Grizzlie Antagonist (grizzlieantagonist{at}earthlink.net) writes:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:50:56 -0800, Mark Borgerson
>  wrote:
> 
>>In article , 
>>grizzlieantagonist{at}earthlink.net says...
>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:58 -0800, Mark Borgerson
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> >In article , 
>>> >grizzlieantagonist{at}earthlink.net says...
>>> >> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:15:49 -0800, Mark Borgerson
>>> >>  wrote:
>>> >> 
>>> >> >In article
, 
>>> >> >greg1199{at}yahoo.com says...
>>> >> >> 
>>> >> >> Viking wrote:
>>> >> >> > Macy's ad--men standing around, waiting
obediantly to carry what the
>>> >> >> > woman buys. Text: "Golfers bring
caddies. Shoppers bring husbands."
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Let them know what you think:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
http://www.macys.com/catalog/syndicated/remote/remotesyndication.ognc?Brand=FDSSURVEY
>>> >> >> 
>>> >> >> My response to the add:
>>> >> >> 
>>> >> >> Despite the stated purpose of this comment
box, I cannot tell you of an
>>> >> >> in-store experience, because I will no
longer be in any of your stores.
>>> >> >>  Why?  I find one of your recent
advertisements greatly offensive and
>>> >> >> insulting.  The add shows men standing
around, waiting obediantly to
>>> >> >> carry what their wives buy. The text reads,
"Golfers bring caddies.
>>> >> >> Shoppers bring husbands."
>>> >> >> 
>>> >> >> Firstly, whoever wrote that is a flat sexist
who thinks of men as
>>> >> >> little more than servants women use to do
the heavy lifting.  Also, has
>>> >> >> it occurred to you that men do, at times,
use your store?  This will
>>> >> >> undoubtedly come as a shock to someone dim
enough to liken married men
>>> >> >> to golf caddies, but the floor space you use
to sell men's clothing
>>> >> >> often attracts .... men, and you arrogantly
take them for granted when
>>> >> >> you insult them.
>>> >> >> 
>>> >> >> Why do you insult men in an effort to woo
female shoppers?  Is it your
>>> >> >> opinion that women enjoy seeing men
insulted?  Is it therefore your
>>> >> >> opinion that most women, even married women,
hold men in some degree of
>>> >> >> contempt?  What would lead you to believe
such a thing about women?
>>> >> >> 
>>> >> >> If I receive some incentive from you, I may
reconsider whether to
>>> >> >> enter, ever again, one of your stores. 
Otherwise, Dillards is just as
>>> >> >> good, and they don't insult men for fun and profit.
>>> >> >> 
>>> >> >You could have added:   "Since when are the
golfers using the caddies'  
>>> >> >money  to pay the greens fees?"
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Mark Borgerson
>>> >> 
>>> >> Really, BM?
>>> >> 
>>> >> If someone else had said what you just said, you
would have responded
>>> >> by challenging that person to prove that women use
their husband's
>>> >> money to shop in all instances.
>>> >> 
>>> >> And then if that person had bothered to respond that
married women use
>>> >> their husband's money to shop in MOST instances, you would have
>>> >> responded, "That's probably true, but can you
PROVE it?  And aren't
>>> >> there a large number of unmarried female shoppers? 
And besides,
>>> >> aren't most married women at least employed
PART-TIME, so who's to say
>>> >> whose money they're spending?"
>>> >> 
>>> >> In the end, you would have pedanticized this
secondary factual issue
>>> >> to death in order to draw heat away from the
overriding issue of
>>> >> whether this ad was appropriate - and you probably
would have found
>>> >> some other reason to justify the ad.
>>> >> 
>>> >> So you're willing to allow yourself the freedom to criticize
>>> >> women-firstism once in a while, are you?  When are
you going to allow
>>> >> others that same freedom?
>>> 
>>> >I've never tried to stop anyone from criticizing anything.
 I just try
>>> >to point out those instances when  their arguments get a
bit ridiculous.
>>> >The analogy between shoppers and  was faulty and I pointed it out.
>>> 
>>> >Thank you for filling in the details.
>>> 
>>> I didn't fill in any details.  I simply pointed out how you were
>>> holding yourself to a different standard than you hold others, and I
>>> still maintain that.
>>> 
>>Well I still admire your pedantry, whether real or simulated.   ;-)
>>> 
>>> >>Is 'pedanticize' even a real word?  I couldn't find it
in any of the
>>> >online dictionaries.  Maybe  it only appears in those special 
>>> >dictionaries they give to lawyers!   ;-)
>>> >
>>> >Mark Borgerson
>>> 
>>> It probably isn't a real word.  I tried to find in my dictionary a
>>> verb form of "pedant" or "pedantic" and
couldn't find one - so I
>>> exercised some creative liberties to manufacture
"pedanticize" because
>>> it seemed to fit.
>>
>>I think it worked OK.   Life would be pretty frustrating if everything
>>we wrote had to conform either to the standards of technical manuals
>>or legal briefs.
>>
>>Mark Borgerson
> 
> What makes you think that legal briefs are required to be boring and
> conventional?
> 
> I once worked in a firm across the hall from a defense firm that did
> some work for the Los Angeles Dodgers.
> 
> Some fan sued the Dodgers for being hit by a foul ball, and I read a
> brief written by the Dodger's firm which closed with the last stanza
> from "Casey at the Bat".

Well, why not ? A West Wing episode had briefs coming to the staff,
that a Federal judge was issueing plural decisions, in writing, all
containing some iambic ( sp? ) pentameter.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/12/05 8:56:52 PM ---