"Clear Cast" $38 Antenna Hype Ad

On 01/28/2012 03:12 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
"TJ" wrote in message
...

Sheesh. Amazing that the most innocent little joke can spawn such a
big noise. All I meant to generate was a chuckle or two.

Maybe a joke, but both are correct.

Got it. Humor is OK, but only if precise and rigidly accurate. Filing
for future reference...

Sigh.

TJ

TJ wrote:
On 01/25/2012 09:41 PM, Sal wrote:
"Elmo P. wrote in message
...
In ,
wrote:

I went to the Clear Cast website. Despite the earlier quoted
price of $38,
I note that Clear Cast's balls have gotten considerable bigger.
On the site

www.clear-cast.com

I clicked onShop Now and was offered the antenna for $68.
Going to Checkout, I found they also add $9.95 for shipping and
$5.00 for a two-year
extended warranty on the TV set. (Good luck with that extended
warranty; the warranty can be deleted from your cart.)

I have nothing else to say.

BUT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND??? THAT'S HALF THE PRICE OF ONE MONTH'S
CABLE BILL--AND THAT'S ALL YOU PAY!!!!! FOREVER!!!!! TV FOR FREE,
MAN!!!!! AND ALL LEGAL!!!!!!

I caught that. My cup runneth over with love.

But there's even more. On the main page, Clear Cast provides a
sophisticated calculator which converts monthly recurring costs to
their annual equivalents. I appreciate having a website in my
Favorites, such that I can go there if I have some number that needs
multiplying by twelve.

Wahoo ... sort of.

"Sal"


Favorites... Ah yes, almost forgot these aren't Linux groups. Over
here in Linux-land we don't play "Favorites." That's so...
Microsoft-like.

We "bookmark" things that we wish to keep for future reference. Much
more democratic.

TJ

In Windows land we bookmark things all the time with Firefox, Opera &
Netscape (if you like to go old school).

Favorites are played in Internet Explorer and, oddly enough, Quicktime movie
player.

Just sayin' ;-)

On 1/28/12 5:22 PM, in article , "TJ"
wrote:

On 01/28/2012 03:12 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
"TJ" wrote in message
...

Sheesh. Amazing that the most innocent little joke can spawn such a
big noise. All I meant to generate was a chuckle or two.

Maybe a joke, but both are correct.

Got it. Humor is OK, but only if precise and rigidly accurate. Filing
for future reference...

Sigh.

TJ

Some folks don't want you makin' fun of their TV or OS, ya know?!? They got
a whole mess of other things to worry about. Show some sympathy already!

;-) NOTE!

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Friday, January 27th, 2012, at 20:17:25h -0800, Sal wrote:

My wife orders our pizza from a place that charges three times what we'd
pay for Domino's.

Well if you must insist on Caspian Sea caviar topping, you
can expect to pay rather more.

.... if you've never tried it ...

"Sal"

"TJ" wrote in message
...


snip

... and grow hair on your bald head ...

OK, you have my attention.

"Sal"

It most certainly is a scam. If a $2 antenna was being sold for $75, what
would the US Federal Trade Commission say? They'd likely say it was a
scam
too.

Why?

Do you work in marketing--is that why you keep insisting its not a scam?


marketing: the use of false advertising to convince someone to buy
a product. Isn't that what they teach in business school?

Remember, if you advertise that your cookies are "made by elves",
they had better be made by genuine elves, and no, teamsters wearing
Spock ears are not an acceptable substitute.

No. But why do you think it's a scam?

What is YOUR definition of scam? Apparently, a "scam" is anything you
don't like.

If they represent that a $2 antenna WILL receive watchable TV signals,
that's false advertising. There are some areas which will not receive
OTA TV (too far away, and terrain issues such as being on a lake surrounded
by mountains), nor cable (not enough population density to support
installing the cable), nor satellite (in a fringe area, with terrain
issues, such as mountains to the south, southeast, and southwest).

There are probably much larger areas of the USA which cannot receive
*HD* because there are no nearby stations transmitting it.

In article merica,
Gordon Burditt wrote:

[spurious quotage removed]


marketing: the use of false advertising to convince someone to buy
a product.

Apparently you don't know the difference between marketing and
advertising.


If they represent that a $2 antenna WILL receive watchable TV signals,
that's false advertising.

Tell that to my $2 antenna that gets 45 channels:

http://www.wintertime.com/Personal/DTV/bowtie2.jpg


There are some areas which will not receive
OTA TV (too far away, and terrain issues such as being on a lake surrounded
by mountains), nor cable (not enough population density to support
installing the cable), nor satellite (in a fringe area, with terrain
issues, such as mountains to the south, southeast, and southwest).

Yes, and those people need a Netflix subscription. But that proves
nothing about a $2 antenna being able to receive signals in a good
area.


Patty

If they represent that a $2 antenna WILL receive watchable TV signals,
that's false advertising.

Tell that to my $2 antenna that gets 45 channels:

http://www.wintertime.com/Personal/DTV/bowtie2.jpg


You left out the qualifier: "in a good area". It won't receive
squat in a bad area, and if they represent performance without
qualification about the reception environment, that's false
advertising.

Last time I went shopping for antennas, they had a bunch of color-coded
ratings for antennas (by their design) and stations (approximate
by distance, and they also had a web site where you could get more
accurate data). You need at least a "yellow"-rated antenna to get
a "yellow" rated station reliably. There were also disclaimers about
local anomalies like being behind a large skyscraper or mountain.

There are some areas which will not receive
OTA TV (too far away, and terrain issues such as being on a lake surrounded
by mountains), nor cable (not enough population density to support
installing the cable), nor satellite (in a fringe area, with terrain
issues, such as mountains to the south, southeast, and southwest).

Yes, and those people need a Netflix subscription. But that proves
nothing about a $2 antenna being able to receive signals in a good
area.

And if they advertise clear pictures *IN A GOOD RECEPTION AREA*, fine.
If they advertise clear pictures, period, that's false advertising.

In article merica,
Gordon Burditt wrote:
If they represent that a $2 antenna WILL receive watchable TV signals,
that's false advertising.

Tell that to my $2 antenna that gets 45 channels:

You left out the qualifier: "in a good area".

No, I didn't. You did. I quoted your first sentence exactly as
you wrote it.

If you want to change your statement to add that qualification,
then I'll agree with it.


It won't receive
squat in a bad area, and if they represent performance without
qualification about the reception environment, that's false
advertising.

If they said, "Here's a $2 OTA antenna," it's truthful. If they
said, "Here's a $2 [or $100 or $5,000 antenna] that will get
TV stations anywhere," that's untruthful. Without seeing exactly
what wording they used, neither you nor I can judge the truthfulness
of the ad or catalog description.

So what was the exact wording of the $2 antenna description you're
so incensed about?


Patty

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:02:35 -0600, Gordon Burditt wrote:

they had better be made by genuine elves

They must also be approved by the Elf and Safety Administration.