So Nigel has inspired me to blog this week. I was reading a post of his that contained certain factual inaccuracies, which I intend to correct. Nigel, it was me who left you to fend for yourself at the top of Beaver Mountain, not dad. In saying it was dad, you have besmirched the reputations of both dad (who does get a bit irrational when it comes to skiing) and me (the 'mean brother'). And no, you can't have any 'Tato Skins.

I will now complain unnecessarily about marketing campaigns that annoy me. Back when we were living in Philly, I was routinely accosted by ad posters featuring disheveled men in pajamas. The copy read "Mondays Can Be Rough", along with the claim that because razor blades begin to dull after 1 week, users should change them that often. Turns out the Gillette Company, not satisfied with their already scandalous profit margins, was attempting to get people to use even more blades than they already do. I had a bad reaction to the campaign, and now take great pride in using my blades for as long as humanly possible. Of course, by the sixth week of using the same blade, it feels like I'm shaving with an emery board, but the sense of accomplishment is well worth the neck rash.

I'm also annoyed my most ads that come from Ford. For example, the mercury milan spokesmodel in the comical bustier-style leather vest with her effusive defense of that particular auto. The message I get is "you'd think a car like this would be crappy, but it's totally not. Really." Also, Ford-owned Saab and the whole "Born From Jets" thing. "Born From Jets"? You vetted thousands of ideas, spent millions of dollars, paid the ad agency even more, worked late into the night amidst lots of crumpled-up pieces of paper, and all you could come up with was "Born From Jets"? How about "Born From the Jets", which could either refer to the Tongan/Mormon 80's pop group, or the hapless NY football club.

This week I overheard a good old fashioned throwdown in a cubicle in the next isle over. In my book, a throwdown requires 2 equally overconfident people to take opposing positions on a factual subject that can be easily researched to determine who just made a fool of himself. One guy was a technical writer (Guy 1) trying to get the other (a product manager - Guy 2) to get all the mistakes out out of a user manual before he started revising it. Guy 1 insisted that the old manual was riddled with mistakes. Guy 2 insisted it was not, and asked for an example. Guy 1 made the preposterous claim that the customer service phone number on page 1 didn't even connect users to the service center. Guy 2 claimed that they could call the number, push "3" and get help. Inevitably, they decided to call the number and settle this thing once and for all. I listened as they put the call on speakerphone and dialed the number. Well, option 3 came and went with no help for Guy 2. In true throwdown style, Guy 2 was required to explain why it was rational to take the position he did, even though he was mistaken. Also, Guy 2 spent some time later in the day trying to figure out who had screwed up the customer support phone options, but nobody seemed to know.

That's enough for this week, I guess.