Yes, I know. Apples are exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about, though. Or salad mixes (without croutons or glazed nuts) or cheese or fruit juice. I’ve seen gluten free on all kinds of minimally processed foods which one would have to work really hard to get gluten into.
He continued that riff: “This one’s fast acting. But this one’s long lasting. When do I want to feel better? Now? Or later?”
This one is absolutely true, at least for me.
When I feel crappy, I can either take 2 ibuprofen (which will take effect in 5-7 minutes but wear off in 3 hours) or 1 naproxen sodium (which takes 15-20 minutes to work, but lasts for 6 hours).
That’s why it’s a funny bit!
Or as most take out restaurants put it:
“Free Delivery*”
“*10% off for take out.”
That does not mean free delivery…
A local dental reconstruction office takes CT scans of the patient’s face. On their ad a doctor exclaims, “It’s like having x-ray vision!”
Yes, it’s pretty much EXACTLY like having x-ray vision, you tool.
Raisins are made by removing water but all the sugars and solids remain. Presumably a more juicy grape would make a raisin that’s sweeter and more grape tasting.
“European Formula!”
Because our American scientists have been so busy coming up with telephones and television and computers and life-saving pharmaceuticals that they just haven’t had time to keep up with those cutting-edge hair-and-skin-care wizards in Europe!
This is the rare case of an advertising claim that actually means sometrhing. The folks at Ivory defined soap as “the salt of a fatty acid” (which really is what you mean by soap in everyday life, believe it or not), and determined that they got really good product yield from their production process 0-- no more than 0.56% unreacted material or contaminants. This actually meant something back in the day when people made their own lye soap, and there could be a lot of unreacted lye left over.
I suspect that just about every soap today is that “pure”, so it’s not a big deal anymore, but it has history behind it.
It has absolutely nothing to do with wether or not the product floats, even though they try to make it seem that way. You could have 100% pure soap that would sink. Soap will float, as has been pointed out many times, if its density is less than that of water. One way to do that is to whip it up so it containbs a lot of air, which doesn’t mean it’s pure.
I don’t remember the full quote but on an episode of Car Talk, Tom ranted for a few moments on “Four out of five people suffer from diarrhea. What? Does this mean that the fifth person enjoys it?”
I’m not sure I agree with your logic. It’s not prima facie ridiculous to imagine a product which will do nothing by itself, but which will, if you diet and exercise and do other things which would cause you to lose weight, cause you to lose more weight than you otherwise would; or alternatively a product which does some psychopharmacological thing which makes it easier for most people to diet and/or exercise. The above sentence seems like a reasonable description for either of those products.
I can’t agree with your analysis there. First of all, what you probably mean is “20% less of the part of the cookie that isn’t chips”, ie, “20% less dough” or something like that. The total amount of cookie probably remains constant, given that cookie is dough + chips. Even ignoring that pedantry, however, your math is still wrong, because if the cookies were originally 90% dough and 10% cookies, then increasing the amount of cookies by 20% means you end up at 88% dough and 12% cookies, for a decrease in dough of around 2.2%.
Sorry, no. The point you’re making shows that you are treating “unique” as a synonym of “unusual,” which is is not. Things can indeed be more or less unusual, because “unusual” is a relative term, but “unique” is an absolute term. It does not take modifiers. Nor does it follow from your argument (that every tree is different from every other tree in some respect) that the word “unique” has no meaning; on the contrary, your argument is the essence of the meaning of “unique.” Every tree IS unique in some way, but that does NOT mean that any of them is MORE unique than any other, because there is no such thing. Any editor worth his or her salt (and I am one) would respond to your marking copy with that objection either by replacing “unique” with “unusual” or by stetting it.
Words have meanings, Chronos, whether you like it or not.
I agree with Chronos for all the reasons he said and disagree with you. Out in the real world, everything is, technically, unique. You’ll never find for me two physical macro-sized objects that are unique down to the submolecular level. So either the word unique has no meaning when describing actual things we interact with, or it can be modified and tuned to be useful in whatever context one is speaking in.
I agree with Chronos, too. Merriam-Webster has an interesting usage note.
Emphasis mine.
Yes, were I an editor (and when I did copy edit), I would change “unique” to “unusual” or whatnot, because there are still people who insist the word cannot be qualified. I disagree. It can be qualified, and it routinely is qualified. Words do have meanings, and often more than one.
Likewise, candy with something like “Always a FAT free product!” Really? This solid hunk of sugar has no fat you say? Well hot damn, I’m eating these for every meal now!
gains 20 pounds
cries
Any commercial with a line to the effect of “Remember, Company X – the only one with Company X’s trademarked logo on the van” or “Remember, Company X – the only one that sells Company X’s trademarked product” makes me appreciate the wisdom of NOT putting another company’s logo on your vehicles or selling other companies’ stuff.
“Triple hops brewed” makes me see red.
Miller is referring to hop additions which is just the name for when you add hops to your wort during the boil. Doing it three times is meaningless. It’s the quantity of hops added and at what point during the boil they’re added that makes all the difference. Adding hops towards the beginning of the boil provides bitterness, while the towards the end provides aroma. Dogfish Head brewery has a 90 Minute IPA in which hops are continuously added for 90 minutes. By Miller’s ridiculous terminology that would be n‑tuple hops brewed.
“Unique,” as modified ad nauseam in advertising, is pretty much meaningless. They mean to say “terribly exclusive,” “really special” or “super terrific,” not that their product is literally unique. Hence my objection.
Just because usage is widespread doesn’t mean it’s correct. “Irregardless” is widespread. And your pointing to the dictionary is unconvincing to me, because first of all, the very usage note you cite says not to use modifiers with “unique” in its primary meaning, i.e. “in a class by itself,” but only if you’re using it as a synonym for “unusual” – which, I repeat, a careful writer should not do. And the reason that writer shouldn’t use “unique” in the sense of “unusual” is not because dusty pedants like me will squawk from our ivory towers and you should humor us, but because there are perfectly serviceable words that actually mean what you’re trying to say.
English is a living, changing language – but there’s a difference between something like the word “stink” evolving from meaning simply a smell to meaning a BAD smell and anointing incorrect usage just because “everybody does it.” You’re free to disagree, but that doesn’t mean your opinion is as valid as mine.
This wasn’t really a claim, though - it was more of a mandated disclaimer.
WeSaySo Corporation in no way suggest that Sugar Coco Soda Puffs® are an adequately nutritious breakfast.
Another shampoo one (I noticed that shampoo has been mentioned more than any other product besides beer) is how one of the upscale, premium brands has something on the label about “Professional Formula” or “Preferred By Professionals” and when I first noticed it (truthfully, I may have actually been a bit “herbally enhanced” upon reading it) I thought “Professional who?”
Are there people who wash their hair professionally?