From: O'Regan, Emlyn (Emlyn.ORegan@actew.com.au)
Date: Thu Jun 24 1999 - 18:23:15 MDT
Rob wrote:
> People think they don't need them, cos people are dumb. For instance,
> companies advertising products love to use the new buzzword "natural". Try
> defining that. Of course it can be done, I could say that the defn. is
> "those systems unaffected by human intervention". Does that definition fit
> the use of "natural" in describing a new hair product? Nope. In fact the
> true primitive abstract "definition" used by joe public is probably more
> like "trees and stuff, not toxic waste.", which is of course, utter shit.
> The advertising agencies love it though, cos the knackered concept implies
> superiority, good health and the like, with no basis in logic and no
> translation to the real world. This also means that they can apply it to
> virtally ANY product, as long as it is not named "toxic waste". They are
> within the law as "natural" doesn't mean shit, and the law knows it.
>
Unfortunately this appears to be correct. Luckily we still have more
dependable words like "organic".
Emlyn, 100% organic
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:17 MST