Bomb hoax in Boston--Marketing campaign

Bionic Monkey

moniker wrote:

Derrick wrote:

Hyperbole aside, your argument opens the floodgates to completely absolve the Bush administration of any fault in the war, and soley blame the generals.

o_O
O_o

You have some rather interesting leaps in logic there.

Actually, yours was pretty shitty to begin with. He doesn't have to provide a valid alternative to the project to recognize that it was shitty and deserving of criticism.

moniker

Bionic Monkey wrote:

moniker wrote:

Derrick wrote:

Hyperbole aside, your argument opens the floodgates to completely absolve the Bush administration of any fault in the war, and soley blame the generals.

o_O
O_o

You have some rather interesting leaps in logic there.

Actually, yours was pretty shitty to begin with. He doesn't have to provide a valid alternative to the project to recognize that it was shitty and deserving of criticism.

The design concept was actually a fairly good one to broach such a difficult issue, particularly with the effect that the elevated highway had caused to the city with its implementation decades ago. You cannot simply remove an interstate into a major metropolitan area and the artery was in dire need of repair, so something had to be done. If you want to criticise the implementation I can understand that and would support it, but to criticise the very idea, well I have an issue with that. I was curious what he had against that idea and what he would have preferred in its stead. Turns out he didn't actually have anything to say about the design/idea, just the construction effort. Then he somehow tied bad contractors to fault the designers.

ViolentChemistry

moniker wrote:

Bionic Monkey wrote:

moniker wrote:

Derrick wrote:

Hyperbole aside, your argument opens the floodgates to completely absolve the Bush administration of any fault in the war, and soley blame the generals.

o_O
O_o

You have some rather interesting leaps in logic there.

Actually, yours was pretty shitty to begin with. He doesn't have to provide a valid alternative to the project to recognize that it was shitty and deserving of criticism.

The design concept was actually a fairly good one to broach such a difficult issue, particularly with the effect that the elevated highway had caused to the city with its implementation decades ago. You cannot simply remove an interstate into a major metropolitan area and the artery was in dire need of repair, so something had to be done. If you want to criticise the implementation I can understand that and would support it, but to criticise the very idea, well I have an issue with that. I was curious what he had against that idea and what he would have preferred in its stead. Turns out he didn't actually have anything to say about the design/idea, just the construction effort. Then he somehow tied bad contractors to fault the designers.

I dunno, if it collapsed and crushed someone I have to say I have trouble believing it was a good design. I mean you're supposed to take loads and shit into account when you design a structure.

werehippy

ViolentChemistry wrote:

moniker wrote:

Bionic Monkey wrote:

moniker wrote:

Derrick wrote:

Hyperbole aside, your argument opens the floodgates to completely absolve the Bush administration of any fault in the war, and soley blame the generals.

o_O
O_o

You have some rather interesting leaps in logic there.

Actually, yours was pretty shitty to begin with. He doesn't have to provide a valid alternative to the project to recognize that it was shitty and deserving of criticism.

The design concept was actually a fairly good one to broach such a difficult issue, particularly with the effect that the elevated highway had caused to the city with its implementation decades ago. You cannot simply remove an interstate into a major metropolitan area and the artery was in dire need of repair, so something had to be done. If you want to criticise the implementation I can understand that and would support it, but to criticise the very idea, well I have an issue with that. I was curious what he had against that idea and what he would have preferred in its stead. Turns out he didn't actually have anything to say about the design/idea, just the construction effort. Then he somehow tied bad contractors to fault the designers.

I dunno, if it collapsed and crushed someone I have to say I have trouble believing it was a good design. I mean you're supposed to take loads and shit into account when you design a structure.

It's worth noting there are different levels of design at play in any large project, and it's not impossible (or unusual) to have different people responsible and different levels of quality at the different levels of the project.

The less convoluted version of that is that it's perfectly reasonable to say the overall design of the Big Dig was pretty good (as in the system level flow of traffic and the transition between the new and old system) while the low level design (as in the construction of an individual tunnel) was incredibly flawed and dangerous.

moniker

ViolentChemistry wrote:

moniker wrote:

Bionic Monkey wrote:

moniker wrote:

Derrick wrote:

Hyperbole aside, your argument opens the floodgates to completely absolve the Bush administration of any fault in the war, and soley blame the generals.

o_O
O_o

You have some rather interesting leaps in logic there.

Actually, yours was pretty shitty to begin with. He doesn't have to provide a valid alternative to the project to recognize that it was shitty and deserving of criticism.

The design concept was actually a fairly good one to broach such a difficult issue, particularly with the effect that the elevated highway had caused to the city with its implementation decades ago. You cannot simply remove an interstate into a major metropolitan area and the artery was in dire need of repair, so something had to be done. If you want to criticise the implementation I can understand that and would support it, but to criticise the very idea, well I have an issue with that. I was curious what he had against that idea and what he would have preferred in its stead. Turns out he didn't actually have anything to say about the design/idea, just the construction effort. Then he somehow tied bad contractors to fault the designers.

I dunno, if it collapsed and crushed someone I have to say I have trouble believing it was a good design. I mean you're supposed to take loads and shit into account when you design a structure.

The structure was in tact. The collapsed part was due in part to poorer quality concrete used in construction than was specified in the design, leaks (again, construction issues), and the water damage that impacted anchor bolts holding up the 12 tons of concrete in the ceiling that collapsed. Blaming the design(ers) for this is similiar to the Kansas City Hyatt disaster, only the misreading wasn't a result of an intern in the firm messing up shop drawings it was a result of contractors in the field doing sub-par work/cutting corners and not getting caught.

ViolentChemistry

werehippy wrote:

ViolentChemistry wrote:

moniker wrote:

Bionic Monkey wrote:

moniker wrote:

Derrick wrote:

Hyperbole aside, your argument opens the floodgates to completely absolve the Bush administration of any fault in the war, and soley blame the generals.

o_O
O_o

You have some rather interesting leaps in logic there.

Actually, yours was pretty shitty to begin with. He doesn't have to provide a valid alternative to the project to recognize that it was shitty and deserving of criticism.

The design concept was actually a fairly good one to broach such a difficult issue, particularly with the effect that the elevated highway had caused to the city with its implementation decades ago. You cannot simply remove an interstate into a major metropolitan area and the artery was in dire need of repair, so something had to be done. If you want to criticise the implementation I can understand that and would support it, but to criticise the very idea, well I have an issue with that. I was curious what he had against that idea and what he would have preferred in its stead. Turns out he didn't actually have anything to say about the design/idea, just the construction effort. Then he somehow tied bad contractors to fault the designers.

I dunno, if it collapsed and crushed someone I have to say I have trouble believing it was a good design. I mean you're supposed to take loads and shit into account when you design a structure.

It's worth noting there are different levels of design at play in any large project, and it's not impossible (or unusual) to have different people responsible and different levels of quality at the different levels of the project.

The less convoluted version of that is that it's perfectly reasonable to say the overall design of the Big Dig was pretty good (as in the system level flow of traffic and the transition between the new and old system) while the low level design (as in the construction of an individual tunnel) was incredibly flawed and dangerous.

It seems odd to me that "low-level" design is the part that uses high-level math and sciences, and is the part most important to people not-dying.

moniker

ViolentChemistry wrote:

werehippy wrote:

ViolentChemistry wrote:

moniker wrote:

Bionic Monkey wrote:

moniker wrote:

Derrick wrote:

Hyperbole aside, your argument opens the floodgates to completely absolve the Bush administration of any fault in the war, and soley blame the generals.

o_O
O_o

You have some rather interesting leaps in logic there.

Actually, yours was pretty shitty to begin with. He doesn't have to provide a valid alternative to the project to recognize that it was shitty and deserving of criticism.

The design concept was actually a fairly good one to broach such a difficult issue, particularly with the effect that the elevated highway had caused to the city with its implementation decades ago. You cannot simply remove an interstate into a major metropolitan area and the artery was in dire need of repair, so something had to be done. If you want to criticise the implementation I can understand that and would support it, but to criticise the very idea, well I have an issue with that. I was curious what he had against that idea and what he would have preferred in its stead. Turns out he didn't actually have anything to say about the design/idea, just the construction effort. Then he somehow tied bad contractors to fault the designers.

I dunno, if it collapsed and crushed someone I have to say I have trouble believing it was a good design. I mean you're supposed to take loads and shit into account when you design a structure.

It's worth noting there are different levels of design at play in any large project, and it's not impossible (or unusual) to have different people responsible and different levels of quality at the different levels of the project.

The less convoluted version of that is that it's perfectly reasonable to say the overall design of the Big Dig was pretty good (as in the system level flow of traffic and the transition between the new and old system) while the low level design (as in the construction of an individual tunnel) was incredibly flawed and dangerous.

It seems odd to me that "low-level" design is the part that uses high-level math and sciences, and is the part most important to people not-dying.

It's low level in the terms of the macro-design being high up in a socratic sense. You start out with the big idea (hey lets put the fucker underground), then filter it down to the nuts and bolts. (actually putting the fucker underground)

Gabriel_Pitt

The design can be perfectly sound on all levels, but if during the actual construction someone cuts corners and uses substandard materials, it's going to end up not amounting to much.

Also, in regards to Turner paying, it'd be a good PR move. Probably they could fight it out in court, and end up having to pay much less, if anything, but it'd be a long, and ugly fight, and no one would come out looking good.

Right now, by saying, 'hey, raised a little ruckus by mistake, here's a million, let's call it good," while higher up in Boston are still foaming about bomb hoaxes and intending to cause fear and disorder, Turner as an entity comes out looking more reasonable and comprimising, while Boston just looks dumber and dumber.

nightmarenny

nexuscrawler wrote:

AbsoluteZero wrote:

I wonder if Boston is proud, being the laughing stock of America and everything.

Florida must be fuming with jealousy

Whats really sad is they didn't get outdone by a whole state. No, a single city has pushed them into the shadow. It takes a special kind of retarded to do that. :wink:

Glyph

nightmarenny wrote:

nexuscrawler wrote:

AbsoluteZero wrote:

I wonder if Boston is proud, being the laughing stock of America and everything.

Florida must be fuming with jealousy

Whats really sad is they didn't get outdone by a whole state. No, a single city has pushed them into the shadow. It takes a special kind of retarded to do that. :wink:

What's sadder is that they came down on a couple of cartoon creators because they don't want to own up to how much money their overreaction costed the city.

Aegis

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500569.html

Well, looks like its up to $2 million and an apology for Turner Broadcasting including accepting full responsibility for the incident. A pity the city of Boston couldn't be required to issue an apology in relation to its severe overreaction to the situation.

"We are fortunate that no one was injured," Coakley said. "We hope that this painful lesson will not be lived or learned again either by the communities involved or ... Turner Broadcasting and Interference."

I am struggling to picture how a mooninite could possibly have ended up injuring someone but am coming up empty. :?

Goumindong

2m is nothing compared to what it would have cost them to litigate it.

Glyph

Perhaps it has to do with the utter indignation caused by seeing an obscene gesture.

mcdermott

Glyph wrote:

Perhaps it has to do with the utter indignation caused by seeing an obscene gesture.

One thing I found amusing while watching new coverage is that apparently the various networks couldn't come to a consensus on whether a lite-brite rendition of a cartoon character giving the middle finger was something that needed to be pixelated.

TankHammer

Glyph wrote:

Perhaps it has to do with the utter indignation caused by seeing an obscene gesture.

A monocle popping from a Bostonian's eye can kill a full-sized adult human, resulting in more tragedy.

edit:
Also, technically the finger is already pixelated... do you mean blurred/censored?

Yar

It just makes me mad because this is Boston we're talking about. That $2 million settlement is already being used to build a new wing on a politician's vacation home as we speak.

Thanatos

Yar wrote:

It just makes me mad because this is Boston we're talking about. That $2 million settlement is already being used to build a new wing on a politician's vacation home as we speak.

Yes, which is ever-so-different from how it'd be used anywhere else. :roll:

Yar

Thanatos wrote:

Yes, which is ever-so-different from how it'd be used anywhere else. :roll:

Yes, Boston is different.

Irond Will

Yar wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

Yes, which is ever-so-different from how it'd be used anywhere else. :roll:

Yes, Boston is different.

Man, I've not noticed more corruption here than in crappy cities like Fairfax, Lubbock, or Atlanta. The only real difference seems to be that the unions and construction companies are the beneficiaries of the misappropriated funds or tax breaks in Boston, while the big real estate people are the beneficiaries everywhere else.

Thanatos

Irond Will wrote:

Yar wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

Yes, which is ever-so-different from how it'd be used anywhere else. :roll:

Yes, Boston is different.

Man, I've not noticed more corruption here than in crappy cities like Fairfax, Lubbock, or Atlanta. The only real difference seems to be that the unions and construction companies are the beneficiaries of the misappropriated funds or tax breaks in Boston, while the big real estate people are the beneficiaries everywhere else.

Man, in most of the South, the most corrupt people are the cops.

Though, that goes for a lot of places.

Rust

What the fuck.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/09/news/newsmakers/cartoon_network/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The head of Cartoon Network resigned Friday after the network's guerilla marketing scheme for one of its shows went bad last week and led to a bomb scare in Boston - a fiasco that cost its parent company $2 million.

In a letter to employees, Jim Samples, the general manager and executive vice president of the network, wrote: "I deeply regret the negative publicity and expense caused to our company as a result of this campaign. As general manager of Cartoon Network, I feel compelled to step down, effective immediately, in recognition of the gravity of the situation that occurred under my watch."

Turner Broadcasting System and Interference Inc. agreed to pay $2 million to make amends for last Wednesday's bomb scare in Boston, the Massachusetts attorney general said Monday. TBS is the parent of the Cartoon Network, which initiated the marketing scheme. CNN, CNNMoney.com and TBS are all owned by Time Warner Inc. (Charts), the world's largest media company.

Samples had been with Atlanta-based Cartoon Network for 13 years.

In the marketing scheme, battery-powered cartoon advertising signs were placed around Boston and other cities for Aqua Teen Hunger Force, a show that's on the Cartoon Network's late-night Adult Swim programming. The signs led to a massive security alert around Boston.

No, really, what the fuck. What does this do for anyone?

LadyM

A better apology would have been, "I deeply regret that Boston PD is a) too stupid to tell the difference between a bomb and a Lite Brite and b) so slothful that something they think resembles a bomb wasn't removed for weeks."

And why step down? Two million is nothing to Time Warner, plus he just got Cartoon Network tons of free publicity.