Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


Saying they're 'dense' is a bit harsh and you're basing it on the culture
you're used to. I mean, if everything you saw was a picture of what's
inside then you'd probably expect the picture to be a picture of what's
inside too.


But I would still realize that a picture of, say, a mountain on the
label would not mean that a mountain was contained inside the jar.

Maybe mountain dirt. You hear people say "he could sell snowballs to an
eskimo" so I guess someone could sell mountain dirt too

While I can understand that they might be accustomed to having a
picture on the jar that shows what's inside, I also credit them with
enough reasoning ability to realize that an actual baby isn't going to
be crammed into the jar just because a picture of one is on the label.

I don't know why. We got lunatics in this supposedly 'educated' country
claming we rammed planes into our own trade towers, or blew them up.

It reminds me, though, of the famous story of the illiterate woman (in
the U.S.) who bought a gallon can of Crisco because she thought it had
a roast chicken inside (there was a picture of a roast chicken on the
label).

Seems you just disproved your own point

Actually, the point isn't whether everyone thought it had a baby inside but
that any confusion at all isn't conducive to selling the product and
neither is dismissing it as them being dense. Even if you're right it don't
get the jars sold