On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:58:44 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:



Vaseline is the best and your boyfriend can use it too :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> [snort] My my the way my mind works - "Is your airline using standard 
> seat cushions in their planes? Tests show that normal seats can hide 
> terrorists for up to two days. Ask for a PhilCo seat because you don't 
> want you and your family to end up dead"

I literally laughed out loud on this one!

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

> Meh I'm just weary of this I caught a Ch4 thing on the claims of 
> cosmetic companies. 'So long as they don't make medicinal claims then 
> they can say what they like without any clinical studies being 
> published' I just love to read the small print they have to publish '75% 
> of women said they noticed a difference' - based on a survey of 52 
> women; wooh that's statistically valid.
> 
> The funny part was that Ch4 blind-tested some women with cheap to 
> expensive products and most of the ones seemed to claim a difference 
> after four weeks. That was until they were re-examined by dermatolgists 
> who came back with the results that a few had improved, a few had not 
> changed, and a few had got worse; with no apparent difference between 
> the £5 tube of moisturiser and the £100+ complete skin care range.

Seems to me that is compatible with 'difference'. As long as they don't
claim an improvement they are safe, I guess. Hmm, I see opportunities for
even greater percentages of 'difference'.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duloxetine
>
>   I was just wondering why should this be of any interest to us.
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

this is of interest to my friends who post here, and those not part of the SNS.


                                                            - aQ

Post a reply to this message

alphaQuad wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duloxetine
>>   I was just wondering why should this be of any interest to us.
>>
>> --
>>                                                           - Warp
> 
> this is of interest to my friends who post here, and those not part of the SNS.
> 
FYI, SNS is not in acronymfinder (at least no meaning that might fit in 
this sentence). If the meaning is the same as the subject of your new 
post: this is a very international newsgroup and not everybody is in 
your nation. Anyway, others answered this question much better a week 
ago, I think. ;)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 19 May 2008 17:42:36 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:58:44 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> Hey, that could help with my allergy shots.
>>
>> PhilCo, serving the needs of tomorrow yesterday.
>
> Better that than "serving the needs of yesterday tomorrow". :-)

I wouldn't want to compete with the government.

>>> LOL
>>
>> "Is this you stuck in a queue at your local megamarket? If so chances
>> are they're using a slow and outdated till. See this like-for-like
>> comparision between two queues, one using a standard till and the other
>> a PhilCo 8000. Your time is precious, why wait, ask your megamarket to
>> buy a PhilCo 8000 today."
>
> LOL, if I start laughing and have to explain to coworkers.  Bugger,
> forgot to mute my phone and had to explain about cats fighting  
> outside....

Gods I'm still free-associating "Why settle for being served by ugly  
people, get your store to call Supermodels 4 Hire today", "Still breathing  
the same old regular air as everyone else? Don't you deserve better?  
Install a PhilCo air provider. Now with 5% more oxygen!"

That last bit came from a cosmetic ad that boasts its product now has %  
more oxygen... wooh! :-)

>> I mean it's nuts nobody would think about getting customers to suggest a
>> store invest in a particular brand of till, or CCTV camera, or floor
>> tile and advertisers won't bother targetting them. Yet talk about
>> pharmaceuticals and bam everyone's a bleedin' expert based on a
>> one-minute infomercial on the benefits of Bendroxalphaltimine over other
>> brands.
>
> Yep, I agree with this.  Then you get people who have no background in
> pharmacology or chemistry making claims about drugs based on those 60-
> second spots.

Which is the entire point it's much easier to gull them; you don't have to  
show them your clinical trials etc.

>> of women said they noticed a difference' - based on a survey of 52
>> women; wooh that's statistically valid.
>
> Heh, yeah, gotta love that.

And it's normally white text on a light background too.

>> The funny part was that Ch4 blind-tested some women with cheap to
>> expensive products and most of the ones seemed to claim a difference
>> after four weeks. That was until they were re-examined by dermatolgists
>> who came back with the results that a few had improved, a few had not
>> changed, and a few had got worse; with no apparent difference between
>> the £5 tube of moisturiser and the £100+ complete skin care range.
>
> I see this kind of thing fairly regularly - it's amazing what you can
> sell people on, and how gullible the average person really is.

One of them said this herself 'If I'm spending £50 on a cosmetic then I'd  
expect to see a difference'.

>> Oh and all the companies asked to comment on this result came back with
>> a 'well our surveys/studies were larger then yours, but we're not going
>> to let you see them'
>
> Yeah.  Get 'em on video saying that, that'll tank their marketing as long
> as enough people see it.  Get Newsnight to do an expose on it. ;-)

Written statements to Ch4. The journalist got taken around Loreal R&D in  
Paris and asked some interesting questions about claims, the rep was  
visibly squirming.

She talked to the government department about claims made by POS staff and  
the outcome was "We can't act on hearsay" despite it being taped, and  
'they don't make these claims in their advertising or on their products'.  
So basically the POS staff can make whatever claims they like provided  
it's not written down anywhere or broadcast.

Heh one rep claimed that their product 'produced new stem cells, by  
increasing their replication rate'. One medical guy said "Well we have a  
word for that - tumor"

>>> Why am I suddenly hearing George Carlin? ;-)
>>
>> I don't know, has he just rung you? :-P
>
> Heh, wishful thinking - he doesn't know me from Adam.  I was thinking
> about his bit on jumping up and down on seat cushions...

Don't recall that, I'll have to Google/YouTube it when I get chance.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 19 May 2008 18:38:39 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:58:44 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> £5 tube of moisturiser and the £100+ complete skin care range.
>
> Vaseline is the best and your boyfriend can use it too :)

Oh yeah men 'borrowing' moisturiser etc. until the companies spotted the  
opening and produced a "for men" range. I suppose the implication is that  
if it doesn't have "for men" on it then it's for women?

Damn that would cause a serious reduction in choice for me I swear the  
majority of stuff on the mens shelf at the store smells like someone has  
poured petrol up your nose. Seems to be a wide range between lumberjack  
and Hell's Angel.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 May 2008 09:24:57 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>Oh yeah men 'borrowing' moisturiser etc. until the companies spotted the  
>opening and produced a "for men" range. I suppose the implication is that  
>if it doesn't have "for men" on it then it's for women?

Nancy Pancy :)

>Damn that would cause a serious reduction in choice for me I swear the  
>majority of stuff on the mens shelf at the store smells like someone has  
>poured petrol up your nose. Seems to be a wide range between lumberjack  
>and Hell's Angel.

Hmm! Petrol sandwiches! Takes me back to my biking days :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 May 2008 09:19:27 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> Better that than "serving the needs of yesterday tomorrow". :-)
> 
> I wouldn't want to compete with the government.

LOL, good one.

>> LOL, if I start laughing and have to explain to coworkers.  Bugger,
>> forgot to mute my phone and had to explain about cats fighting
>> outside....
> 
> Gods I'm still free-associating "Why settle for being served by ugly
> people, get your store to call Supermodels 4 Hire today", "Still
> breathing the same old regular air as everyone else? Don't you deserve
> better? Install a PhilCo air provider. Now with 5% more oxygen!"

Another good one.  Funny thing, at Novell's BrainShare, they had an 
"Oxygen Bar" set up.  Someone got to talking with the folks who were 
running it, and asked where they got the oxygen from.  The word 
"breathing" was used in the answer.... ;-)

> That last bit came from a cosmetic ad that boasts its product now has %
> more oxygen... wooh! :-)

"New and Improved" is one that always gets me.  Oh, and "Organic" - as if 
the other option is "Inorganic".  Yuck.

>> Yep, I agree with this.  Then you get people who have no background in
>> pharmacology or chemistry making claims about drugs based on those 60-
>> second spots.
> 
> Which is the entire point it's much easier to gull them; you don't have
> to show them your clinical trials etc.

Yep.  "Gull", now there's an interesting word, in that context.

>> Heh, yeah, gotta love that.
> 
> And it's normally white text on a light background too.

In 3 point font.  One that's difficult to read.

>> I see this kind of thing fairly regularly - it's amazing what you can
>> sell people on, and how gullible the average person really is.
> 
> One of them said this herself 'If I'm spending £50 on a cosmetic then
> I'd expect to see a difference'.

Heh.  Well duh. ;-)

> Written statements to Ch4. The journalist got taken around Loreal R&D in
> Paris and asked some interesting questions about claims, the rep was
> visibly squirming.

Wish I'd seen that one.  I'd have paid for that. ;-)

> She talked to the government department about claims made by POS staff
> and the outcome was "We can't act on hearsay" despite it being taped,
> and 'they don't make these claims in their advertising or on their
> products'. So basically the POS staff can make whatever claims they like
> provided it's not written down anywhere or broadcast.

Gotta love deniability.  They should send someone into one of the 
training sessions on the products - POS staff does need to be trained on 
the products, you know.

> Heh one rep claimed that their product 'produced new stem cells, by
> increasing their replication rate'. One medical guy said "Well we have a
> word for that - tumor"

LOL!  "Here, buy this product, it'll give you tumors - and it's designed 
to do that!"

>>>> Why am I suddenly hearing George Carlin? ;-)
>>>
>>> I don't know, has he just rung you? :-P
>>
>> Heh, wishful thinking - he doesn't know me from Adam.  I was thinking
>> about his bit on jumping up and down on seat cushions...
> 
> Don't recall that, I'll have to Google/YouTube it when I get chance.

Don't know if it's a video performance, might only be audio.  I'll have 
to dig around when I have a minute.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 20 May 2008 18:35:54 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 20 May 2008 09:19:27 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Gods I'm still free-associating "Why settle for being served by ugly
>> people, get your store to call Supermodels 4 Hire today", "Still
>> breathing the same old regular air as everyone else? Don't you deserve
>> better? Install a PhilCo air provider. Now with 5% more oxygen!"
>
> Another good one.  Funny thing, at Novell's BrainShare, they had an
> "Oxygen Bar" set up.  Someone got to talking with the folks who were
> running it, and asked where they got the oxygen from.  The word
> "breathing" was used in the answer.... ;-)

Boggles the mind

>> That last bit came from a cosmetic ad that boasts its product now has %
>> more oxygen... wooh! :-)
>
> "New and Improved" is one that always gets me.  Oh, and "Organic" - as if
> the other option is "Inorganic".  Yuck.

Monster Raving Looney Party Manifesto Pledge #129: Manufacturers will be  
made to compensate for the "Old and Inferior" goods that they have now  
replaced with "New and Improved"

I just heard the oxygen claim and thought "What, is the tube pumped with  
it or something?" I mean you could just add more water, oops sorry aqua,  
and gain 'oxygen'.

>> And it's normally white text on a light background too.
>
> In 3 point font.  One that's difficult to read.

We do have some standards IIRC it has to be deemed as legible on a  
'standard' screen and thus can't be too small, on exactly the same colour  
background or appear for just 1 sec.

>>> I see this kind of thing fairly regularly - it's amazing what you can
>>> sell people on, and how gullible the average person really is.
>>
>> One of them said this herself 'If I'm spending £50 on a cosmetic then
>> I'd expect to see a difference'.
>
> Heh.  Well duh. ;-)

But it does highlight that the entire '% noticed a difference' may have  
some flaws

>> Written statements to Ch4. The journalist got taken around Loreal R&D in
>> Paris and asked some interesting questions about claims, the rep was
>> visibly squirming.
>
> Wish I'd seen that one.  I'd have paid for that. ;-)

You've got 16 hours left if the link works outside the UK, but [sigh] it  
needs WMP11 to play.

http://www.channel4.com/video/brandless-catchup.jsp?vodBrand=dispatches-the-truth-about-beauty-creams

>> She talked to the government department about claims made by POS staff
>> and the outcome was "We can't act on hearsay" despite it being taped,
>> and 'they don't make these claims in their advertising or on their
>> products'. So basically the POS staff can make whatever claims they like
>> provided it's not written down anywhere or broadcast.
>
> Gotta love deniability.  They should send someone into one of the
> training sessions on the products - POS staff does need to be trained on
> the products, you know.

Well they've done it for some shows.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message