At 03:46 PM 12/18/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Not the end of the ad, but the end of the
sequence of damning quotes. But the sequence of quotes takes up
most of the ad, and I found the inclusion of the quote from their
own jury as the last one in the sequence more than a little
surprising. As it happens the last slot is the most memorable with
something like this, because they go by so fast, so a lot of viewers
will carry away the message that the jury said no-dice; if they've
ever heard of Steorn in the past, that'll mean something to them.
Notice that "scientific jury" is in quotes. They don't disclose that
they accepted the jury, that they set it up. So it's easily dumped in
with the rest of the comments. I.e., knee-jerk rejection by
"scientists." It's very sophisticated, Stephen, they are setting up
certain conclusions, and it only has to work with a few people, if
the "product" they are really selling is disclosure, which costs them
nothing but the marketing cost.
That sequence is, as I also mentioned (equally unclearly, mea
culpa), followed by a quote from a philosopher, and then they close
with the single blurb, "Get Real, Get Orbo". (Up until the final
screen, I was actually wondering if this was a hatchet job done by
somebody other than Steorn.) But as to the "Get Real" thing, so
what? The last screen is the kind of garbage we all learn to filter
out -- "Get Chevy" "Get a Winston" "Get Fat, Drink Milk" -- just
a meaningless image and an assertion you should get one. It
provides name recognition and nothing else. The only content of the
ad is in the quotes.
Nope. Any reader will wonder who is providing them these quotes and
why. They will fill in the blanks.
There's absolutely nothing positive in it -- the closest they come is
a quote from a philosopher about great truths starting as blasphemies
(which doesn't seem like it's ideally chosen for an Islamic audience,
but what do I know).
But that quote is exactly the point. They are painting themselves as
"blasphemous."
They'd like to be, no doubt. The quotes don't paint them as
blasphemous, though -- they paint them as dishonest failures. Not
quite the same thing!
You've completely missed the effect. When people call others
blasphemous, they also toss in every possible criticism they can
think of. Steorn only presents one piece of actually damning
evidence: the jury, and the way they present it, it makes the jury
situation look like just more of the same. It's very clever, in fact.
I think if you want to understand Steorn, you should start with the
assumption that they are very smart and that they know exactly what
they are doing. It's safer, in fact, you are less likely to be fooled.
You're suggesting it's a Ponzi scheme? So are they paying off early
investors? I wasn't aware of any evidence to that effect -- I was
aware of no evidence that they'd paid off *any* of their investors.
How would you know?
Companies trying to develop new technology don't typically pay
dividends. They don't pay off early investors, either, or anybody
else, until they finally hit their stride in the marketplace. So,
it's hard to see how it could be structured as a Ponzi scheme.
How would you know?
Yes. It's possible that early investors haven't been paid off, that,
instead, they see that this is likely to pay them off. Don't assume
that the investors are stupid, though some may be. And please notice:
the early investors may be officers who are collecting salaries. You
don't think that they are paying salaries? On paper, the early
investors may lose everything, but, in fact, they might be walking
away with fat pockets.
