come off it. Is a chair still a chair when no one is sitting on it?
You're confusing the label and the object.
It is labelled "a chair", but it is only a chair when someone is sitting in it 😉
come off it. Is a chair still a chair when no one is sitting on it?
Is a hook with a coat on it a coat hook or a normal hook? what about when you take the coat off again? What about a nail in a door? What about a trendy "shabby chic" coathook made to look like a nail? (and sold for an exhorbitant sum by a famous interior design company)
Labels or things?
Colours have significance because the emotional and physiological reactions they tend to produce in people.
Can't believe you're still discussing this. The psychological significance of colours has been studied for ages, and a quick Google will reveal a wealth of information. The only person who would claim otherwise is either a liar, or someone whose psychology is so abnormal as to be worth a study of its own.
Guys - my final post. it taken a bit of time to write it so stuff might have crossed. Edit - well nearly -two decent points to answeer
I believe the basic premise here which I repeated a number of times. Branding / marketing and so on have less effect that you guys believe and that a lot of it is bullshit. Alot of the meanings and associations you are convinced are there simply do not exist in the real world.
Your arguments are poor and contradictory and your use of language is poor. Your ability to define your concepts is poor. Hence all the stuff over "brand" where you alter your definition to suit your argument or yuo each are using a different definition - or even Graham who wants 3 mutually exclusive definitions.
such things as the stuff over colour - where MF claimed colours have meaning but when shown that this was bobbins had the grace to accept the the only have meaning in context. they have no meaning of their own
the constant confusion between the object and its label ( again I will apologise for the unclear usage of "referent" - trying to be too clever.) Of the confusion between the colour blue and the word "blue". Of the confusion between such concepts as meaning and association.
these rhetorical distinctions are important. using literal meanings is important for clarity. having defined and agreed definitions is crucial. I don't think this has been apparent to you that a lot of the answers I have given has been literal. when the meaning of you r question taken literally is not eh meaning you intend a literal answer confuses.
Now I have been teasing you. thank you for taking it good naturedly on the whole
I hope you can now see some new things tho. That there are people who see the world very differently than you. That to people outside of your shared consensus a lot of what you all accept as true has no validity.
Please do accept my apologies for wasting your time - I hoe its entertained others as much as it has me.
DrJ - MemberColours have significance because the emotional and physiological reactions they tend to produce in people.
I quite agree and do not deny this - however that is not a meaning. MF claimed colours had meaning
It is labelled "a chair", but it is only a chair when someone is sitting in it
Waht is it then? what does it become when no one is sitting in it?
An egg?
Guys - my final post.
Thought it was too good to be true ...
DrJ - Member
Colours have significance because the emotional and physiological reactions they tend to produce in people.
For the record, I didn't type that.
[img] 
[/img]
Do flowers have meanings, TJ?
And even if you are being semantically difficult [Edit: and, in retrospect, wrong] in order to weedle out of tight spots, Jez, here's the first page of one hundred and two million google results for "The meaning of colour"
or even Graham who wants 3 mutually exclusive definitions.
They are only mutually exclusive in your head. No one else on the thread seems to be obsessed with whether we are talking about the name of something or something with a name.
your use of language is poor... a lot of the answers I have given has been literal. when the meaning of you r question taken literally is not eh meaning you intend a literal answer confuses.
[img] 
[/img]
Now I have been teasing you. thank you for taking it good naturedly on the whole
Mainly you've annoyed and exasperated me to the point of giving me ulcers. But it has been good natured.
That there are people who see the world very differently than you.
And those people are wrong. 😀
FFS guys - what definition of brand do you want me to accept.is it simply the name of the object?
Or is it the object plus all the other attribute that are not inherent in the object? (edit - molgrips definition)
Or is it the inherent qualities of the object?
there really isn't anything clever about branding and logos..
maybe it requires a bit of an artistic eye and a touch of creative flair but other than that there is absolutely nothing intelligent or scientific about it...
certainly nothing interesting..
just my twopence worth like..
there really isn't anything clever about branding and logos..maybe it requires a bit of an artistic eye and a touch of creative flair but other than that there is absolutely nothing intelligent or scientific about it...
certainly nothing interesting..just my twopence worth like..
And many thanks for sharing that with us.
@TJ - in the words of the country song - "how can I miss you, when you won't go away?".
Rubbish.maybe it requires a bit of an artistic eye and a touch of creative flair but other than that there is absolutely nothing intelligent or scientific about it...
certainly nothing interesting..
I'm going to assume that this is an attempt to reignite the debate, so I'm not going to respond...
Rubbish.
ok.. I'm not going to read through a gazillion posts of pedantic trite.. but I'd like a little more concise and reasonable version if you will allow it..
I'm more open minded than TJ about this.. but as a visual artist I'm still deeply sceptical..
explain if you will why my assertion is 'rubbish'
I hoe its entertained others as much as it has me.
It has me mate. I bowed out this morning, but I've continued to follow. This really has been the highlight of the internet for me this week. I've never before laughed, completely by myself in an otherwise empty building, at such absurdity. I do hope I'm not alone.
People saying this thread is pointless and boring are failing to see the humour in it. TJ's definitive 'final post' followed immediately by two more posts just finished me off.
And then:
Do flowers have meanings, TJ?
Literal and full bodied LOL.
just my twopence worth like..
Twopence? You'll have to do better than that. Admission to the Bullingdon Club would look like a positive bargain compared with this now. Try [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/clever-logo-well-i-thought-so-anyway ]here[/url].
Splendid thread all round.
I hope you can now see some new things tho. That there are people who see the world very differently than you. That to people outside of your shared consensus a lot of what you all accept as true has no validity.
Trouble is TJ, I don't think you've really imparted much in this thread. I doubt anyone's really learnt much from you about different ways to view the world.
"Some people are less susceptible to hype and the influence of branding/advertising and marketing. Some people to try to actively avoid the influence of branding/advertising and marketing"
Everyone knows that.
Was there anything else?
So, anyone want to have an actual discussion about the OP? 😉
Was there anything else?
I learnt his friends have a veg box co-operative that is doomed to failure by lack of proper branding.
What was the original question?
explain if you will why my assertion is 'rubbish'
Maybe it would make more sense for you to back up your assertion with a reasoned argument.
On second thoughts, please don't bother ...
no.. no takers..?
so you scientific branding experts can only argue pedantry and semantics with Teej..?
what a surprise..
There's plenty of science involved. People try a marketing strategy, or new brand, and see how the sales respond. That's pretty scientific in my book.explain if you will why my assertion is 'rubbish'
so you scientific branding experts can only argue pedanticswith Teej..?
'xactly.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
I think everyone deserves a pat on the back for what must surely be the fastest 1000+ post thread in STW history, if not the entire history of the worldwideinternet.
At what cost to UK GDP, I wonder?
TJ still a rockin'?
Can anyone tell me why I want to throw eggs at Jamie?
.
People try a marketing strategy, or new brand, and see how the sales respond
trial and error then..?
ok..
I get it now
trial and error?
Trials based on previous wins.
trial and error + revised trial = scientific method
groovy
Oh, I also learnt:
- that you can say you don't own something and this is literally true, even if you literally own lots of those things, because you didn't say "any". Literally.
- that you can be impervious to something, without being impervious to it. And it can have no effect on you as long as you are aware of the effects it has on you.
- that you can decide whether or not to buy something based on a brand. But that is not the same as being influenced by a brand.
- that the name of something and something's name are two completely different concepts.
- that only an elite few understand the secret code that using a jaunty comic font is inappropriate for an undertaker.
- and even less people understand that red means stop/danger/hot. Because it is a secret language known only to artsy types (and me for some odd reason).
Any more?
And
Well, given that there has been a good amount of sensible discussion in with the nonsense in this thread, I'd say it [b]is[/b] interesting!certainly nothing interesting..
Apologies if my 'rubbish' was a little harsh - I actually thought your post was just an attempt to relight the fire... 🙂
Oh another one:
- that [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29 ]"mu"[/url] is not just an answer to illogical questions. It is also a useful answer to give to perfectly straightforward questions that reveal terrible flaws in your own logic.
I actually thought your post was just an attempt to relight the fire...
twas a little bit if I'm honest.. 😳
nedrapier - MemberTrouble is TJ, I don't think you've really imparted much in this thread. I doubt anyone's really learnt much from you about different ways to view the world.
"Some people are less susceptible to hype and the influence of branding/advertising and marketing. Some people to try to actively avoid the influence of branding/advertising and marketing"
Everyone knows that.
So why did it take some people so long to comprehend it?
Ah god, I've gone and posted in the thread, why did I do that 🙁
I hope you can now see some new things tho. That there are people who see the world very differently than you. That to people outside of your shared consensus a lot of what you all accept as true has no validity.
you say that TJ but it lacks conviction, it doesn't really suit the TJ 'brand touch points' and i don't think introspection was on the mood board.
So let's get this straight. TJ, you think that you are in posession of some great truth, and we are all poor deluded fools?
Warra nob.
ok.. I'm not going to read through a gazillion posts of pedantic trite.. but I'd like a little more concise and reasonable version if you will allow it..
Right, well basically, TJ said that branding is pointless and not as effective as people make out. Then MF said that it is actually, and TJ said that it isn't. Then I said something left wing, verbose and ridiculous, which got ignored. Then TJ said that it was still rubbish. So then MF said that actually if you look at these fonts, you'll no doubt tell a difference. TJ remarkably couldn't tell a difference, right, so what happened then is GrahamS said that basically you can't separate the brand from the object, but TJ then took issue with this, right, so what he done the lad is he's gone and said that what we're doing, right, us branding types, is that we're confusing a brand with an actual product and that he doesn't do that, and that we're failing to understand. So what happened then right, Jamie chips in, and the everyone goes of to make omelettes for some reason, but then we're all like egg bound and that but we didn't let it distract us from what the real point was, which is that TJ can buy stuff without paying attention the logo, or something. Then Molgrips came back and made some points about more stuff that TJ wasn't interested in. Then elfin got banned right, which started another thread that was different to this one. And not as good right, so we all came back here. Then I tried getting the nazis and maggie into it, which seemed like the right thing to do at the time. Seems a bit much now but at the time, you know how it is right. Then Binners started posting bags of crisps which I didn't really get, though I'm sure he had his reasons and it was mega funny at the time anyway. then what happened is we made a load more omelettes, for which, like, you know, as the saying goes, you got to break a few eggs, which is why eggs, so then eggs right, and then it was all like cos of the eggs, and Molgrips was all like no, eggs, and we were all, yeah though, cos eggs, and Druidh and ST were all giving it all like, yolk and eggs stuff right. Then TJ won the thread so far in a way nobody but himself can understand, but he did win anyway right, cos he did and we're all wrong. Then Molgrips came back and made some points about more stuff that TJ wasn't interested in. Then elfin got banned right, which started another thread that was different to this one. And not as good right, so we all came back here. Then I tried making a serious if again laughably left leaning point which was ignored, seemed like the right thing to do at the time. Seems a bit much now but at the time, you know how it is right. Then Binners started posting bags of crisps which I didn't really get, though I'm sure he had his reasons and it was mega funny at the time anyway. then what happened is we made a load more omelettes, for which, like, you know, as the saying goes, you got to break a few eggs, which is why eggs, so then eggs right, and then it was all like cos of the eggs, and StillTortoise was all like no, eggs, and we were all, yeah though, cos eggs, and Druidh and ST were all giving it all like, yolk and eggs stuff right. Then TJ won the thread in a way nobody but himself can understand, but he did win anyway right, cos he did and we're all wrong. Then Don Simon came back and made some points about more stuff that TJ wasn't interested in, except for the time when for some reason he kept posting dots. Then Binners started posting pictures of dam drain holes or something, which I didn't really get, though I'm sure he had his reasons and it was mega funny at the time anyway. then what happened is we made a load more omelettes, for which, like, you know, as the saying goes, you got to break a few eggs, which is why eggs, so then eggs right, and then it was all like cos of the eggs, and NedRapier and Clubber was all like no, eggs, and we were all, yeah though, cos eggs, and Druidh and ST were all giving it all like, yolk and eggs stuff right. Then TJ won the thread in a way nobody but himself can understand, but he did win anyway right, cos he did and we're all wrong. Then you turned up, and asked for a recap, so I wrote a recap which I'm doing right now as evidenced by the fact that I'm posting this post that I'm about to post and will have posted by the time you read it, even though said evidence plays no part in the actual proof of the existence of this post, so don't go getting big ideas, right. And then, right, in the post after this one, TJ just quotes the very small, miniscule amount of posts that back up his preposterous point as if they are true gospel, vindication of all he's been saying, whilst categorically ignoring all the ones that were more considered and better thought out that didn't align with his own view, whilst simultaneously accusing the rest of us of having closed eyes.
Egg?
