Leave a comment

Comments 44

(The comment has been removed)

peristaltor February 3 2012, 20:37:24 UTC
. . . but the rest of the United States has moved onto more important things.

Nah, only you.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

peristaltor February 3 2012, 21:32:56 UTC
That someone doesn't care, thanks to a quote from Twain.

Reply


oportet February 3 2012, 15:30:24 UTC
Do they have more planned this year than holding posters and sitting in parks?

I hate to sound like a broken record - but if there is no threat, no action that financially hurts who they are protesting against, there is no point.

Raising awareness isn't a valid goal anymore, if it ever was one.

Reply

decuvieri February 3 2012, 16:36:57 UTC
Agreed. I live in a solidly Republican district in a generally Republican state, and some of the students at the university here put together an Occupy "rally", of which there were maybe 20 participants. The way they talked about it after the fact - "We made people notice!", "We were DOING something by being there!" - sounded like those Woodstock-goers of old who cling to this idea that discussion alone equates to a social movement.

If Occupiers had presented themselves in any cohesive way I believe we would have seen a stronger response. The decentralized organization "structure" was their own undoing, and it seemed as though they were trying to build a movement on public sympathy. Obviously they failed the first go around, and I doubt "Occupy2" will receive half as much attention as it's predecessor. That ship has sailed.

Reply

peristaltor February 3 2012, 21:47:46 UTC
I'm curious: What "threat" or "action that financially hurts who they are protesting against" would you suggest they try?

Reply

oportet February 4 2012, 04:36:19 UTC
How to do it? That's a great question (but at least we have the 'What to do?' question knocked out now).

Legally? Not a thing. That leaves giving up, getting dirty, or refocusing attention away from Wall Street and on the Government instead.

Reply


devil_ad_vocate February 3 2012, 15:31:30 UTC
Small point... but Ferrari has been advertising since at least 1919. Kirby Vacuums used person-to-person advertising (the best kind) as part of their overall marketing plan. Hershey didn't advertise for decades, until they entered foreign markets. All businesses advertise, or they're out of business.

Reply

johnny9fingers February 3 2012, 17:03:44 UTC
Small Point, Ferrari was founded in 1929, and didn't make a road car until '47: and between those two dates Scuderia Ferrari drove Alfas until WWII, when they were driven out of business. I'd suggest a revision of dates as your margin of error slip is showing, old thing.

But points for trying. [Pats head.]

Reply

notmrgarrison February 4 2012, 11:06:41 UTC
johnny9fingers February 4 2012, 11:42:44 UTC
I accept your general point: but here the manufacturer advertising its car is?

Reply


professor_bobo February 3 2012, 16:55:03 UTC
There's a whole website dedicated to Ferrari advertisements:
http://www.ferraristuff.com/contents/en-us/d464_Ferrari_Advertising_Material.html

Reply

allhatnocattle February 6 2012, 01:31:20 UTC
Yes. But does Ferrari advertise? Look at the ads. Ferrari's name, logo and reputation are used to sell champion sparkplugs, etc. But Ferrari has no reason to advertise itself. Ferrai has pre-sold every car it has ever made, and being that their market is so small and exclusive that generally customers are selected. So why would it advertise?

Reply


dreadfulpenny81 February 3 2012, 17:36:22 UTC
There isn't a list of demands and the list of issues is long and inconsistent. Yes, there is. Declaration and Manifesto of the Occupy Wall Street movement

There is no leadership... -- Also wrong. Most of the camps (especially in major cities) have a media team who is in charge of getting info to the media, including interviews.

And what's really frustrating is that when cable news went to the Occupy camps to interview the protesters, the protesters shouted them away and made it impossible to get any decent coverage. -- That's because they want the ability to censor their material to show the American public what they want them to see, not what's actually going on.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up