From: Bowser on 17 Dec 2009 19:16 Since we're dumping on Brits this week, I thought I'd take the opportunity to pile on: http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/twiggys-photoshopped-olay-ads-banned-in-england-554961/
From: Paul Ciszek on 17 Dec 2009 23:15 In article <hdili512rhgv811hrk0m0nlska0peq2cc8(a)4ax.com>, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: >Since we're dumping on Brits this week, I thought I'd take the >opportunity to pile on: > >http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/twiggys-photoshopped-olay-ads-banned-in-england-554961/ Seems like a pretty clear case of false advertising to me. The ad claims that the creme made her eyes look "young", while in fact it was photoshop. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: Paul Heslop on 18 Dec 2009 01:37 Bowser wrote: > > Since we're dumping on Brits this week, I thought I'd take the > opportunity to pile on: > > http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/twiggys-photoshopped-olay-ads-banned-in-england-554961/ hardly a dump on... it's blatant false advertising and people have complained that by airbrushing images they are giving ideals to people which are impossible to live up to. dump on the magazines/advertisers -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
From: Bowser on 18 Dec 2009 07:54 "Paul Heslop" <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:4B2B233D.ED307187(a)blueyonder.co.uk... > Bowser wrote: >> >> Since we're dumping on Brits this week, I thought I'd take the >> opportunity to pile on: >> >> http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/twiggys-photoshopped-olay-ads-banned-in-england-554961/ > > hardly a dump on... it's blatant false advertising and people have > complained that by airbrushing images they are giving ideals to people > which are impossible to live up to. > > dump on the magazines/advertisers > > -- > Paul (we break easy) Well, you've got me here. But is there any advertising that isn't *false* advertising? It seems to be the nature of the beast; press the boundaries of lying and see if you can dupe suckers into spending money. This is an extreme example, but only by a few degrees, really. Did you check the links to the "thin" model? That one was much worse.
From: Bowser on 18 Dec 2009 07:55
"Paul Ciszek" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:hgevl9$es4$1(a)reader1.panix.com... > > In article <hdili512rhgv811hrk0m0nlska0peq2cc8(a)4ax.com>, > Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: >>Since we're dumping on Brits this week, I thought I'd take the >>opportunity to pile on: >> >>http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/twiggys-photoshopped-olay-ads-banned-in-england-554961/ > > Seems like a pretty clear case of false advertising to me. > The ad claims that the creme made her eyes look "young", while in fact it > was photoshop. No question, but what ads aren't fake? Like this one: http://shine.yahoo.com/event/fallbeauty/image-of-ultra-thin-ralph-lauren-model-sparks-outrage-521480/ |