Really Annoying TV Commercials

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:

>AAA here in SoCal is running a series of TV spots which are really
>starting to annoy me. One shows the president(?) of AAA driving slowly
>and being continuously passed by another driver. Of course, they never
>show how President Sloth manages to get back in front of the
>"impatient" driver time after time after time. The voice-over
>recommends that everyone always obey the speed limit, because speeding
>is dangerous and you don't get there any faster anyway. To hammer this
>point home, they show President Sloth in an elevator, holding the door
>open for the "impatient" driver who somehow managed to arrive second
>despite having been driving much faster.
>
>Another commercial shows a race car driving SLOWLY down a residential
>street. Car after car comes zooming up behind it, whips out to pass,
>and gives the driver a dirty look as he goes by. The race car driver
>says something like "I drive 200 MPH on the track, but on the street I
>always obey the speed limit. If I can slow it down, you can, too."
>
>Aside from the fact that this race car's exhaust is illegally loud and
>probably woke up the entire neighborhood, it's also not legal to drive
>that car (with its non-DOT-approved tires) on public roads.

It's for those such as you that the don't-try-this=at-home-style
disclaimers are included.

> But here's
>what really annoys me as a member of AAA for many years: instead of
>spending my membership dues on sactimonious bull**** like these TV
>commercials which tell me to always obey the ridiculously underposted
>speed limits, you should be busy lobbying Sacramento, Washington, and
>elsewhere to get reasonable speed limits enacted. If speed limits were
>set according to engineering standards instead of polititcal
>fund-raising whims, voluntary compliance would be at least 85% and we
>wouldn't need these sanctimonious ads.
>
>I'm going to have to seriously rethink my membership in AAA when it
>comes up for renewal.

Yep. The most honest votes one can cast are those using wallets as
ballots.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:43:12 -0700, "Michael R. Kesti"
> wrote:
>
>>>Aside from the fact that this race car's exhaust is illegally loud and
>>>probably woke up the entire neighborhood, it's also not legal to drive
>>>that car (with its non-DOT-approved tires) on public roads.
>>
>>It's for those such as you that the don't-try-this=at-home-style
>>disclaimers are included.
>
>Huh?

Perhaps it was the inadvertent '=' in there that confused you. It was
intended to be a hyphen. But if that's not it, I'll type very slowly
for you as I explain.

Of course the race car's exhaust and tires are not street legal and I
suspect that no neighbors were awakened. You see, it was a television
spot and was not intended to portray reality. Instead, the spot attempted
to make its point via hyperbole. Many viewers have proven unable to
grasp this concept, though, and think that they should mimic the behaviors
they observe on television spots. This has lead to the producers of such
spots needing to point out what should be obvious by including
disclaimers such as, "don't try this at home" in order to protect
themselves from such idiots when they hire lawyers after finding
themselves suffering from injury, incarceration, or financial loss.

Is that clear?

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:19:23 -0700, "Michael R. Kesti"
> wrote:

>Is that clear?

Is this? Plonk.

*************************
Dave

Michael R. Kesti wrote:
> "Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:43:12 -0700, "Michael R. Kesti"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Aside from the fact that this race car's exhaust is illegally loud and
>>>>probably woke up the entire neighborhood, it's also not legal to drive
>>>>that car (with its non-DOT-approved tires) on public roads.
>>>
>>>It's for those such as you that the don't-try-this=at-home-style
>>>disclaimers are included.
>>
>>Huh?
>
>
> Perhaps it was the inadvertent '=' in there that confused you. It was
> intended to be a hyphen. But if that's not it, I'll type very slowly
> for you as I explain.
>
> Of course the race car's exhaust and tires are not street legal and I
> suspect that no neighbors were awakened. You see, it was a television
> spot and was not intended to portray reality. Instead, the spot attempted
> to make its point via hyperbole. Many viewers have proven unable to
> grasp this concept, though, and think that they should mimic the behaviors
> they observe on television spots. This has lead to the producers of such
> spots needing to point out what should be obvious by including
> disclaimers such as, "don't try this at home" in order to protect
> themselves from such idiots when they hire lawyers after finding
> themselves suffering from injury, incarceration, or financial loss.
>
> Is that clear?
>

Still not sure what your point is.

Not living in SoCal I haven't seen the spot, but anyone with half a
brain realizes that the "point" it's trying to make is invalid, and
preachy, annoying commercials are, well, preachy and annoying, and make
me not want to do any business with the organizations that buy them.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:

>So the idea that Sloth driving gets you to your destination at the
>same time as people who violate the speed limit is also complete
>fantasy.

Sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. As often a not I find that I
catch up with the tailgater-turned-dangerous-passer at the next stop.
But then, I'm sure I drive in more rural areas than you do, Scott,
so for me more than one lane each way is unusual rather than typical.

For example, I was recently driving on Hwy 49 in the canyon between
Cool and Auburn (CA). It's very twisty and there are few opportunities
to pull over much less pass. I'm proceeding at a reasonable pace but
this prick behind me appears to think that staying within two car
lengths is going to get him to Auburn sooner. On the climb back out
of the canyon there is finally a turn out and I stay right while he
zooms past. (I guess he showed me!) As I get into Auburn, I pull up
behind him stopped for the light at the Lincoln Hwy.

>Gotcha.

Yeah. Sure.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Not living in SoCal I haven't seen the spot, but anyone with half a
> brain realizes that the "point" it's trying to make is invalid, and
> preachy, annoying commercials are, well, preachy and annoying, and make
> me not want to do any business with the organizations that buy them.

What would interesting would be a spot that went like this:

You see an overhed shot car driving slowly in the passing lane while
pacing a car in the adjacent lane. Then you see the car in the adjacent
lane take an exit, and one of the vehicles stuck behind pull along side.
Then cut to a shot between the two vehicles and see the window on the
vehicle that just pulled along side open. Then you see a picture of a
gun discharging. Then fade out to the message: "Don't provoke road
rage, stay out of the passing lane unless you're passing."

I'd say that's not too far from reality on some California highways
(except for the two lane scenario).