It's not our fault...

Tom Fleischman wrote:

[snip]
As you point out, the ad itself was fairly innocuous.
I think the word "collapse" was not well chosen,

So should the word "collapse" be unusable in advertising from now on because it
describes what happened to the WTC? Should we pull any and all ads using the
words "airplane", "fly", "tower", "twin" too? regardless of how much of a
stretch it is to suggest they were intentionally chosen? How many pest control
service ads use words that *could be* associated with horrible events of the
past century? I don't think anyone lacks compassion for victims and their
families, but if you're going to get that "sensitive," just about anything
could be linked in one way or another. Where do you draw the line?

but looking at it now I think it was a bit of a
stretch to connect it to the WTC.

Ya think?

"Shirley" wrote in message
...
Tom Fleischman wrote:

[snip]
As you point out, the ad itself was fairly innocuous.
I think the word "collapse" was not well chosen,

So should the word "collapse" be unusable in advertising from now on
because it
describes what happened to the WTC? Should we pull any and all ads using
the
words "airplane", "fly", "tower", "twin" too? regardless of how much of a
stretch it is to suggest they were intentionally chosen? How many pest
control
service ads use words that *could be* associated with horrible events of
the
past century? I don't think anyone lacks compassion for victims and their
families, but if you're going to get that "sensitive," just about anything
could be linked in one way or another. Where do you draw the line?

but looking at it now I think it was a bit of a
stretch to connect it to the WTC.

Ya think?

Like a test for schizophrenia?