Clever logo… (well I thought so anyway)

Does anyone have the logo for the Samaritans?

don’t know how the hell I managed to miss Jack’s recap earlier, mine seems rather insubstantial!

yunki: 😀

cant believe this junk is still going…. shame, it started out OK

I got to page 7. does it really follow the same pattern for another 27 pages? 😯

It’s alright, Muhsixtuhtuhf, with posts like that, you’ll bring it back on course!

warton – Member

I got to page 7. does it really follow the same pattern for another 27 pages?

Pretty much

largely, there are a couple of decent posts in there, but it would be a tragic waste of your time to try and find them.

I got to page 7. does it really follow the same pattern for another 27 pages?

I wouldn’t waste your time, you know the protagonists, you know where it’s (not) going.

I wouldn’t waste your time, you know the protagonists, you know where it’s (not) going.

😀

As Mick Jagger once said.

Brothers and sisters, come on now! That means everybody just cool out. We can cool out, everbody! Everybody be cool, now…Okay, I think we’re cool, we can groove

I wouldn’t waste your time, you know the protagonists, you know where it’s (not) going.

It wasn’t the protagonists. It was a single infallible antagonist. 🙂

As Mick Jagger once said.

Was that just before the Hells Angels murdered the crazy dude..?

The label can be a name, or a logo/symbol/style/ringtone whatever. Its an identifier. Its job is to be recognised as referring to the particular company, service or product that owns the coathook. When you see/hear the label you look at the coathook.

You are actually describing an account of language here as others did with the chair.
As TJ notes

the label is not the object.

which is true [ but wrong so bear with me] however if I shout fire and start running and you dont respond as if there is a fire and go oh look a sound that means nothing whatsoever then you are in trouble sir. The point of language is to label things [ the sound or the written word is not the object] but we respond as if it is. There is a complicated test that can be done to prove the difference [ no animal except verbal humans can pass it] as to when this occurs and it involves equivalence. You can actually test responses and you can actually get these responses without the person being trained[ or aware but that was deemed unethical but it was fun* ] – that is you can transfer the function from b to c without training a response a to c but only to a-b. This is language
Ok real world example as that probably lost everyone.
so we have shoe the object [a] – shoe the sound and shoe the written word[c]. If I teach a child this shoe object- shoe spoken[a-b] and shoe spoke to written[b-c] [ imagine they dont know what a shoe does yet] you can then test a-c even though you have never trained it and this is the bit only verbal humans can do. Then I put a shoe on their foot using the object and then saying the word shoe [ a-b]. What would happen if I asked them what they did with this and then showed them the written word shoe [c and they have not been trained on this].Would they stare at me blankly or tell me you wear it in your feet? They would transfer the function to c without training or they would not have language skills. in essence it becomes the object
I can reference all of this if you want and it only applies to verbal humans. Apes /other animals cant pass this test so a dog can respond to walk but it is just a sound they associate with an activity- this is verbal behaviour but many animals respond to sounds.

TJ if I say lets go for a bike ride do you go and get your bike or walk out with a coat hook in your hand or any other random object ? The word is not the bike yet you respond as if it was – if you do not you do not have language.

I know of no research that shows that the logo, font or style of the written word [logo]affects your response beyond the aesthetic of liking or disliking it. Back to nestle show it how you like I just transfer the function [ how I respond] of scumbag baby killer to that new symbol and still dont buy it however pretty it is.
Symbols/logos work it is what language does I have not seen anything yet to convince me the style of the logo affects much beyond recognition tbh.
If this got covered sorry but I could not keep reading the thread.
Ps GrahamS has entertained me most he should be a more frequent feature of forum life IMHO.

yunki, it was, and i fear my plea has fallen on equally deaf ears.

For

Home

😆

Junky, let it die and put it out of our misery in the most humane way possible. I’ll give you Contador as a drug taking cheat for a bit of peace and quiet.

FFS

Please mods, think of the children!!!

Come on chaps – If youa re going to post and bump the thread and get me all excited please actually put some content.

We will never get to 2000 unless someone kicks it off again

DS sorry I have dipped in and out I thought I made a relevant point but ok
exits stage left

I still don’t get the garmin logo 🙁

Interesting stuff Junkyard, didn’t know that. I would like to discuss it further, but I literally don’t have the strength left.

Thanks for this though:

GrahamS has entertained me most he should be a more frequent feature of forum life IMHO.

If I spent any more time on here though I’d lose my job 🙂

DT78 – Member

I still don’t get the garmin logo
😆

Any homophobes on here that don’t like BBC’s iplayer?

Correct me if I’m wrong. “Brand” a unique identifying mark left on cattle . Those cleaver cowboys did it so as not to get each others cows mixed up, after a while a guess not only did they know it wasn’t their cow but remembered that that brand belonged to cowboy weston or whoever. To me that is what a brand is an identifying mark. Taking this a step further an unscrupulous cowboy may see a cow with brand he recognises as being from a cowboy with a reputatuion for breeding good cows and being unscrupulous would maybe choose to steal or maybe rustle the cows with that brand as he recognises it may be a quality cow. These quality cows could be cash cows ut thats something else.

OK, never mind all that shit – does anyone pronounce it “loggo” ??? 😆

only those with big eggos.

It’s those bloody eggos again!

I still don’t get the garmin logo

me neither. apparently triangles are “clever”

Any homophobes on here that don’t like BBC’s iplayer?

No, but I’m a homophone – I bloody hate gaze

DT78 – Member

I still don’t get the garmin logo

No you must understand it – its a universal language that everyone bar me understands and even I am lying when I claim not to – according to some on here

pjbarton – Member
I still don’t get the garmin logo
me neither. apparently triangles are “clever”
POSTED 7 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

It is a pointer pointing north above the letterform ‘N’ for a company selling satnav equipment, not just a triangle. Subtly clever I thought.

Then we had 1,350 posts of complete bollocks to follow.

it’s just a nice, clear, simple well thought out bit of design. Big WOW.

apparently there is lots of meaning there that everyone but me gets – the font used has meaning, the colours used have meaning, the little triangle has meaning and all these are seen by everyone. all this stuff is a universal inherent attributes and everyone gets the meaning

Or conversely – it only means anything to the people who know the code

There’s still life in the old fella yet. 😀

Is that it? I’be been sat here turning my laptop upside down looking for some hidden message…

Course there is!

Good evening, Mr Jeremy. Ahem…

meaning, significance, symbolism. Got that general theme? don’t get hung up on picking holes in the words and dictionary definitions.

colours, forms, words, elicit intellectual, emotional and physiological responses in people. When a lot of people respond in the same way, and people start to understand these patterns in responses, they can use them in in their communication order to elicit the responses they want in others.

Once they’ve been used often enough, they take on a meaning/significance/symbolism in line with the reactions they tend to elicit.

Edited for english usage. I have learnt (been reminded of) something from Jeremy in this thread!

🙂

Its far from the universal and obvious that was claimed.

Elicit not illicit might give you more meaning 🙂

colours, forms, words, illicit intellectual, emotional and physiological responses in people. When a lot of people respond in the same way, and people start to understand these patterns in responses, they can use them in in their communication order to illicit the responses they want in others.

bolleux.. says who..?

prove it