MD Anderson Threatening Ad
-
@Dashrender said:
Additionally, the red strikethrough appears to me to be there as a way to draw the eye to the word. If they wanted you to ignore it, they would make the strikethrough the same color as the text.
Not how it works. You can't compare covering up a word to highlighting a word. It makes it unreadable in the manner in which these ads are normally read - walking by or driving by.
-
Hey, at least they spelled "cancer" correctly, and there's no "your" where it should be "you're". Honestly, that is better than 90% of everything I see out there anymore. It's just ridiculous.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Additionally, the red strikethrough appears to me to be there as a way to draw the eye to the word. If they wanted you to ignore it, they would make the strikethrough the same color as the text.
Not how it works. You can't compare covering up a word to highlighting a word. It makes it unreadable in the manner in which these ads are normally read - walking by or driving by.
That IS how it works. It's how ads have been since, like, forever. I couldn't even count the number of times a word in an ad had a strike-through. The whole point of the strike-through in advertisement is to draw emphasis to that exact word. It's not about correct English; it's about grabbing attention.
-
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Additionally, the red strikethrough appears to me to be there as a way to draw the eye to the word. If they wanted you to ignore it, they would make the strikethrough the same color as the text.
Not how it works. You can't compare covering up a word to highlighting a word. It makes it unreadable in the manner in which these ads are normally read - walking by or driving by.
That IS how it works. It's how ads have been since, like, forever. I couldn't even count the number of times a word in an ad had a strike-through. The whole point of the strike-through in advertisement is to draw emphasis to that exact word. It's not about correct English; it's about grabbing attention.
It does not grab attention. It covers up. This is not a magazine ad but a billboard ad. No amount of making hard to see or hard to read grabs attention. It literally makes the word nearly disappear. It only exists at all to people dissecting it and reading into it.
-
@Dashrender said:
I don't find these two lines to be even remotely the same (the comma doesn't matter) when used in this context. Now, if this was on a paper being graded by a teacher, boss, etc, etc - fine they would more or less be the same sentence, but in this case the advertiser (in my opinion) is claiming that they are defeating cancer.
Okay, but without adding in personal injections of meaning, what do they mean? Either of them? If you aren't talking about YOU... what the heck IS it talking about?
-
Using the strike out to mean "no longer" is a common use. That I'll give. But given the common way this is used for an ad like this.... it's not the meaning that @Dashrender is coming to. If you look at ads that do this, and I've seen a lot, they always follow the same pattern (without the weird threat.) And that usage would mean a change from being a cancer center to being a general hospital.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Additionally, the red strikethrough appears to me to be there as a way to draw the eye to the word. If they wanted you to ignore it, they would make the strikethrough the same color as the text.
Not how it works. You can't compare covering up a word to highlighting a word. It makes it unreadable in the manner in which these ads are normally read - walking by or driving by.
That IS how it works. It's how ads have been since, like, forever. I couldn't even count the number of times a word in an ad had a strike-through. The whole point of the strike-through in advertisement is to draw emphasis to that exact word. It's not about correct English; it's about grabbing attention.
It does not grab attention. It covers up. This is not a magazine ad but a billboard ad. No amount of making hard to see or hard to read grabs attention. It literally makes the word nearly disappear. It only exists at all to people dissecting it and reading into it.
It must be your eyesight condition that makes it that hard to see. I have no trouble at all seeing that it says cancer and was stricken-through with a red line. Plain as day.
-
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Additionally, the red strikethrough appears to me to be there as a way to draw the eye to the word. If they wanted you to ignore it, they would make the strikethrough the same color as the text.
Not how it works. You can't compare covering up a word to highlighting a word. It makes it unreadable in the manner in which these ads are normally read - walking by or driving by.
That IS how it works. It's how ads have been since, like, forever. I couldn't even count the number of times a word in an ad had a strike-through. The whole point of the strike-through in advertisement is to draw emphasis to that exact word. It's not about correct English; it's about grabbing attention.
It does not grab attention. It covers up. This is not a magazine ad but a billboard ad. No amount of making hard to see or hard to read grabs attention. It literally makes the word nearly disappear. It only exists at all to people dissecting it and reading into it.
It must be your eyesight condition that makes it that hard to see. I have no trouble at all seeing that it says cancer and was stricken-through with a red line. Plain as day.
You are not walking by it to the side in a moving airport area. Trust me, you don't see the word cancer where this ad is placed. Dominica checked it to in situ and agreed.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Additionally, the red strikethrough appears to me to be there as a way to draw the eye to the word. If they wanted you to ignore it, they would make the strikethrough the same color as the text.
Not how it works. You can't compare covering up a word to highlighting a word. It makes it unreadable in the manner in which these ads are normally read - walking by or driving by.
That IS how it works. It's how ads have been since, like, forever. I couldn't even count the number of times a word in an ad had a strike-through. The whole point of the strike-through in advertisement is to draw emphasis to that exact word. It's not about correct English; it's about grabbing attention.
It does not grab attention. It covers up. This is not a magazine ad but a billboard ad. No amount of making hard to see or hard to read grabs attention. It literally makes the word nearly disappear. It only exists at all to people dissecting it and reading into it.
It must be your eyesight condition that makes it that hard to see. I have no trouble at all seeing that it says cancer and was stricken-through with a red line. Plain as day.
You are not walking by it to the side in a moving airport area. Trust me, you don't see the word cancer where this ad is placed. Dominica checked it to in situ and agreed.
All I am seeing is the one in the OP here. It's very clearly readable in that ad. This entire thread feels about the equivalent of having to explain a knock-knock joke.
-
@scottalanmiller I read a magazine article a while back, which specifically studied how people read. So Scott, I'm sorry you're wrong here.
The meaning does seem different, and even difficult to understand.
But people can read entire books even if the lower half of the letters were completely absent.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller I read a magazine article a while back, which specifically studied how people read. So Scott, I'm sorry you're wrong here.
The meaning does seem different, and even difficult to understand.
But people can read entire books even if the lower half of the letters were completely absent.
That's not related. Covered up entirely so that you don't even catch that the word is there is completely different than the article you read, which is very well known and not in question. Of course people can read missing letters we do it every day. But filling in a missing word we have no reason to know is missing when we are not trying to read the ad at all is different, completely.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller I read a magazine article a while back, which specifically studied how people read. So Scott, I'm sorry you're wrong here.
The meaning does seem different, and even difficult to understand.
But people can read entire books even if the lower half of the letters were completely absent.
Thank you for using "you're" correctly!
-
@art_of_shred I try to not mess those up......
-
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Additionally, the red strikethrough appears to me to be there as a way to draw the eye to the word. If they wanted you to ignore it, they would make the strikethrough the same color as the text.
Not how it works. You can't compare covering up a word to highlighting a word. It makes it unreadable in the manner in which these ads are normally read - walking by or driving by.
That IS how it works. It's how ads have been since, like, forever. I couldn't even count the number of times a word in an ad had a strike-through. The whole point of the strike-through in advertisement is to draw emphasis to that exact word. It's not about correct English; it's about grabbing attention.
It does not grab attention. It covers up. This is not a magazine ad but a billboard ad. No amount of making hard to see or hard to read grabs attention. It literally makes the word nearly disappear. It only exists at all to people dissecting it and reading into it.
It must be your eyesight condition that makes it that hard to see. I have no trouble at all seeing that it says cancer and was stricken-through with a red line. Plain as day.
You are not walking by it to the side in a moving airport area. Trust me, you don't see the word cancer where this ad is placed. Dominica checked it to in situ and agreed.
All I am seeing is the one in the OP here. It's very clearly readable in that ad. This entire thread feels about the equivalent of having to explain a knock-knock joke.
Yes, like I said, if we put it up for discussion you get a totally different reading experience that you cannot use as a basis of comparison. If you have lots of time to look at it, read it and think about it it seems likely that they probably meant this as an attack on cancer that was just done poorly. But even there, I'm not 100% sure now that we know that. That they are a general purpose hospital is an extremely possible option.
But let me tell you, having seen many of these, ALL you get is the weird threat until you see enough and happen to have time to stop and stare at one to figure out what one threat after another (all different) are written on the walls.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller I read a magazine article a while back, which specifically studied how people read. So Scott, I'm sorry you're wrong here.
The meaning does seem different, and even difficult to understand.
But people can read entire books even if the lower half of the letters were completely absent.
That's not related. Covered up entirely so that you don't even catch that the word is there is completely different than the article you read, which is very well known and not in question. Of course people can read missing letters we do it every day. But filling in a missing word we have no reason to know is missing when we are not trying to read the ad at all is different, completely.
I'm sorry, but your argument is not translating very well, as the posted ad does NOT make the word un-readable. Maybe if you could have snapped a pic of the sign as you rode by and posted it, you might get some more response in your favor. By using the above ad, you just sound like you're whining and don't get it.
-
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller I read a magazine article a while back, which specifically studied how people read. So Scott, I'm sorry you're wrong here.
The meaning does seem different, and even difficult to understand.
But people can read entire books even if the lower half of the letters were completely absent.
That's not related. Covered up entirely so that you don't even catch that the word is there is completely different than the article you read, which is very well known and not in question. Of course people can read missing letters we do it every day. But filling in a missing word we have no reason to know is missing when we are not trying to read the ad at all is different, completely.
I'm sorry, but your argument is not translating very well, as the posted ad does NOT make the word un-readable. Maybe if you could have snapped a pic of the sign as you rode by and posted it, you might get some more response in your favor. By using the above ad, you just sound like you're whining and don't get it.
Only because you are reading the ad like a web page and not thinking about how billboards work. You can't stop to look at them, you get one second as your head turns and that's all.
-
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Additionally, the red strikethrough appears to me to be there as a way to draw the eye to the word. If they wanted you to ignore it, they would make the strikethrough the same color as the text.
Not how it works. You can't compare covering up a word to highlighting a word. It makes it unreadable in the manner in which these ads are normally read - walking by or driving by.
That IS how it works. It's how ads have been since, like, forever. I couldn't even count the number of times a word in an ad had a strike-through. The whole point of the strike-through in advertisement is to draw emphasis to that exact word. It's not about correct English; it's about grabbing attention.
It does not grab attention. It covers up. This is not a magazine ad but a billboard ad. No amount of making hard to see or hard to read grabs attention. It literally makes the word nearly disappear. It only exists at all to people dissecting it and reading into it.
It must be your eyesight condition that makes it that hard to see. I have no trouble at all seeing that it says cancer and was stricken-through with a red line. Plain as day.
You are not walking by it to the side in a moving airport area. Trust me, you don't see the word cancer where this ad is placed. Dominica checked it to in situ and agreed.
All I am seeing is the one in the OP here. It's very clearly readable in that ad. This entire thread feels about the equivalent of having to explain a knock-knock joke.
LOVE! ROTF
-
Yes, the picture is of a print ad, it is far more readable than their signage.
-
Just realized this is a Texas ad. MD Anderson is at UT. Which explains a lot.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Additionally, the red strikethrough appears to me to be there as a way to draw the eye to the word. If they wanted you to ignore it, they would make the strikethrough the same color as the text.
Not how it works. You can't compare covering up a word to highlighting a word. It makes it unreadable in the manner in which these ads are normally read - walking by or driving by.
That IS how it works. It's how ads have been since, like, forever. I couldn't even count the number of times a word in an ad had a strike-through. The whole point of the strike-through in advertisement is to draw emphasis to that exact word. It's not about correct English; it's about grabbing attention.
It does not grab attention. It covers up. This is not a magazine ad but a billboard ad. No amount of making hard to see or hard to read grabs attention. It literally makes the word nearly disappear. It only exists at all to people dissecting it and reading into it.
It must be your eyesight condition that makes it that hard to see. I have no trouble at all seeing that it says cancer and was stricken-through with a red line. Plain as day.
You are not walking by it to the side in a moving airport area. Trust me, you don't see the word cancer where this ad is placed. Dominica checked it to in situ and agreed.
All I am seeing is the one in the OP here. It's very clearly readable in that ad. This entire thread feels about the equivalent of having to explain a knock-knock joke.
Yes, like I said, if we put it up for discussion you get a totally different reading experience that you cannot use as a basis of comparison. If you have lots of time to look at it, read it and think about it it seems likely that they probably meant this as an attack on cancer that was just done poorly. But even there, I'm not 100% sure now that we know that. That they are a general purpose hospital is an extremely possible option.
But let me tell you, having seen many of these, ALL you get is the weird threat until you see enough and happen to have time to stop and stare at one to figure out what one threat after another (all different) are written on the walls.
You might want to be a little careful with the "we" comment. Thus far, you're the only "we" in this thread. I get it very easily. Unless I'm missing something, everyone else who has posted also is not having a problem getting the meaning of the ad at first-glance.
