A question for women…
When you’re out on a social meal with friends do you REALLY discuss the dump you’ve just had with them ?
As in it was hard and uncomfortable.
Enjoy your meal girls !
As a gay man who has, in several cases, been considered “one of the girls” enough to be in on many female-only (except for me) conversations, let me tell you that most men do NOT want to know the details of those conversations. Believe me. Women talk about things like that, and periods, and the various nasty things that happen with what we would call their tackle if they were men, ALL THE TIME. I’ve had to excuse myself from more than one such conversation just to maintain my digestive integrity.
Pussy. 
That’s one of my cues to excuse, yes… shudder
Certainly. There are thirty five thousand deaths and three and half million hospitalizations a year in the U.S. due to auto wrecks. It is the top cause of death that isn’t a disease. Hell, there are over 300 auto wreck deaths a year in my county alone. My top concern is price, but yes safety is important to me and many others.
For me it is:
**In this economy . . . **
Because people only look for value during recessions. :rolleyes:
Well, to be fair, it’s not that cars are less or more safe than each other…it’s the drivers that are the danger, not the cars that aren’t safe enough.
Of course certain cars are safer than others. Heavier, lower-gravity-centered cars reduce risk of death and injury in wrecks (to the driver of that car). Even cars in the same class have significantly different risks. You are twice as likely to be hurt or killed in an Escort than in a Civic. cite. Options such as side airbags reduce your risk of injury when you get in an accident, and options like ABS and ESC reduce your risk of getting in the accident in the first place. Why do you think auto insurers give discounts for these things? Why do think so many more people have died in Camaros than in Volvos?
And, no it is not that Camaro drivers are more reckless. From the study I cited above:
I have to turn off the sound for the ones that say “I had to re-use catheters.” I am so sorry and I know people are suffering, but I just can’t hear about it.
What I am saying - and this is a guess - is that the difference between the two groups has to be statistically significant. It’s a technical term and it’s not a raw percentage. It is supposed to indicate that there is really a difference between the two drugs and that the result is not random.
I think the FDA does list the details when a drug gets approved. The companies also usually announce this stuff themselves, although they’ve been known to play games with results they don’t like- which is a bigger problem than nailing down the meaning of “rare.”
And you should. I’m not sure this stuff should be advertised on TV.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar…
I recommend turning off the TV during mealtimes. It will improve your family life, digestion and probably more things I can’t think of just now.
Staver808 said:
Those are all valid concerns, and certainly something you should discuss with your doctor before taking medication. Does it really belong in commercials?
The reason why there is any mention at all is because the commercials serve the purpose of trying to convince you that the medication is all puppy dogs and clouds and fuzzy bunnies, so the side effects list is to be a heads up that you really should discuss all the details with your doctor and not just accept the ad at face value.
Superhal said:
There is a legitimate use to the “installment plan” presentation. “I don’t have $100 in my bank account now, but surely I can squeeze $24.99 a month out of my income.” Okay, maybe not. 
But yes, they do emphasize the per installment prize over the total cost.
Even worse than the “Installment For Idiots” plan is the latest trick: quote a reasonable price then put “for a 30-day trial” in a smaller font under it.
I have seen three products lately where I wondered “Hmmm, wonder what it costs…” only to see:
ONLY $59.95!
for a 30-day in-home trial
plus shipping and set-up fees
Although the fourth ad was even worse: “Call 1-888-Too-Much and enquire about our convenient 30-day trial”.
Is it the “If-You-Have-To-Ask-You-Can’t-Afford-It school” of marketing to the rich? I wouldn’t think “Magnum P.I.” viewres would come under that heading. Do the ad people suspect that if they actually told people what it cost no one would even try it?
Along with that, I hate it when the commercial won’t tell you what the regular price will be after the promotional rate is over.
I also hate:
If you act right now, we’ll send you a 2nd X absolutely FREE!
and then…
On top of a 2nd X, we’ll also throw in Y and Z too, ABSOLUTELY FREE!
Of course, this is BS. Whenever I see this, I think the total cost of everything must be half the price of what they are asking.
I get stabby when food is described as “tantalizing.” If it’s tantalizing, by definition you can’t have it!
Another stupid people catcher:
If you act in the next 5 minutes…
Sure. They know to the minute when the commercial aired in my area.
This is how the frequency words are defined in Sweden (most likely the same in the entire EU). It would not surprise me if the US used similar terminology as well. I work with pharmaceuticals but not on the regulatory or the advertising side so not my area of expertise.
Very common >1/10
Common 1/10-1/100
Uncommon 1/100-1/1000
Rare 1/1000-1/10000
Very rare <1/10000