TeeVee over Fibre
in [Design]
|
From: Joel Koltner on 16 Apr 2010 17:37 "Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message news:mqfhs554gtvlusepq1q5ih4rq0cjhaiit3(a)4ax.com... > Ah, here we go, page 11 of this issue has one shown clearly: > http://books.google.com/books?id=0k0EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&lr=&rview=1#v=onepage&q&f=false Wow, great find there Spehro; thanks!
From: Copacetic on 16 Apr 2010 20:38 On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:29:36 -0700 (PDT), JeffM <jeffm_(a)email.com> wrote: >>>Joel Koltner wrote: >>>>Wasn't the original "Princess" telephone marketed >>>>just as much to teenaged daughters as to their mothers? :-) >>>> >The way I heard it, the mother was thought of as the Queen >and didn't figure into the campaign at all. > >Copacetic wrote: >>It wasn't "marketed" at all. >> >You're very opinionated. Too bad you're so ignorant. >http://google.com/search?q=site:ecrater.com+%22+Princess-phone-ad Too bad that you are such a goddamned retard. That was not an ad. An ad is for items for sale. The phone was not sold, it was the sole property of Bell Telephone or Western Electric. That was 1967, the year of your "ad". In the mid seventies, THEN one could buy one and keep it, but there was no ad campaign then either. The "campaign" was to garner popularity so they could justify continued manufacturing.
From: krw on 16 Apr 2010 20:43 On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:38:38 -0700, Copacetic <Copacetic(a)iseverythingalright.org> wrote: >On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:29:36 -0700 (PDT), JeffM <jeffm_(a)email.com> wrote: > >>>>Joel Koltner wrote: >>>>>Wasn't the original "Princess" telephone marketed >>>>>just as much to teenaged daughters as to their mothers? :-) >>>>> >>The way I heard it, the mother was thought of as the Queen >>and didn't figure into the campaign at all. >> >>Copacetic wrote: >>>It wasn't "marketed" at all. >>> >>You're very opinionated. Too bad you're so ignorant. >>http://google.com/search?q=site:ecrater.com+%22+Princess-phone-ad > > > Too bad that you are such a goddamned retard. That was not an ad. An >ad is for items for sale. The phone was not sold, it was the sole >property of Bell Telephone or Western Electric. That was 1967, the year >of your "ad". Really, AlwaysWrong? I seem to remember seeing "House for Rent" ads in the newspaper. I've even seen adds for doctor's offices. I suppose they're for sale, AlwaysWrong? > In the mid seventies, THEN one could buy one and keep it, but there was >no ad campaign then either. AlwaysWrong is always wrong. > The "campaign" was to garner popularity so they could justify continued >manufacturing. You're too funny, DimBulb.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 16 Apr 2010 20:45 On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:37:46 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message >news:mqfhs554gtvlusepq1q5ih4rq0cjhaiit3(a)4ax.com... >> Ah, here we go, page 11 of this issue has one shown clearly: >> http://books.google.com/books?id=0k0EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&lr=&rview=1#v=onepage&q&f=false > >Wow, great find there Spehro; thanks! Enough alcohol ads in there to choke an alcoholic elephant.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 17 Apr 2010 05:22
"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:38:38 -0700, Copacetic > <Copacetic(a)iseverythingalright.org> wrote: > > >On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:29:36 -0700 (PDT), JeffM <jeffm_(a)email.com> wrote: > > > >>>>Joel Koltner wrote: > >>>>>Wasn't the original "Princess" telephone marketed > >>>>>just as much to teenaged daughters as to their mothers? :-) > >>>>> > >>The way I heard it, the mother was thought of as the Queen > >>and didn't figure into the campaign at all. > >> > >>Copacetic wrote: > >>>It wasn't "marketed" at all. > >>> > >>You're very opinionated. Too bad you're so ignorant. > >>http://google.com/search?q=site:ecrater.com+%22+Princess-phone-ad > > > > > > Too bad that you are such a goddamned retard. That was not an ad. An > >ad is for items for sale. The phone was not sold, it was the sole > >property of Bell Telephone or Western Electric. That was 1967, the year > >of your "ad". > > Really, AlwaysWrong? I seem to remember seeing "House for Rent" ads in the > newspaper. I've even seen adds for doctor's offices. I suppose they're for > sale, AlwaysWrong? > > > > In the mid seventies, THEN one could buy one and keep it, but there was > >no ad campaign then either. > > AlwaysWrong is always wrong. > > > The "campaign" was to garner popularity so they could justify continued > >manufacturing. > > You're too funny, DimBulb. At one time there was an extra monthly charge for the Princess phone and later, for DTMF so it was 'marketed'. -- Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!' |