"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .

What business are you in???

Irrelevant.


Translation: You've never in your life been involved with marketing a
product.

Whether I have or not is not relevant to what we started out discussing.
As
usual, as soon as you began to lose the argument, you tried to change the
subject. Stick to the point, or shut up.

It certainly *is* relevant. You claimed I kept changing the subject. You
kept focusing on "deceptive" and "sneaky". That suggests "covert" -
something manufacturers try and put over on the buying public. The opposite
of that would be "openness", "informative". Instead, you said there was an
in-between: The specifics of the package dimensions. I asked you why this
would be unlikely to work. You didn't respond. So, one by one, you eliminate
possibilities.

Whether in law, science, marketing or philosophy, most decent discussions
involve the introduction, dissection, and rejection/acceptance of wide
ranging hypothetical ideas. (Search the web for transcripts of Supreme Court
sessions, for instance). If you don't have the energy or intellect for this
practice, don't waste peoples' time.


So, you bash any idea which might reveal your lack of experience.

What ideas was I bashing, Kanter, other than labelling as "silly" your
suggestion that a manufacturer should display a banner calling attention
to
his smaller package and/or higher price? That *is* silly.

Why do you get involved in these discussions to begin with? Feelings of
powerlessness elsewhere in your life?

Oh, and what university is your degree in psychoanalysis from?

One needs only to pay attention through one's adult life to notice these
things.