Hi Examinator,

Great topic.
Although I can agree with you that commercials can be quite annoying, generally advertising doesn't bother me that much. I'm very good at ignoring ads when I want to and paying attention when I'm looking for something particular.

I don't think I am influenced in a negative way by it. I just think it's handy to know what is available.
I like junk mail for that reason, and my daughter loves it and looks out for it when she plans to buy something.
It can generate ideas especially when having to buy Christmas presents for a lot of people.
As a side note, I'd agree that junk mail is a waste of paper but I discovered the Lasoo site which I sometimes use.

It bothered me at first when the kids were little that TV ads target children but then it occurred to my that I could use TV ads as a tool to teach them to think critically about purchases of products e.g. to teach them to thoroughly research an advertised product they were interested in by comparing other brands and prices.

Watching advertisements was also an opportunity to teach them the difference between "wants" and "needs". Children ofter don't distinguish between the two.
You might need a new pair of pants but do you need THIS particular brand or do you just want that, and why?

So I can say that TV advertising have neither influenced me to buy something I did not need or want nor damaged my children in any way- in fact it helped them to become informed young customers (consumers?).

And yes, it's a good thing that there exists this advertising oversight panel and standards board.

Well this topic has really opened my eyes. According to one poster because I seeded a debate I am responsible for his alleged arrogant response.

And here’s me assuming that the individual was fiercely immune to anything outside his own realm of experience much less intimidation from group think.

I understood this site as being one where within the boundaries of propriety and sensitivities (both of which he has stated he doesn’t care about) one was entitled to express their views. Along with this is GrahamY’s stated view that we are all responsible for ones OWN views arrogant or otherwise.

I reject emphatically as nonsense the notion That I am responsible for the tone of anyone else's post. The nature and content of your post is yours. The argument is a bit like she made me hit her also nonsense.

For those who missed the point my objective was to raise only to discussion the topics. Sure I have views (lots of them) but they are never set in stone I illicit other views as a test to my own perceptions and change the latter where shown prudent.

I must admit that I do hold one view dear that that in order for societies not to degenerate into simply the elite and the serfs I seek to improve everybody’s opportunities for betterment. Even though in the short run it may mean some less advantaged groups get nominally more help…to each his/her need as opposed to mob rule and power groups.

Left wing? Hardly call it enlightened self interest. Consider if we didn’t have 30% of our population wallowing in their ignorance with regard to social responsibility, nutrician, health etc. there would be more money for more infrastructure etc.
How we are as a society benefited by a disgruntled underclass the proverbial time bomb. Civilizations have fallen in the past because of this imbalance.
I won't respond any further to this post.
Examinator.

examinator

I'm sure most readers here would agree with me in describing your threads and comments as thoughtful, respectful, nuanced and from the heart. They have on many occasions, as here, inspired really interesting discussions.

I'm sorry for derailing your thread by making a personal attack, albeit a relatively light-humoured one.

I don't apologise for the attack itself though. I still consider the language I objected to as unneccessarily demeaning and not at all in keeping with the previous tone of the thread.

Col's assurance that his 'decent side' is 'still alive and well' is a positive sign. His next move will demonstrate just how 'alive and well'!

Brony,
No need for appology Your comment were fair and measured.
My comment was directed else where.
I appreciate almost eveyones comments as being meaningful. There are a few who whose views when held up to scruitany tend to resort to loaded wording, insults and a dog eat dog I'm alright jack view of life et al.
To me that's the their right and only they bear the responsibility and consequences of their words.
I do note also those who genuinely want to communicate as opposed to lecture, talk down to people are prepared to apologize and ammend their words if appropriate.
Think no more of it.
More power to you

Examinator “I reject emphatically as nonsense the notion That I am responsible for the tone of anyone else's post. The nature and content of your post is yours. The argument is a bit like she made me hit her also nonsense.”

How defensive and unerringly (albeit predictably) precious of you.

As I said to Bronwyns suggestion that “You're (me) in fine arrogant form”,

following her quoting my comment regarding my decision making processes, compared to the decision making processes of the sort of “retarded morons” (my words) who are disproportionately represented among the “bpgan” (your word) and “child mothers who can’t cook et al” (your words) demographic.

“your word(s)” being where you have ‘pitched’ or ‘set the tone’ for the language in which others, including myself, might reply.

“How we are as a society benefited by a disgruntled underclass the proverbial time bomb. Civilizations have fallen in the past because of this imbalance”

Somehow, I think the future of humanity hangs on more than the viewing or not of a ‘Maccas’ ad…

You will probably accuse me of arrogance but you will find wisdom from arranging the following three words in their correct sequence

Yourself
Over
Get

Bronwyn ”Col's assurance that his 'decent side' is 'still alive and well' is a positive sign. His next move will demonstrate just how 'alive and well'”

In this, as in all contexts, my “decent side” is inseparable from the rest of me.

And lets face it, my "decent side" has not made gratuitous comments to your 'character' (regardless I might consider it 'arrogant', 'humble' or otherwise), I wonder what that means?

Ultimately my "Decent side" is an integral part of the total package, take it or leave it.

Col

Seeing as examinator has no intentions of further responding to your claim that it was his choice of language that set the tone for this discussion , I will.

You've deliberately taken one or two isolated words in an effort to make your point. When those words are seen in their full context, as all readers here have seen them, they are very obviously part of a respectful, considered and nuanced conversation. They are not in the same league at all with the arrogant and condescending manner in which you refer to the same group of people, and that's not talking one or two words, it's a sneering attitude that permeates pretty much every sentence you've written on the issue.

If others could be bothered making this point, I'm sure they'd agree with me. Most of them have given up long ago and accept your arrogance as par for the course. I did too until Foxy's thread threw a different light on that perception. One glimmer of light though won't survive long when a closed mind seems determined to snuff it out!

"And lets face it, my "decent side" has not made gratuitous comments to your 'character' (regardless I might consider it 'arrogant', 'humble' or otherwise), I wonder what that means?"

Granted, not on this occasion at least, which I do appreciate. I was never wading into this on my own behalf though, I was objecting to the arrogant way you were referring to your fellow humans, who may not have been born with the same advantage or ability as your good self, but who nonetheless deserve to be spoken of with a certain level of respect.

I was not making 'gratuitous' comments on your character for the sake of it. It was merely my attempt to object to your arrogance with some degree of humour. Next time, I'll probably dispense with all of that and revert back to direct and blunt criticism. That seems to be the way you like it I think Col.