Disney Porn For Our Kids?

Originally posted by MindWarrior
You may not notice consciously but that may be the point. The subconscious notices all. If "All good teenagers, take off your clothes!" is really said at such a soft volume then it's obviously meant for the subconscious. Has anyone here actually tried listening themselves to see if it's really said?

Look how much sex stuff they blatantly put on the Disney Channel...

The question becomes "why?". What is there to gain? Is the driving factor financial profit or something more sinister?

IMHO the amount of information taken in on a subconsious level is highly overrated. And in this case, I think it's fairly safe to assume that the hidden messages are nothing but harmless easter eggs.

Btw, how come Donald Duck covers himself when he's caught taking a bath, but have no problem whatsoever walking around buck naked from the waist down?

I don't see a lot of "sex" on the Disney channel.

While flicking through, one might expect to find Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera(sp?), Lindsey Lohan, 3LW, etc... usually doing "provacative dances" for lack of a better term. Certainly seems sexually oriented.

IMHO the amount of information taken in on a subconsious level is highly overrated.

I might argue that it is highly underrated...

This is very, very old news...apparently someone that edits many of these films finds humor in hiding little, out of the way parts in Disney movies....I have one of the original Lion King Videos where the clouds spell out "sex" there aren't many of them as they were edited when all this came out several years back....though these things shouldn't be in these movies for our children, I don't think it's Disney doing it, and I don't think children "catch" it....look at all the innuendo meant for adults in current kid movies like Shriek...we get ir but the kids don't.

Originally posted by MindWarrior
I might argue that it is highly underrated...

To clarify what I mean when I say I think the effect of subliminal communication is highly overrated. Subliminal is something your consious does not perceive. Behavioural studies have shown the effect of zero perception-communication results in zero response. This type of subliminal communication would be the kind discussed in this thread and also the kind that was experimented on in the 50s.

I'm a creative working in advertising, so I do have some practical insight in this. There are ways however, to push people in a certain direction. This is mainly done through the use of knowledge about the consumer being addressed and educated "guessing" about what he/she likes or don't like, his/her habits, whether he/she is a follower/leader etc, etc. I guess this could be mistaken as subliminal, but it is in fact quite the opposite. Though the result of this may not look or feel like regular advertising, this kind of communication fits in the high-perception area.

I could get much deeper into how this actually works, but I don't think anybody wants this to be a mile-long post.

To clarify what I mean when I say I think the effect of subliminal communication is highly overrated. Subliminal is something your consious does not perceive.

Consider this....

"Every television show we've ever seen is stored in our sub- and superconscious minds, every book we've read, every detail of every sexual encounter, major life change, and every imagining that we, as humans, have been inspired to have. It is, by way of comparison, an infinite hard drive for the brain, while the normal conscious mind is merely the disk cache. The entirety of our childhoods are stored in perfect detail there, as well as whatever knowledge we, as humans, possess of our past lives, if such things exist. The problem with these two types of consciousnesses is that beyond normal consciousness, anything deeper is vastly difficult to retrieve. This is why our dreams are often so odd -- they're mostly made up of random renmants of sub- and superconscious memories, or distortions thereof."

The subconscious can be exploited, essentially, viia buffer overflows.

I'm a creative working in advertising, so I do have some practical insight in this. There are ways however, to push people in a certain direction. This is mainly done through the use of knowledge about the consumer being addressed and educated "guessing" about what he/she likes or don't like, his/her habits, whether he/she is a follower/leader etc, etc. I guess this could be mistaken as subliminal, but it is in fact quite the opposite. Though the result of this may not look or feel like regular advertising, this kind of communication fits in the high-perception area.

Not many people who work in advertising fully realize the mechanisms behind their tactics. They know that it works, plain and simple. But there is a reason "it works." It's because humans have been trained to respond to certain stimuli. Much of this is in our genes. Think of being a human thousands of years ago before major civilizations. Sounds, sights, these things we're absolutely essential to survival. Humans evolved along with other creatures. Take birds, the natural human response to a bird warning cry is a heightened sense of alert. Advanced television programming preys on our instincts, grabbing the conscious mind via the previously described mechanism, and slipping into the subconscious while we are distracted. Once inside, the possibilities are endless.

Originally posted by LadyV
This is very, very old news...apparently someone that edits many of these films finds humor in hiding little, out of the way parts in Disney movies....I have one of the original Lion King Videos where the clouds spell out "sex"

I have to agree on this point. it seems that alot of the images that are not supposed to be there are rouge artists having fun. Why would Disney (I do believe that they are evil) put its profits in jepoardy by willingly putting a phallic symbol etc in thier artwork???.

Its not just disney either. Remember the origional TV pilot for Battlestar Galactica? When the Cylons Attack the Home Planet the city lights on Caprica can be seen to spell out F$%# Off. Pretty damm funny IMHO... Maybe thats why the Cylons attacked in the first place

Originally posted by LadyV

and I don't think children "catch" it....look at all the innuendo meant for adults in current kid movies like Shriek...we get ir but the kids don't.

Don't plan on watching Shrek but read my other reply, a child's subconscious is even more susceptible.

Regarding your signature, are you aware of the context in which Einstein used "god"?

"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." --Albert Einstein

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God"
--Albert Einstein The Human Side, 1954

Originally posted by MindWarrior
"Every television show we've ever seen is stored in our sub- and superconscious minds, every book we've read, every detail of every sexual encounter, major life change, and every imagining that we, as humans, have been inspired to have. It is, by way of comparison, an infinite hard drive for the brain, while the normal conscious mind is merely the disk cache. The entirety of our childhoods are stored in perfect detail there, as well as whatever knowledge we, as humans, possess of our past lives, if such things exist. The problem with these two types of consciousnesses is that beyond normal consciousness, anything deeper is vastly difficult to retrieve. This is why our dreams are often so odd -- they're mostly made up of random renmants of sub- and superconscious memories, or distortions thereof."

About the information we do take in - yes, I too believe it's eventually stored in the brain for future use. However, there are vast amounts of information we don't take in for various reasons. For one, we tend to learn which type of information to screen and ignore - advertising is only one example. Consider this; one Sunday issue of the New York Times contains more information than the normal person in the 19th Century was exposed to in a lifetime.

Not many people who work in advertising fully realize the mechanisms behind their tactics. They know that it works, plain and simple.

I can aree to this to some level. However we're not totally shooting in the dark. To be a successful communicator, one has to be very aware of the noise of information that's constantly thrown in the face of the individual being addressed. Not taking this into consideration, is futile.

Advertisers can't afford to overestimate people's level of interest in what is communicated, neither can we afford to underestimate their intelligence.

Using zero-perception/subliminal information has been proven rather useless as a way of communicating.

Consider this; one Sunday issue of the New York Times contains more information than the normal person in the 19th Century was exposed to in a lifetime.

That can be disputed too. The "information" contained in mainstream media is better defined as propaganda and your analogy is just a bit exaggerated.

Advertisers can't afford to overestimate people's level of interest in what is communicated

Which is why we see the sleazy tactics of quick-flashing imagery, combined with high-dB 'un-natural" sound, delivered at key points. Like in the middle of an important at-bat in a baseball game or right after a dramatic moment in a televised program (like Top Gun, right after informing "Maverick" and "Goose" that "Now you're number one!-then, immediate spam-).

In many ways, television advertisements are a form of rape... forceful, unwanted, and "evil."

subliminal information has been proven rather useless as a way of communicating

When, and by whom?

It's only nudity. It's not if they had subliminal messages saying "Shoot your brother" or "Sacrifice a newborn to satan"...

Originally posted by MindWarrior

That can be disputed too. The "information" contained in mainstream media is better defined as propaganda and your analogy is just a bit exaggerated.

In what way is my analogy exaggerated? Please provide some evidence of that claim - or is it simply your personal opinion? My source of this quote is Columbia University�s professor Eli M. Noam, Visions of the Media Age: Taming the Information Monster. Aside from a typo on my part (it sould be 17th; not 19th century) the information is correctly quoted from a credible source. I would however say it's an obvious generalization. But it does give at least some interesting insight on the amount of information, (or propaganda if you will), we are exposed to as compared to the average individual of the 17th century.

Which is why we see the sleazy tactics of quick-flashing imagery, combined with high-dB 'un-natural" sound, delivered at key points. Like in the middle of an important at-bat in a baseball game or right after a dramatic moment in a televised program (like Top Gun, right after informing "Maverick" and "Goose" that "Now you're number one!-then, immediate spam-).

IMO, 95% of the advertising out there are bad ideas that are poorly executed not taking the target audience into consideration. This would be what I refer to as "noice". What you usually see are advertisers using high-perception techniques only; no intelligence whatsoever. In short, most advertising is crap. IMO.

In many ways, television advertisements are a form of rape... forceful, unwanted, and "evil."

I notice some hostility on your part towards advertising in general. If you want a discussion on that subject, I'd suggest you start a new thread and bark up another tree. This discussion is about the effetiveness/non-effectiveness in subliminal communication.

When, and by whom?

Actually, there have been numerous amounts of studies over the years showing there to be little to no credible scientific evidence proving the effectiveness of subliminal communication. Again subliminal meaning no perception.

Just an example on this. "The findings from controlled studies indicate that subliminal perception, when it occurs, reflects a person's usual interpretations of stimuli. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that people initiate actions on the basis of subliminal perception. The weight of the evidence indicates that people must be aware of perceiving stimuli before they initiate actions or change their habitual reactions to these stimuli. Thus, although subliminal perception may allow us to make accurate guesses regarding the characteristics of stimuli, subliminal perception cannot lead a person to drink Coca-Cola or to eat Ritz Crackers, and it cannot be used effectively to improve a person's tennis skills or to cure a person's bad habits." Merikle, P. M., & Daneman, M. (1998). Psychological investigations of unconscious perception. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5, 5-18.

Read about how the advertising industry looks upon hidden-message ads as fiction.

Some history on how this "myth" started.

"It was James Vicary who coined the term "subliminal advertising." Vicary had conducted a variety of unusual studies of female shopping habits, discovering (among other things) that women's eye-blink rates dropped significantly in supermarkets, that "psychological spring" lasts more than twice as long as "psychological winter," and that "the experience of a woman baking a cake could be likened to a woman giving birth." Vicary's studies were largely forgettable, save for one experiment he conducted at a Ft. Lee, New Jersey movie theater during the summer of 1957. Vicary placed a tachistoscope in the theater's projection booth, and all throughout the playing of the film Picnic, he flashed a couple of different messages on the screen every five seconds. The messages each displayed for only 1/3000th of a second at a time, far below the viewers' threshold of conscious perceptibility. The result of displaying these imperceptible suggestions -- "Drink Coca-Cola" and "Hungry? Eat Popcorn" -- was an amazing 18.1% increase in Coca-Cola sales, and a whopping 57.8% jump in popcorn purchases. Thus was demonstrated the awesome power of "subliminal advertising" to coerce unwary buyers into making purchases they would not otherwise have considered.

Or so goes the legend that has retained its potency for more than forty years. So potent a legend, in fact, that the Federal Communications Commission banned "subliminal advertising" from radio and television airwaves in 1974, despite that fact that no studies have ever shown it to be effective, and even though its alleged efficacy was based on a fraud.

Vicary lied about the results of his experiment. When he was challenged to repeat the test by the president of the Psychological Corporation, Dr. Henry Link, Vicary's duplication of his original experiment produced no significant increase in popcorn or Coca-Cola sales. Eventually Vicary confessed that he had falsified the data from his first experiments, and some critics have since expressed doubts that he actually conducted his infamous Ft. Lee experiment at all." Source: Rogers, Stuart. "How a Publicity Blitz Created the Myth of Subliminal Advertising."

Edit: spelling
Edit: source

[edit on 9-8-2004 by Durden]

In what way is my analogy exaggerated?

In the following manner:
"one Sunday issue of the New York Times contains more information than the normal person in the 19th Century was exposed to in a lifetime. "

No research is needed to realize that is an insanely exaggerated statement. Feel free to post the complete quote, in the context it was used, if you want a re-evaluation. However, unless prof. Noam lived in the 17th century and, also, the present day, it's irrelevant what he thinks.

Mainstream media does not provide information relating to true current events. And "information" does not include advertisements and since ~50% of all media (newspaper, tv, radio) is advertisements, that must be taken into account.

Guess you haven't seen the article New York Times Reporter A Government Informant
"David Cay Johnston, a celebrated New York Times reporter, reveals in his recent book, Perfectly Legal, his history of acting as a government informant"

95% of the advertising out there are bad ideas that are poorly executed not taking the target audience into consideration

That's the problem, creators of spam (advertisements) "target" people. Much like one would with a rifle. Only the target is psychological, not physical.

I notice some hostility on your part towards advertising in general. If you want a discussion on that subject, I'd suggest you start a new thread and bark up another tree. This discussion is about the effetiveness/non-effectiveness in subliminal communication.

The "discussion" is defined as what was discussed and, as it has been discussed, it is now part of the discussion. It's you who said "I'm a creative working in advertising"... bringing up the generalized topic in the first place.
By the way, you can't be a creative, you can only be creative. Anyway, advertisements are the most obvious model of subconscious targeting.

Read about how the advertising industry looks upon hidden-message ads as fiction.

It really doesn't matter how the advertising industry sees the issue. Without pointing out the obvious flaws in believing any information from an "industry", and without contemplating if an artificial entity can "look upon" anything, those who know the truth certainly aren't going to admit it... As stated, many people in advertising departments don't realize what they are doing, As marketing departments are typically filled with ignorant, alcoholic, 20-something-year-olds led by a old bald white guys, well.. it's pretty easy to see how advertising has become what it is.


Stripping away all the BS, however once wishes to describe it, advertisements work by grabbing your focus and manipulating it. Anything located outside your focus is targetting your subconscious mind. No corporation should have the right to put "cookies" in your head. No amount of corporate propaganda can change what they are doing.

Back to the thread subject, if "All teens take off your clothes" is whispered in a disney movie, how would you classify it, if not targeting the subconscious?

I havent liked disney for a while!

Originally posted by MindWarrior
Mainstream media does not provide information relating to true current events. And "information" does not include advertisements and since ~50% of all media (newspaper, tv, radio) is advertisements, that must be taken into account.

You may not like it, but "sale on grapes" is actually information - information with a purpose to sell, but information nevertheless. I never stated I was only talking about "information relating to true current events".

Guess you haven't seen the article New York Times Reporter A Government Informant "David Cay Johnston, a celebrated New York Times reporter, reveals in his recent book, Perfectly Legal, his history of acting as a government informant".

Thanks for the link, but being deceptive and having a hidden agenda is hardly the same thing as using subliminal communication.

That's the problem, creators of spam (advertisements) "target" people. Much like one would with a rifle. Only the target is psychological, not physical.

You keep wanting to shift this discussion and make it about pros and cons about advertising in general. I'm going to keep saying; start another thread on that subject. Make an effort and focus on subliminal communication.

"The "discussion" is defined as what was discussed and, as it has been discussed, it is now part of the discussion. It's you who said "I'm a creative working in advertising"... bringing up the generalized topic in the first place."

The topic of this thread should be the focus on the discussion. IHMO, subliminal communication is an important part of this thread; whether you like advertising or not isn't. I merely stated my occupation to show where I was coming from. I thought this could be of some interest to understand my point of view.

By the way, you can't be a creative, you can only be creative.

This comment is just priceless. Try and focus on the discussion at hand and refrain from commenting on grammar. And by the way, as grammaticaly sloppy as it may be, this type of description (a creative) is actually used for my general area of work (i.e. creative directors, writers etc). Just to make my profession clear, I'm an Art Director.

As marketing departments are typically filled with ignorant, alcoholic, 20-something-year-olds led by a old bald white guys, well.. it's pretty easy to see how advertising has become what it is.

You really need to provide a credible source to back up these, IMO ridiculously ignorant and exaggerated claims.

Stripping away all the BS, however once wishes to describe it, advertisements work by grabbing your focus and manipulating it. Anything located outside your focus is targetting your subconscious mind. No corporation should have the right to put "cookies" in your head. No amount of corporate propaganda can change what they are doing.

I repeat; make an effort to keep this somewhat close to the topic of this thread. You've already made your personal dislike of advertising quite clear.

Back to the thread subject, if "All teens take off your clothes" is whispered in a disney movie, how would you classify it, if not targeting the subconscious?

What I questioned was the effectiveness of using this as a form of communication. Please pay attention.

Your posts contains little but your personal opinion of the advertising industry as being evil. When you do argue the effectiveness of subliminal communication - you merely present your opinion on the subject, whith no credible scientific evidence backing it up.

Why don't you make an effort, do some research (maybe even read some of the links I gave you), and provide us with your results (i.e. credible scientific evidence backing your claims). And make sure to concentrate on the effectiveness of subliminal communication. Until then, this discussion is quite pointless. IMO.

Have a nice day.

[edit on 11-8-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden
You may not like it, but "sale on grapes" is actually information - information with a purpose to sell, but information nevertheless. I never stated I was only talking about "information relating to true current events".

Would you argue that there is more information relevant to one's life, in one issue of the NYT, compared to all the information taken in for an entire life in the 17th (or 19th) century?

The analogy regarding the amount of information, relevant or not, is far-fetched, to say the least.

Thanks for the link, but being deceptive and having a hidden agenda is hardly the same thing as using subliminal communication.

The point was in regards to relevant information to one's life. If the NYT is a propaganda mouthpiece then it says something about the quality of the information. As the saying goes; It's quality not quantity. And as NYT was the paper you referenced...

You keep wanting to shift this discussion and make it about pros and cons about advertising in general. I'm going to keep saying; start another thread on that subject. Make an effort and focus on subliminal communication.

Disney's targeting of the mind is what this discussion is about. Disney produces a variety of programming including advertisements. It, again, in case you didn't read the previous post, is quite relevant. You seem to want to avoid dealing with the truth of advertising... feel free to start a thread if you wish, however, it is not poster's desire.

You really need to provide a credible source to back up these, IMO ridiculously ignorant and exaggerated claims.

As you can have your opinion, so may everyone else. It is simply called as it is seen. If you can find a study charting the drinking habits, ages, and IQs of the average person in the marketing industry, feel free to provide a link to it. As it is unlikely such a study has been done, well, there we are.. and how would you define credible? Something that would be printed in a scientific journal? Something that a majority of people agree with?

I repeat; make an effort to keep this somewhat close to the topic of this thread. You've already made your personal dislike of advertising quite clear.

If your going to make assertions, they are going to be replied to. If you want to re-reply, feel free, but please, no more complaining about the use of the word "advertising".

What I questioned was the effectiveness of using this as a form of communication.

Your posts contains little but your personal opinion of subliminal advertising techniques as being ineffective. When you do argue the ineffectiveness of subliminal communication - you merely present your opinion on the subject, with no credible scientific evidence backing it up.

Honestly, 30 year old studies on popcorn?

Some people need to be told what to believe. Some believe what their senses tell them. Those of "us" who use our senses, are to some degree, doing our own scientific studies.

By the way, there's nothing subliminal about roger rabbit. Techniques designed to get into someone's mind, whether defined as subliminal or otherwise, shouldn't be used. And a company such as disney should obviously not be selling sex and at the same time claiming to be a family-oriented company. The targeting of the mind involves an assault on the conscious, subconscious, semi-subconscious, superconscious, and/or any other terms you can find to describe it. If you focus on the technicalities of the words then you'll miss the broader picture.

Consider this, and replace the words "ads" with "programs" at your discresion:
"Regardless of the term you prefer to make use of, note that such ads are manipulative as they do not permit viewers to consciously consider how they ought to respond to them. In other words, freedom of choice regarding at least part of the message(s) conveyed by such ads is denied to anyone who looks at them."

This is what it comes down to, freedom of choice. Freedom to choose what goes into your head. Is Disney targetting children with sex? The answer seems to be yes.


More to consider from subliminalworld.org:
"By disingenuous use of arguments focussing on subliminal stimuli members of the advertising profession distract attention from the equally unethical use of embedded imagery in ads. As subsequent commentary reveals, any stimuli around the limits of perception, whether supra-liminal (above the limit) or subliminal (below the limit), share the same characteristics i.e. the ability to influence judgements and attitudes without viewers being consciously aware of the image or message that influences them. The author therefore tries to use the term subliminal advertising only when it refers to historical issues or when discussing subliminal perception. In other instances the preference is to draw attention to embedded or secondary imagery in advertising and a variety of terms might be used e.g. embedded, secondary, semi-subliminal or borderline stimuli."


[edit on 11-8-2004 by MindWarrior]

[edit on 11-8-2004 by MindWarrior]

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by Gazrok
Want some more?

In THE LION KING, when Simba plops down after speaking with his pop, the dust kicks up and spells out the word "SEX" real quick, hehe...

In ALLADIN, right before they get on the carpet, for the song "A Whole New World", if you turn up the volume ALL the way, you'll hear, quite plainly, a voice sounding like Robert Williams, saying "All good teenagers, take off your clothes!" as plain as day....

I've personally SEEN these (and heard, hehe...)

Dont make me watch these movies. I will do it now! LOL

I wonder if its the writers get so bored, they just start playing around.

Are your kids so loud, that you have to turn the TV all the way up?

[edit on 5-8-2004 by SpittinCobra]

Actually sir. It's that get bored when it comes to adding un-nessesary things into the feature. But as for the voice overs, yes suppose it could be the script writers and the whole writing team. lol

And also back to what LadyV said before. Well, there are also more things in the Disney cartoons that some of us notice. Young kids obviously won't notice such things. But, as I have said before on another Disney related forum, the thing with The Little Mermaid. Where the artist replaced one of the towers with the male sex organ. But it was recalled after noticed.

EEP.

[edit on 8-11-04 by Yasuhiko23]

Are you even trying to make a sensible argument and stick to the topic at hand? You're coming off rather silly at this point.

Originally posted by MindWarrior
Would you argue that there is more information relevant to one's life, in one issue of the NYT, compared to all the information taken in for an entire life in the 17th (or 19th) century?

The point was in regards to relevant information to one's life. If the NYT is a propaganda mouthpiece then it says something about the quality of the information. As the saying goes; It's quality not quantity. And as NYT was the paper you referenced...

Oh, are we suddenly talking about the quality of the information now?

You seem to want to avoid dealing with the truth of advertising... feel free to start a thread if you wish, however, it is not poster's desire.

So now this thread is about the truth of advertising? You really need to make up your mind here.

As you can have your opinion, so may everyone else. It is simply called as it is seen. If you can find a study charting the drinking habits, ages, and IQs of the average person in the marketing industry, feel free to provide a link to it. As it is unlikely such a study has been done, well, there we are.. and how would you define credible? Something that would be printed in a scientific journal? Something that a majority of people agree with?

Maybe you should try and find another subject to discuss, preferably one where you can manage to carry a somewhat reasonable argument. If you make ridiculous claims, you shouldn't be surprised if you're called on them. And make no mistake, it's your job to back them up. Failing to do so, really shows nothing but your obvious ignorance in the matter. What exactly is your area of expertise here?

If your going to make assertions, they are going to be replied to. If you want to re-reply, feel free, but please, no more complaining about the use of the word "advertising".

Please show me where I complained about the use of the word "advertising". What I have done is tried to stick to the topic of subliminal communication despite your efforts not to do so.

Your posts contains little but your personal opinion of subliminal advertising techniques as being ineffective. When you do argue the ineffectiveness of subliminal communication - you merely present your opinion on the subject, with no credible scientific evidence backing it up.

Do you need images to comprehend? Is it a language barrier? Or is it that you simply ignore most of what I'm writing? My source on this subject is indeed scientific as well as credible; Merikle, P. M., & Daneman, M. (1998). Psychological investigations of unconscious perception. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5, 5-18. Maybe a trip to the library would be a good idea?

Honestly, 30 year old studies on popcorn?

That reference explains how this myth first started. I'm really sorry if you have a problem with the fact that the event took place some 30 years ago. But that's history for you.

Some people need to be told what to believe. Some believe what their senses tell them. Those of "us" who use our senses, are to some degree, doing our own scientific studies.

Familiar with the term pseudoscience? But by all means, please share your "results".

Get back on the horse my friend and do your homework.

Btw, Jim Hagart (founder of subliminalworld.org) who you seem to like quoting, also once claimed that apocryphal Satanic messages inserted in Judas Priest records* by back-masking, made these records highly dangerous to listen to.

*Edit to add: Here is a link to the actual court case where the band was found not guilty because the scientific evidence presented at the trial was overwhelmingly convincing that subliminal messages just don't work!

[edit on 11-8-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden
Are you even trying to make a sensible argument and stick to the topic at hand? You're coming off rather silly at this point.

You're weak attempts to re-define the "topic at hand" will not produce the desired deterrence of the arguments.

Oh, are we suddenly talking about the quality of the information now?

The fact that you refuse to debate, focusing on the technicalities of the debate, reveal you as the corporate slave you are.

So now this thread is about the truth of advertising? You really need to make up your mind here

Your deterence efforts have failed. You must be quite upset. Why are you afraid to debate the truth?

Make no mistake, however one wishes to describe it, Disney's "sale" of sex is, by definition, advertising.

If you make ridiculous claims, you shouldn't be surprised if you're called on them.

You seem upset that your rediculous claims have been challenged.
Considering the forum, you have, appropriately, been denied.

Please show me where I complained about the use of the word "advertising".

One needs not quote just about every sentence you've written. They speak for themselves.

What I have done is tried to stick to the topic of subliminal communication despite your efforts not to do so.

What you've done is tried (in vain) to sacrifice the argument. If at any point you wish to reply to the points I've made in previous messages then feel free to. Otherwise you're just wasting space.

Do you need images to comprehend?

Ahh, the thought process of someone in advertising. Needing images to convey your point... quite sad.

Just so you know. only a fool puts all their stock in one external source.

Maybe a trip to the library would be a good idea?

In your case, I'm sure it would. This poster has no desire to do your research for you.

Familiar with the term pseudoscience?

Any "science" funded by an industry with preconcieved objectives would fall into this category. Tell us, are you a willing participant in the spreading of "pseudoscience"?

Get back on the horse my friend and do your homework

Maybe in your a marketing department you have the liberty to shout commands and expect people to follow. Not everyone is an obedient slave (although those in advertising are sure trying to make it that way).

Btw, Jim Hagart (founder of subliminalworld.org) who you seem to like quoting, also once claimed that apocryphal Satanic messages inserted in Judas Priest records* by back-masking, made these records highly dangerous to listen t

You must be ignorant to the concept of reverse speach. Funny how you reply to statements that weren't quoted in the previous message... what are you afraid of? Even this last statement, which you alledge he said, you offer no debate on. Trying only to use people's egos to dismiss the statement at hand. That shows no scientific integrity, only ignorance.

Here is a link to the actual court case where the band was found not guilty because the scientific evidence presented at the trial was overwhelmingly convincing that

And this sums up your mentality.. believing a court judgement that reflects, in reality, which lawyer was the better manipulator. Right, and OJ was innocent...

You've been revealed as a slave of the advertising industry, desperate to exhonerate it, as a whole, of any wrong doing. Quite sad indeed.