USN for Kids - Twitter war

[Wyatt Earp]

Pal, nothing you've said suggests you're unbiased. You are a USN brand ambassador. You are by that very virtue extremely prejudiced in your perspective You can't simply "take it out of the equation", since it appears to be the foundation for your approach on this topic (versus TimHenman rather than the merits of his point).

 

Wear the hat; you bought it.

 

Pal, that's nice

Edited November 1, 2012 by Dangle

[SwissVan]

Hahahaha....come on Swissie.....even I can see the logic in the label printing.....

"keep out of reach of children".......which means if they find it, they will most likely consume the whole can of stuff. 'Cause it is actually lekker.

So the label just states that the product is not safe in the hands of children. Consumption according to requirements is.

 

I guess it could be construed to mean that kids might ignore the instructions and think that they can consume as much as they like in one gulp….

 

BUT on the udder hand Darren….that’s all rather vague and open to personal interpretation.

 

Printing “Keep this product out of reach of young children” on the sachet / packet / tin is a poor choice of words for a product targeting children, after all why do you think this was pointed out when the thread started.

[M L]

 

I liked a post made by gjpowell.

Suddenly wheelerdealer who still has some unsubstantiated claims form a previous "shoot from the hip" comment decides to get personal.

 

3 posts? Seriously? And Dangle likes your post? sounds like a bunch of USN 8==D holders.

 

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22339232.jpg

Edited November 1, 2012 by wheelerdealer

[Grebel]

I guess it could be construed to mean that kids might ignore the instructions and think that they can consume as much as they like in one gulp….

 

BUT on the udder hand Darren….that’s all rather vague and open to personal interpretation.

 

Printing “Keep this product out of reach of young children” on the sachet / packet / tin is a poor choice of words for a product targeting children, after all why do you think this was pointed out when the thread started.

 

The force is strong in this one.....

 

Read warning labels much? Supose "Don't spray in eyes" is also a waste of time on a tin of deodorant seeing as it's meant to go under your arms.

 

Warning labels are meant to keep suppliers safe from stupid people. They walk among us.......

[Let's Ride]

Handbags in the sunset.

 

Funny how some brand ambassadors come out and speak here. Bad PR seems to be what USN is the best at.

 

USN is basically edging us on.

 

 

(Walk away and this thread would have died a few days ago and we would have forgotten about the whole saga).

 

Not sure I will be forgetting this anytime soon the way USN's customers have been treated. I have a tub of USN muscle fuel in my room, not sure I want it anymore but before this whole saga I was a frequent USN user.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Let's Ride

[Skubarra]

The force is strong in this one.....

 

Read warning labels much? Supose "Don't spray in eyes" is also a waste of time on a tin of deodorant seeing as it's meant to go under your arms.

 

Warning labels are meant to keep suppliers safe from stupid people. They walk among us.......

 

Sorry I'm with Swiss on this one. The "if they find it, they will most likely consume the whole can of stuff" explanation is pretty weak imo, if that was an issue we would have seen the "keep away from children" label on every pack of candy, chips, cold drinks etc in the supermarket.

 

If warning labels are indeed for stupid people, it should be clear and not ambiguous. i.e. it must say "Use in moderation" or " Use as prescribed" if thats the issue.

[SwissVan]

The force is strong in this one.....

 

Read warning labels much? Supose "Don't spray in eyes" is also a waste of time on a tin of deodorant seeing as it's meant to go under your arms.

 

Warning labels are meant to keep suppliers safe from stupid people. They walk among us.......

 

Was your comment “The force is strong in this one….” really necessary?

 

Personally I think it’s silly to compare the use of deodorant to a nutritional supplement for children, and if you want ignore the instructions for stuff you going to feed your kid well....be my guest but try keep it on topic and less personal.

[Grebel]

Was your comment “The force is strong in this one….” really necessary?

 

Personally I think it’s silly to compare the use of deodorant to a nutritional supplement for children, and if you want ignore the instructions for stuff you going to feed your kid well....be my guest but try keep it on topic and less personal.

 

Probably not.

 

Personally I think that taking the warning out of context is silly. That was ALL on topic as far as I'm concerned. Comparing the use of deodorant to a nutritional supliment for children wasn't supposed to be the focus. The use of warning labels is the point that I was trying to get across.

 

In today's society and industry for that matter, we are so governed by the laws of health annd safety that at some point we won't be able to think for ourselves anymore.

 

I am not even going to go into the list of ingredients for normal everyday items that most kids eat and drink on a daily basis....

[Grebel]

Sorry I'm with Swiss on this one. The "if they find it, they will most likely consume the whole can of stuff" explanation is pretty weak imo, if that was an issue we would have seen the "keep away from children" label on every pack of candy, chips, cold drinks etc in the supermarket.

 

If warning labels are indeed for stupid people, it should be clear and not ambiguous. i.e. it must say "Use in moderation" or " Use as prescribed" if thats the issue.

 

I vote that we remove ALL warning labels. That way we wiill sort the wheat from the chaff.

[jmaccelari]

An interesting picture...

 

http://mg.co.za/article/2012-11-01-sheryls-partner-in-crime-to-appeal-against-drug-conviction