane.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340644 is a reply to message #340621] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 21:45 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:14:51 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2017 19:44:04 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small,
>> And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all."
>> -- Jefferson Airplane
>
> Also (and earlier) The Great Society, that was one of two great
> songs Grace Slick brought with her to Jefferson Airplane.
I used to have the two records The Great Society put out. Not the ones
that says 'Collector's Edition' on them.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340646 is a reply to message #340621] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 22:59 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2017 19:44:04 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small,
>> And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all."
>> -- Jefferson Airplane
>
> Also (and earlier) The Great Society, that was one of two great
> songs Grace Slick brought with her to Jefferson Airplane.
>
Yes, the other one of course being "Someone to Love".
It's interesting, "Jefferson Airplane Takes Off" is more folk than rock,
quite different from their other albums, and of course with Signe Anderson
as the singer.
But I've had the two live Great Society albums since 1979 (and two years
ago got them as a CD for less than I paid for the vinyl albums in 1979),
and that's a great album or two (depending on who it was packaged). The
songs are long, they owe a lot to Paul Butterfield's "East West", or maybe
more directly to Ravi Shankar and/or John Coltrane (I don't really know
the path the style went through before it hit the Great Society). It's
more "psychedelic" than the Airplane's studio albums, yet it's also early,
so you see more of the beginnings of it all.
They recorded a studio album, but other than a single or two, it wasn't
released until around 2000. I got it on CD, but the songs are short and
really sound very different from the live album.
And it's already more than fifty years ago.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340647 is a reply to message #340644] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 23:03 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, JimP. wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:14:51 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On 29 Mar 2017 19:44:04 GMT
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small,
>>> And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all."
>>> -- Jefferson Airplane
>>
>> Also (and earlier) The Great Society, that was one of two great
>> songs Grace Slick brought with her to Jefferson Airplane.
>
> I used to have the two records The Great Society put out. Not the ones
> that says 'Collector's Edition' on them.
I thought that was all there was.
The two live records weren't released until the band had shut down and
Jefferson Airplane had taken off. So I thought the "collector's edition"
was there from the start, trying to make it more valuable than it was.
The CD was really cheap at Amazon here in Canada when I got it two years
ago, replacing the records.
On the other hand, it seems impossible to get the first "It's A Beautiful
Day" album on CD, though I gather that's because of the ongoing legal
issues with their original manager. The live version on the album that
was recorded during the last days of the Fillmore is pretty decent, I have
that on CD, but it's not the only good song on their first album.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340648 is a reply to message #340647] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 23:15 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 23:03:57 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, JimP. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:14:51 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Mar 2017 19:44:04 GMT
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small,
>>>> And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all."
>>>> -- Jefferson Airplane
>>>
>>> Also (and earlier) The Great Society, that was one of two great
>>> songs Grace Slick brought with her to Jefferson Airplane.
>>
>> I used to have the two records The Great Society put out. Not the ones
>> that says 'Collector's Edition' on them.
>
> I thought that was all there was.
Nope. I don't think there was much of a time difference, but the one
without those two words was on shelves back about 1970. I knew some
guys who had been in the Navy, when they got out they opened a
record/guitar store. Mostly folk, but they did have some rock records.
> The two live records weren't released until the band had shut down and
> Jefferson Airplane had taken off. So I thought the "collector's edition"
> was there from the start, trying to make it more valuable than it was.
It has been decades since I dug through my record albums, but I
thought the two I had were studio versions.
> The CD was really cheap at Amazon here in Canada when I got it two years
> ago, replacing the records.
>
> On the other hand, it seems impossible to get the first "It's A Beautiful
> Day" album on CD, though I gather that's because of the ongoing legal
> issues with their original manager. The live version on the album that
> was recorded during the last days of the Fillmore is pretty decent, I have
> that on CD, but it's not the only good song on their first album.
I remember hearing that song on the radio, and the disk jockey saying
it was on an album of songs put together to raise money for some
charity. He said something about it being the only way at the time to
get that song. That was about 1971.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340649 is a reply to message #340592] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 23:53 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:51:08 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
wrote:
[snip]
> Even today, I see stories and there's a romantic angle to dumpster diving.
> On one hand they are saving food, and making a statement, but what about
> the people who need to live off that stuff? ANd it's always about food,
> while one can dig up interesting things that are thrown out which isn't
> food. I'm certainly looking forward to the end of the university term
> here next month, there are areas where the students live very densely, and
> it's worth looking, all kinds of things tossed out.
I live in a complex which has student dorms and apartments. I
have observed somewhat of a blip at semester end but not the huge
amount some seem to be implying. Nonetheless, I have picked up a few
items over the years. One was a patterned quilt that washed up
nicely.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340650 is a reply to message #340646] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 00:46 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:51:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On 29 Mar 2017 19:44:04 GMT
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small,
>>> And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all."
>>> -- Jefferson Airplane
>> Also (and earlier) The Great Society, that was one of two great
>> songs Grace Slick brought with her to Jefferson Airplane.
> Yes, the other one of course being "Someone to Love".
I had to do some digging to find out that the *first* one was "White Rabbit";
unlike "Somebody to Love", I hadn't heard it enough to remember it.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340656 is a reply to message #340617] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 04:58 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-29, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2017-03-28, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I thought there were rules about drug ads, so they have to be kind of
>>>> vague. They want you to point it out to your doctor, but they aren't
>>>> selling you the drug directly. So you get some vague context from the ad,
>>>> and then when you have a similar symptom ask the doctor "but I saw this ad
>>>> on tv for...". Of course, the fine print of side effects make the drugs
>>>> sound so bad, hardly worth the fix that it brings you.
>>>
>>> I usually start to crack up at about the point where they list paralysis
>>> and death as side effects, but I guess some of the things these drugs are
>>> supposed to be for I'd take my chances too.
>>
>> Perhaps, but IMHO erectile dysfunction isn't one of them.
>> If it is, then you have bigger problems.
>
Surely `smaller' problems.
>
>
> I like the line "call your doctor if you have an erection lasting longer
> than four hours." Heck, I'd call the National Inquirer.
>
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340667 is a reply to message #340649] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 12:56 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:51:08 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Even today, I see stories and there's a romantic angle to dumpster diving.
>> On one hand they are saving food, and making a statement, but what about
>> the people who need to live off that stuff? ANd it's always about food,
>> while one can dig up interesting things that are thrown out which isn't
>> food. I'm certainly looking forward to the end of the university term
>> here next month, there are areas where the students live very densely, and
>> it's worth looking, all kinds of things tossed out.
>
> I live in a complex which has student dorms and apartments. I
> have observed somewhat of a blip at semester end but not the huge
> amount some seem to be implying. Nonetheless, I have picked up a few
> items over the years. One was a patterned quilt that washed up
> nicely.
>
I found a nice North Face jacket a few years ago, loaded with pockets.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340668 is a reply to message #340650] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 12:57 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:51:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On 29 Mar 2017 19:44:04 GMT
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small,
>>>> And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all."
>>>> -- Jefferson Airplane
>
>>> Also (and earlier) The Great Society, that was one of two great
>>> songs Grace Slick brought with her to Jefferson Airplane.
>
>> Yes, the other one of course being "Someone to Love".
>
> I had to do some digging to find out that the *first* one was "White Rabbit";
> unlike "Somebody to Love", I hadn't heard it enough to remember it.
>
Sorry. The intent of "White Rabbit" is to show off "Alice in Wonderland",
all the drugs and weird things going on in there, and I recognized the
lyrics so easily.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340672 is a reply to message #340668] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 13:38 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:57:52 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:51:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On 29 Mar 2017 19:44:04 GMT
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> > "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small,
>>>> > And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all."
>>>> > -- Jefferson Airplane
>>
>>>> Also (and earlier) The Great Society, that was one of two great
>>>> songs Grace Slick brought with her to Jefferson Airplane.
>>
>>> Yes, the other one of course being "Someone to Love".
>>
>> I had to do some digging to find out that the *first* one was "White Rabbit";
>> unlike "Somebody to Love", I hadn't heard it enough to remember it.
>>
> Sorry. The intent of "White Rabbit" is to show off "Alice in Wonderland",
> all the drugs and weird things going on in there, and I recognized the
> lyrics so easily.
>
> Michael
Grace Slick, back in the 1970s, claimed the 'feed your head' bit was
about reading books.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340676 is a reply to message #340672] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 14:34 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 11:39:51 AM UTC-6, JimP. wrote:
> Grace Slick, back in the 1970s, claimed the 'feed your head' bit was
> about reading books.
But surely if she admitted it had anything to do with drugs, it would never be
played on the radio?
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340678 is a reply to message #340672] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 19:31 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, JimP. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:57:52 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:51:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> > On 29 Mar 2017 19:44:04 GMT
>>>> > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small,
>>>> >> And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all."
>>>> >> -- Jefferson Airplane
>>>
>>>> > Also (and earlier) The Great Society, that was one of two great
>>>> > songs Grace Slick brought with her to Jefferson Airplane.
>>>
>>>> Yes, the other one of course being "Someone to Love".
>>>
>>> I had to do some digging to find out that the *first* one was "White Rabbit";
>>> unlike "Somebody to Love", I hadn't heard it enough to remember it.
>>>
>> Sorry. The intent of "White Rabbit" is to show off "Alice in Wonderland",
>> all the drugs and weird things going on in there, and I recognized the
>> lyrics so easily.
>>
>> Michael
>
> Grace Slick, back in the 1970s, claimed the 'feed your head' bit was
> about reading books.
I seem to recall reading about a benefit they did in the early seventies
for a school board in San Francisco. So perhaps the quote was topical to
that.
Of course, psychedelics until they got popular were about exploring, and
books are about exploring too.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340679 is a reply to message #340676] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 19:33 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:34:53 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 11:39:51 AM UTC-6, JimP. wrote:
>
>> Grace Slick, back in the 1970s, claimed the 'feed your head' bit was
>> about reading books.
>
> But surely if she admitted it had anything to do with drugs, it would never be
> played on the radio?
>
> John Savard
I think it was well known by that time that most rock and rollers were
doing drugs of some sort. She was photographed, and in the movie, at
Woodstock smoking something that wasn't tobacco in 1969.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340680 is a reply to message #340678] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 19:35 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:31:43 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, JimP. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:57:52 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:51:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:
>>>> > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >> On 29 Mar 2017 19:44:04 GMT
>>>> >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>> "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small,
>>>> >>> And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all."
>>>> >>> -- Jefferson Airplane
>>>>
>>>> >> Also (and earlier) The Great Society, that was one of two great
>>>> >> songs Grace Slick brought with her to Jefferson Airplane.
>>>>
>>>> > Yes, the other one of course being "Someone to Love".
>>>>
>>>> I had to do some digging to find out that the *first* one was "White Rabbit";
>>>> unlike "Somebody to Love", I hadn't heard it enough to remember it.
>>>>
>>> Sorry. The intent of "White Rabbit" is to show off "Alice in Wonderland",
>>> all the drugs and weird things going on in there, and I recognized the
>>> lyrics so easily.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>> Grace Slick, back in the 1970s, claimed the 'feed your head' bit was
>> about reading books.
>
> I seem to recall reading about a benefit they did in the early seventies
> for a school board in San Francisco. So perhaps the quote was topical to
> that.
>
> Of course, psychedelics until they got popular were about exploring, and
> books are about exploring too.
>
> Michael
I have watched several interviews and she stated several times that
the stories she was read as a kid were obviously about drugs, 'Alice
in Wonderland' being one of them.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340681 is a reply to message #340649] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 20:58 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:51:08 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Even today, I see stories and there's a romantic angle to dumpster diving.
>> On one hand they are saving food, and making a statement, but what about
>> the people who need to live off that stuff? ANd it's always about food,
>> while one can dig up interesting things that are thrown out which isn't
>> food. I'm certainly looking forward to the end of the university term
>> here next month, there are areas where the students live very densely, and
>> it's worth looking, all kinds of things tossed out.
>
> I live in a complex which has student dorms and apartments. I
> have observed somewhat of a blip at semester end but not the huge
> amount some seem to be implying. Nonetheless, I have picked up a few
> items over the years. One was a patterned quilt that washed up
> nicely.
My daughter went to school in Boston and lived in the North End for a
semester. It was amazing the stuff the kids threw out. As I recall many
changed apartments at the end of a month, so there was quite a bit then,
and of course a major dump at the end of a semester. I used to scratch my
head until I realized that when the kids were headed home all the stuff
they were taking had to fit into a car. Some rented U-Hauls, but for most
it was more cost-effective to just throw the stuff out on the street, where
there were usually lots of other people happy to take anything usable.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
