General question etc. etc.

The ironic thing is this question is posed in a Simpsons newsgroup.

I don't know how they run things over there, pilgrim, but here in the US of A tv is set up to bring lots of consumers in front of the tube to catch commercials from companies who pay for the whole schamolla (except that we also pay high cable or satellite rates so we're paying to get advertised to. Of course we also buy clothes with advertisements on them). Anyway, the best way to sell this crap is to have it played by attractive professionals whose jobs require round-the-clock body maintenance so we can point at the set and say "Hey - dat's ME!" and go out and buy said crap to prove it.

VMacek

it was marked OT . . .

indeed. one of my follow up posts better explains what i was getting at. here in britain the television shows a far better cross section of society, which is why the thought meandered across my mind. had i but known that such thoughts were contraband, i would not have expressed them. we live and learn, what ho?

JQM

"James Q. Morrissey" wrote in message news:c98pd1$h7i$[email]...

society,

such

Well, I think that any other case would be arbitrary in a stipulation to place the various categories into pre-arranged articles of observance. However we cannot subsume it into irrelevant intervening contexts, since it appears that relational information does alter the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed cross-section of society.

Vince Macek wrote:

That's not a question, Professor, but we'll let the viewers judge for themselves.