Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/01/comments/
Blue-eyed schoolgirls headshot vegetarians
Save the world from the likes of Alicia Silverstone
Comments Ryanair has come under fire from the Advertising Standards Agency for an ad featuring a "saucy schoolgirl". Despite being ordered to, Ryanair refused to withdraw the ad. You were disbelieving and appreciative:
So, let me get this straight... they placed an advert in a few newspapers, which a couple of people complained about.
As a result of their complaints, loads more people saw it (when the ASA didn't like it).
As a result of this withdrawal request, a lot more people will see it.
By refusing to comply with the ASA, even more people will see it.
So to conclude, publishing a controversial ad, then refusing to withdraw it is the best way to reach the widest demographic.
Something seems wrong there.
When I read this story on the BBC website earlier I was disappointed they hadn't included the picture. I knew I could count on The Register to satisfy my requirements.
Always happy to please.
can we somehow anti-complain to the ASA?
"dear ASA, i really liked this advert, it got across an appropriate message in a reasonable fashion.
lots of love
blokes wot like schoolgirls"
Dont these guys consider their brand image.. the ad might not be so bad to most people, doesnt bother me. However you will still associate the base level of the ad to their brand.
So the fact they kick off with the ASA makes me place them in the gutter level of companies, ie dont care.. and therefore wont care about me if I was on their plane and further strengthens the fact I would never fly with them.
Looking at the sales of French Connection since they started their FCUK stuff, they are now seen as a cheap and chav clothing brand. I dont know anybody that will shop there now.
Cheap flash in the pan tricks, in the long run cost you dearly...
"Dont these guys consider their brand image.. the ad might not be so bad to most people, doesnt bother me. However you will still associate the base level of the ad to their brand."
Dude, it's Ryan Air - you were never going to bump into the Crown Prince of Brunei on a budget flight to Malaga.
Frankly, the "base level" of the ad is spot on for Ryanair.
Blue eyed people are mutants, and they are all descended from the same person. Thus ran the conclusions of a University of Copenhagen team researching the matter. They place the original blue-eyes at around 6-10,000 years ago. As a solidly blue-eyed hack, I welcome the news that I'm related to the great Paris Hilton.
Cool, this means I am a mutant and my power is .... blues eyes, hmmm okay not a as good as I hoped.
If you concentrate hard enough, blue eyes can shoot lasers.
I would disagree with the authors that it is neither a positive nor negative mutation. I believe it is positive, if only in subtle proportions. Consider the following: **two identical humans** One human has bright sparkling blue eyes and the other has brown eyes. The human with blue eyes will have a slightly easier time in life vs. the one with brown eyes because fellow humans are drawn to beautiful things, and the piercing blue eyes are just that - beautiful. This will allow the blue eyed human to possibly choose a more gifted mate. Thus the favored continuation of the gene line over the eons. Seems like a no-brainer to me.....
It doesn't need to affect your ability to survive to keep going; it needs to affect your ability to survive long enough to reproduce. You can survive to be a hundred, but if you don't reproduce, the mutation will die out.
So, the first blue eyed person, despite looking VERY weird if everyone else had brown eyes, must have got their leg over, thus proving that blue eyed boys get the girls. Or vice versa. Or something.
PS. Paris Hilton. Blue eyes. Mutant. QED.
That Swedish bird I shagged a few years ago and me are related.
"I thought chances of survival and a mutation succeeding was not just down to chances of survival, but also successful breeding. If it was an unwanted mutation, our ancestors at the time would not have been attracted to the new eyes?"
An interesting point, but instead you have to consider that the first human being with the blue-eyed gene probably did not have blue eyes, and neither did any of his/her children.
As a genetic trait, blue eyes are seemingly recessive, so you would need two blue-eye genes to have blue eyes. The gene may have passed for any number of generations before the first actual blue-eyed human was born, and the survival of the gene would not have been dependent on this individual. In fact, the sexual attractiveness of blue eyes may have had a negligible effect on the spread of the gene for the first hundred years of its existence, hence Eiberg describing it as neutral.
okay maybe not chances of survival, but one look at the esteemed and fantastically pretty Miss Hilton will convince even the most hardened Darwinist that it will increase the chance of breeding.
We reported on a Pravda article proving once and for all that vegetarians are, as they put it, a "perversion of nature", suffering from a "low boiling point" and a tendency to wave their hands in the air. You got your teeth straight into the debate:
Next time you brush your teeth, look in the bathroom mirror at them. Then recall your school biology lessons and what they said your teeth did; we have the teeth of an omnivore.
So the answer is simple: Eat anything and everything!
But each to their own, what the veggies leave means more for the rest of us!
You can move your jaw from side to side.
This might not seem significant, but it's a trait only shared by mammals who are also herbivores.
Perhaps interestingly, the same group of mammals tend to be like us - they have sharp teeth at the front, but mostly flat ones at the back.
Carnivores don't. Have a look in the mouth of your dog or cat, if you don't believe me....
As to us being omnivores, you could probably argue that way back in history, someone worked out it was easier to keep animals in pens, than it was to hope the weather would allow edible plants to grow.
So, we're not only herbivores by design, we are lazy ones, too...
Was there an article attached to the picture ? Sorry, must have missed it.
I Want to Eat Alicia Silverstone. Does that mean I can't be a vegetarian?
We ain't all pasty faced hippies with a fluffy bunny loving complex, you know!
I weighed a healthy 24 stone and decided to shift it. Let me tell you there's nothing like dirty great slabs of Quorn and lentil-nut roast to put you off your food and help lose that flab!
After two years, I still love the smell of fried bacon and a steaming hot beef roast still makes me salivate and dribble like a 90-year old who's lost his false teeth. Still miss the taste of licking fresh Doner grease and chilli sauce of my fingers after really great kebab on a Friday night! I just can't face eating animals any more. It's a personal choice thing.
I think everyone should eat meat, it's bloody good for you, my missus and I are veggies but our kids ain't, we still cook meat for them and it's up to them to decide if they want to eat it or not. We are not going to force our kids to go veggie.
So before you start labelling us all freaky hippies, spare a thought that like all things in life, it ain't all black and white, loads of grey areas!
Pravda also recently did a piece on depression. They concluded that thinly disguised kinky sex with a member of the opposite gender is often a good treatment.
Yeah. Water = wet, sky = up etc.
A Dallas man gravely miscounted and shot himself in the head with a gun he thought was not loaded, after showing it off to his friends and firing several rounds in the air. It's not yet known if he had bred, but he may well be up for a Darwin award.
Perhaps wisdom isn't something that comes with age, it's just that if you don't have some you don't get to be aged - because you do something stupid like play with guns when you're less than sober.
Contrary to popular belief, America has over 300M people, and over 1Bn weapons of various types. Per capita, there's enough guns in the US for everyone to have three. Statistically speaking, our gun death rate is really quite low, considering the amount of armed citizens in the populace.
Furthermore, while stupid, this is basically just another death by misadventure. How many people have been killed by misusing other types of machines through the years? Lathes, presses, conveyors, robotic assembly plants, etc?
If anything, this dude is the exception to the rule. The vast majority of gun owners will go their entire lives without ever shooting a person, either accidentally or intentionally.
Finally, the gun laws in the US have nothing to do with this idiot. As long as he's never been convicted of a felony, nor been committed to a mental institution, nor had official restraining orders placed upon him, he shot himself perfectly legally.
Something that I feel my British friends fail to think about is that a comprehensive gun ban and confiscation is simply impossible in America, from both a cultural and logistical standpoint. There are simply too many firearms in the country to ever get them all, and the people who own them are highly unlikely to give them up without a fight. Put yourself into the shoes of a 19 year old national guardsman-- would you really want to be on the detail who goes door to door and asks grizzled redneck types to surrender their grandfather's shooting irons? As that guardsman, would you be willing to arrest, or possibly shoot and kill, your fellow countrymen, who have been charged with no crime, and have probably never committed one?
For good or evil, guns remain a huge part of American life, especially in the Southern and Western regions.
You would think that in Texas, they'd know how to count up to six...
Its surprising how many people do survive when they attempt suicide that way, which is why it's not a recommended method of self termination. Too many end up with brain damage and ironically an even worse life than the one they were trying to escape.
However even if the guy ended his life immediately my guess would be the general "having a laugh" nature of his demise would be clue enough to suggest he thought the gun was empty.
And I think while this will possibly get an honourable mention from the Darwin Awards, usually you have to do something significantly more stupid than merely fail to keep track of the number of shots you fired if you want to 'win'. Something both creative and yet at the same time spectacularly stupid is required.
I must say I was disappointed with last year's winner, I felt the attempted mole eradication was a far more worthy recipient. Succumbing to addiction in a creative manner is less stupidity, more desperation imo.
Americans with guns have proven that Brits with guns aren't really all that dangerous, either as foes or as allies. America owes much to that oft-demonstrated fact. Now, a Brit with a beer or 10, that's a scary thought, as these pages have amply documented.
Some of the world's worst outcomes (US and UK both) have been immediately preceded by somebody saying, "Here, hold my beer and watch this." This is an exemplar.
As have a great many Reg articles - it's all part of our winning formula. ®