apply directly to the forehead
.
|
|
| User: "gravity" |
|
| Title: Re: HEAD ON |
03 Oct 2006 07:31:24 PM |
|
|
"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:o4SdndfbnKBac7_YnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews.com...
apply directly to the forehead
turns out the active ingredients in HeadOn are like 10 parts in 1 million.
it's basically wax or some other inactive *****.
i can't legally say it's a ripoff, but use your cerebrum to decide.
Gravity
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: HEAD ON |
03 Oct 2006 07:34:20 PM |
|
|
"gravity" <gravityzrainbow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4523011d$0$97222$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:o4SdndfbnKBac7_YnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews.com...
apply directly to the forehead
turns out the active ingredients in HeadOn are like 10 parts in 1 million.
it's basically wax or some other inactive *****.
i can't legally say it's a ripoff, but use your cerebrum to decide.
Gravity
that's ok , i only believe what you say in 10 parts per million
.
|
|
|
| User: "gravity" |
|
| Title: Re: HEAD ON |
03 Oct 2006 08:07:02 PM |
|
|
that's ok , i only believe what you say in 10 parts per million
learn to use Google and read peer-reviewed journals. if you can't do that,
no wonder you are jobless.
Gravity
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: HEAD ON |
03 Oct 2006 08:10:15 PM |
|
|
"gravity" <gravityzrainbow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45230978$0$97272$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
that's ok , i only believe what you say in 10 parts per million
learn to use Google and read peer-reviewed journals. if you can't do
that,
no wonder you are jobless.
Gravity
i'll do whatever i like and you sit like a good boy and watch
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bacon" |
|
| Title: Re: HEAD ON |
03 Oct 2006 07:52:43 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 16:13:52 -0700, "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote:
apply directly to the forehead
You called that one early...right at the beginning of the campaign.
Now it's studied in marketing classes and will eventually take on a
"Where's the beef?" position in ad history. It still sucks to hear it
though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: HEAD ON |
03 Oct 2006 07:55:06 PM |
|
|
"Bacon" <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ja16i2lspbnas8t4e70t919ublgtvu1qre@4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 16:13:52 -0700, "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote:
apply directly to the forehead
You called that one early...right at the beginning of the campaign.
Now it's studied in marketing classes and will eventually take on a
"Where's the beef?" position in ad history. It still sucks to hear it
though.
and everyone thinks i'm just a drunkin no account poster
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gravity" |
|
| Title: Re: HEAD ON |
03 Oct 2006 07:58:58 PM |
|
|
"Bacon" <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ja16i2lspbnas8t4e70t919ublgtvu1qre@4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 16:13:52 -0700, "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote:
apply directly to the forehead
You called that one early...right at the beginning of the campaign.
Now it's studied in marketing classes and will eventually take on a
"Where's the beef?" position in ad history. It still sucks to hear it
though.-
being annoying gets people's attention? how the ***** is this new? just
take the examples of NSync, HeadOn, and Gilbert Gottfried.
the HeadOn advertisement is simply an expression of the minimalist school.
it happened in art in the mid 20th century. now it finally trickled down
into advertisement, same as the shampoo bottles that look like a Mondrian
painting.
if you want me to watch a commercial, just put in a scantily clad supermodel
(e.g. Heidi Klum). i sure as ***** won't remember the product, but i will
remember the commercial.
ding. drool.
Gravity
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bacon" |
|
| Title: Re: HEAD ON |
03 Oct 2006 09:52:11 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 19:58:58 -0500, "gravity"
<gravityzrainbow@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bacon" <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ja16i2lspbnas8t4e70t919ublgtvu1qre@4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 16:13:52 -0700, "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote:
apply directly to the forehead
You called that one early...right at the beginning of the campaign.
Now it's studied in marketing classes and will eventually take on a
"Where's the beef?" position in ad history. It still sucks to hear it
though.-
being annoying gets people's attention? how the ***** is this new? just
take the examples of NSync, HeadOn, and Gilbert Gottfried.
the HeadOn advertisement is simply an expression of the minimalist school.
it happened in art in the mid 20th century. now it finally trickled down
into advertisement, same as the shampoo bottles that look like a Mondrian
painting.
if you want me to watch a commercial, just put in a scantily clad supermodel
(e.g. Heidi Klum). i sure as ***** won't remember the product, but i will
remember the commercial.
ding. drool.
Gravity
From Wikipedia: "Chemical analysis has shown that the product consists
almost entirely of wax. The two listed active ingredients, white
bryony (a type of vine) and potassium dichromate, are diluted to
..000001 PPM and 1 PPM respectively.[2] This amount of dilution
essentially leaves no trace of the active ingredients whatsoever, so
the product is essentially a placebo.[3]"
"Dan Charron, vice president of sales and marketing, told the Los
Angeles Times that nobody in the focus groups had told him that the
ads were annoying.[5]"
***** Dan...you decide:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GOvFIxUz2XY
.
|
|
|
| User: "gravity gravity@send_emails_to_Persent_instead" |
|
| Title: Re: HEAD ON |
03 Oct 2006 10:00:27 PM |
|
|
"Bacon" <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tb86i297thuiromuabq2b12fmm5magmdkm@4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 19:58:58 -0500, "gravity"
<gravityzrainbow@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bacon" <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ja16i2lspbnas8t4e70t919ublgtvu1qre@4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 16:13:52 -0700, "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote:
apply directly to the forehead
You called that one early...right at the beginning of the campaign.
Now it's studied in marketing classes and will eventually take on a
"Where's the beef?" position in ad history. It still sucks to hear it
though.-
being annoying gets people's attention? how the ***** is this new? just
take the examples of NSync, HeadOn, and Gilbert Gottfried.
the HeadOn advertisement is simply an expression of the minimalist school.
it happened in art in the mid 20th century. now it finally trickled down
into advertisement, same as the shampoo bottles that look like a Mondrian
painting.
if you want me to watch a commercial, just put in a scantily clad
supermodel
(e.g. Heidi Klum). i sure as ***** won't remember the product, but i will
remember the commercial.
ding. drool.
Gravity
From Wikipedia: "Chemical analysis has shown that the product consists
almost entirely of wax. The two listed active ingredients, white
bryony (a type of vine) and potassium dichromate, are diluted to
.000001 PPM and 1 PPM respectively.[2] This amount of dilution
essentially leaves no trace of the active ingredients whatsoever, so
the product is essentially a placebo.[3]"
"Dan Charron, vice president of sales and marketing, told the Los
Angeles Times that nobody in the focus groups had told him that the
ads were annoying.[5]"
***** Dan...you decide:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GOvFIxUz2XY
agreed. it's just sound and fury made to play to the lowest common
denominator i.e. typical Americans. this is no different than hip hop
videos having a bunch of chicks and gold to make up for a shitty tune.
minimalism was profoundly important in postmodern music (no i don't mean
"Beck", for any retards reading), but it's pretty silly in ads.
Gravity
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: HEAD ON |
03 Oct 2006 10:05:07 PM |
|
|
"gravity" <gravity@send_emails_to_Persent_instead> wrote in message
news:4523240c$0$97239$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
"Bacon" <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tb86i297thuiromuabq2b12fmm5magmdkm@4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 19:58:58 -0500, "gravity"
<gravityzrainbow@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bacon" <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ja16i2lspbnas8t4e70t919ublgtvu1qre@4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 16:13:52 -0700, "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote:
apply directly to the forehead
You called that one early...right at the beginning of the campaign.
Now it's studied in marketing classes and will eventually take on a
"Where's the beef?" position in ad history. It still sucks to hear it
though.-
being annoying gets people's attention? how the ***** is this new? just
take the examples of NSync, HeadOn, and Gilbert Gottfried.
the HeadOn advertisement is simply an expression of the minimalist
school.
it happened in art in the mid 20th century. now it finally trickled
down
into advertisement, same as the shampoo bottles that look like a
Mondrian
painting.
if you want me to watch a commercial, just put in a scantily clad
supermodel
(e.g. Heidi Klum). i sure as ***** won't remember the product, but i
will
remember the commercial.
ding. drool.
Gravity
From Wikipedia: "Chemical analysis has shown that the product consists
almost entirely of wax. The two listed active ingredients, white
bryony (a type of vine) and potassium dichromate, are diluted to
.000001 PPM and 1 PPM respectively.[2] This amount of dilution
essentially leaves no trace of the active ingredients whatsoever, so
the product is essentially a placebo.[3]"
"Dan Charron, vice president of sales and marketing, told the Los
Angeles Times that nobody in the focus groups had told him that the
ads were annoying.[5]"
***** Dan...you decide:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GOvFIxUz2XY
agreed. it's just sound and fury made to play to the lowest common
denominator i.e. typical Americans. this is no different than hip hop
videos having a bunch of chicks and gold to make up for a shitty tune.
minimalism was profoundly important in postmodern music (no i don't mean
"Beck", for any retards reading), but it's pretty silly in ads.
Gravity
hi nipple head
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gravity" |
|
| Title: HEAD ON |
03 Oct 2006 07:32:05 PM |
|
|
apply directly to the Better Business Bureau.
Gravity
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
