StarGateWars Forums

[KMA]Avenger wrote:i was reading your reply and trying to understand your position on the matter when i got to this part of the 2nd paragraph and stopped short of even finishing the sentence "I way prefer to eat industrial or semi industrial bread with preservatives than face bread that will be outdated before I...",

i don't even want to drop to your level of thinking. that sentence is an insult to humanity

you my friend deserve every illness thats associated with bad eating, and you also deserve the doctor to pump you full of drugs to "put you right" afterwards

i'm sorry to say that you have no understanding or knowledge of real food....here, go educate yourself:

Insult to humanity?
I was mainly talking about bread in bio food, but I see I still caused few heart attacks with my post lol. I see we are generalizing as well with my post, because if I said bio bread I came across with is bad, it didn't mean I said all bio food is bad. (d'oh!) Because I also eat bio food sometimes...duh.
And as xDaku said, not all industrial foods are the same, only for those who see industry food as the evil incarnation.

Thank you very much I barely ever had anything related directly or indirectly to food or digestion, even including gastroenteritis. Only once in late years I was ill because I mistakenly ate raw food.
Even when I ate several McDonalds a week I didn't have anything wrong going, and now that I eat it less often, nothing either to notice. And obviously not being obese or fat at all...
I'm very sorry (not really lol) for you to learn that, but I'm not ill at all.

@xDaku, obviously usually I would agree with you, but I was talking about canteen food (and apparently McDonalds is the worst of all, so I just compared it to only industrial food I knew of that could compete with something apparently "evil")...that's the worst food I can recall of I ever ate in my life (and apparently meant to be controlled), and probably one of the most unnatural as well...not saying all canteens provide same crap across the world, but at least mine provided quite horrible stuff, mainly meat (problem with McDonalds is also involving meat, that's why I mentionned it). I usually prefer to avoid low cost and/or quality food in supermarkets so I only got my school canteen as example for bad quality food to confront to McDonalds.


I never said I was a pro about food, just asked a question, but seeing the answers, I think I shouldn't have asked, not really the place to ask for answers, this place is.
I'm well aware McDonald is not the most healthy food around , but I'm annoyed with the likes of this so called "test" made by a New Yorker journalist in their sitting room.
My aim isn't to live one hundred years+, that's why I'm not *that* concerned about which food is the healthiest etc...doesn't mean I will eat *anything* either...

The effects of eating junkfood like McDonalds, KFC, etc. isn't immediate. That's why you didn't notice it. There's no doubt people enjoy eating McDonalds more, otherwise it wouldn't be such a huge franchise, but yes, fact is that McDonalds is one of the worst if not the worst type of junkfood possible. You'll have to look at documentaries to understand why even though you might think your canteen food was worse, it was not. And there are plenty of documentaries, you don't have to choose the journalist from New York, though that is one of the truest tests done to date.

Removed

Kit-Fox wrote:

xDaku wrote:The effects of eating junkfood like McDonalds, KFC, etc. isn't immediate. That's why you didn't notice it. There's no doubt people enjoy eating McDonalds more, otherwise it wouldn't be such a huge franchise, but yes, fact is that McDonalds is one of the worst if not the worst type of junkfood possible. You'll have to look at documentaries to understand why even though you might think your canteen food was worse, it was not. And there are plenty of documentaries, you don't have to choose the journalist from New York, though that is one of the truest tests done to date.

The effects of eating any fast food such as McD's or Burger King, KFC etc etc arent even apparent over the long term as long as they arent the ony things that you eat & assuming you get even a small amount of basic exercise.

I mean really, have you guys who say how bad such food is any idea what does into foods these days? Or what your breathing everytime you walk past a road with any vehicles on?

Your bodies are getting hit with so many things on such a regular basis trust me you arent gonna notice a happy meal or even any set meal from one of these restaurants on an irregular basis.

As to the original story, its overkill as usual from a government (any of them). The phrase 'using a sledgehammer to crack a nut' comes to mind. Not to mention all the arguments of whether or not the 'toy' could be considered an enticement or whether parents should shoulder responsibility for what they feed their children etc etc.

Vehicles are a much tougher problem to solve than unnecessary junkfood. It's a step in the right direction. And a sledgehammer? It's a toy not being included. A sledgehammer would have been banning happy meals. As I've repeated tons of times now, the choice still exists, the incentives haves changed.

I only read the first page and thought i would share this cartoonishly happy cigarette mascot, that definitely appeals to the adult in me.

SuperSaiyan wrote:I love Joe, he's awesome.

Why?

Is it the bright colors, the animated smile?

Does it make you feel young again?

Your a smarty pants SS

But others take a look at that lovable cartoon character and know just how safe, youthful and exciting Joes happy sticks can make them.

SuperSaiyan wrote:

Thriller wrote:But others take a look at that lovable cartoon character and know just how safe, youthful and exciting Joes happy sticks can make them.

That is the point of a mascot and the point of advertising. To make you want a product.

What age demographic do you think they are targeting?

SuperSaiyan wrote:

Thriller wrote:

SuperSaiyan wrote:

Thriller wrote:But others take a look at that lovable cartoon character and know just how safe, youthful and exciting Joes happy sticks can make them.

That is the point of a mascot and the point of advertising. To make you want a product.

What age demographic do you think they are targeting?

If I had to guess, middle aged women who like cute and adorable things.
*grins*

Oh your wrong, acording the the R. J. Reynolds marketing firm that came up with the marketing for the character; the target audience was 25-49 year old males.
But internal documents of the Company which were brought up in a related court case stated that Joe was introduced for "young adult market . . . 14-24 age group" who when matures " will account for a key share of the total cigarette volume - for at least the next 25 years"

ll give you 50 bonus points if you can find name of the US magazine that Joe made his first public appearance in North America.

Thriller wrote:ll give you 50 bonus points if you can find name of the US magazine that Joe made his first public appearance in North America.

first appearance was in AMA racing in mid 70's, but Joe has his origins in Europe...i think....

can i have the cash equivalent please.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Thriller wrote:ll give you 50 bonus points if you can find name of the US magazine that Joe made his first public appearance in North America.

first appearance was in AMA racing in mid 70's, but Joe has his origins in Europe...i think....

can i have the cash equivalent please.

Nope,

Though RJ Reinolds did sponsor AMA racing under the Camel name-brand, which turned into Winston racing, which turned into Nascar.... yeehawwww.

Joe was first introduced in France, and made his first NA debut in 1988 on their cigarette packaging for the 75th anniversary of the brand.

Joes first magazine appearance will be difficult to find, since the company has pretty much buried this timbit of information. But if anyone is going to discover the hidden truth here, I would think it would be you Avenger.

...not sure to take that, i guess i will take it as a compliment

i was right with regards to its origins in Europe though (was not 100% sure if it was UK or France, so i said Europe to cover all bases lol, my first thoughts were UK since i think it was a brit who penned Joe? but then thought France since camels in the UK were not widely sold...as far as i can remember), and i'm pretty sure i was right about the date, but since i don't have any concrete evidence i cant challenge you on that, BUT, i remember as a kid seeing a black and white cartoon character in magazines (my dad used to buy it for the coupons which he would exchange at our local Argos for tubs of Lego lol) of a camel riding a motorbike in the mid 70's...


so, no cash equivalent for me?

SuperSaiyan wrote:http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/28/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20100428

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... esity.html

Well tbh, I cannot stop laughing my ass off at just how ridiculous that is.

1) Toys do not make kids fat, their stupid parents do.
2) Is the government compensating the company's loss of revenue due to the restriction of the marketing tactic?

\

1. True however, the toys give incentive for kids to nag their parents buy McD's.
Marketing tactic as you stated before. Ingenious.

Which takes me to the answering your 2nd point.

2. Why should the government compensate? It is fair . If McD's cant do it, presumably, other companies cant do it.
In other words, tough titties, find a different way to market.