Britney's Kitty Kat and Herpes Meds
Britney Spears - 4 years ago every guy my age (and older!) wanted to have sex with her. Now there is nothing left to the imagination, we know that she is trashy and at this point the only way I could possibly have sex with her is to concentrate on the money. Does Britney Spears still qualify as MILF? Money I'd Like to Fuck.
I am watching the Science Channel and I just saw an ad for genital herpes medication. Commercials during the day are far more colorful. Of course, every medicine nowadays has several different caveats they have to throw in to avoid lawsuits. Today's took me by surprise - they suggest that the medicine makes it possible to lower the chance that you would pass genital herpes on to your partner..... BUT! *Tested for heterosexuals only.* I'm not exactly sure about what the purpose is of putting this in there and I'm not exactly sure about whether or not this should be considered offensive. You all know that I'm the LAST person around here to be too P.C. or to worry about what is offensive and what isn't. Is this caveat put in there just in case some gay couples try the medicine and it doesn't work, since they didn't test it for gay couples? Is this supposed to suggest that the medicine doesn't work for gay couples at all? That last thought it what gets to me... it is this permutation that I think is ridiculous. Is it possible that if a gay couple tried it and it didn't work, that they would sue over it? How is this any different than if a hetero couple tried it and it didn't work?
"Well, Mr. Larson, the difference is that we only did a study conducted with heterosexual couples."
I find it impossible that a company dumping a figure with 8 or more 0's behind it into development of a herpes drug that they couldn't spend a little more time to test it on different types of couples. Doing their homework would basically eliminate the need for lawyers to insist on CYA mode when you make the damn commercial.
I hate lawyers and I don't know why I considered law school.
I am watching the Science Channel and I just saw an ad for genital herpes medication. Commercials during the day are far more colorful. Of course, every medicine nowadays has several different caveats they have to throw in to avoid lawsuits. Today's took me by surprise - they suggest that the medicine makes it possible to lower the chance that you would pass genital herpes on to your partner..... BUT! *Tested for heterosexuals only.* I'm not exactly sure about what the purpose is of putting this in there and I'm not exactly sure about whether or not this should be considered offensive. You all know that I'm the LAST person around here to be too P.C. or to worry about what is offensive and what isn't. Is this caveat put in there just in case some gay couples try the medicine and it doesn't work, since they didn't test it for gay couples? Is this supposed to suggest that the medicine doesn't work for gay couples at all? That last thought it what gets to me... it is this permutation that I think is ridiculous. Is it possible that if a gay couple tried it and it didn't work, that they would sue over it? How is this any different than if a hetero couple tried it and it didn't work?
"Well, Mr. Larson, the difference is that we only did a study conducted with heterosexual couples."
I find it impossible that a company dumping a figure with 8 or more 0's behind it into development of a herpes drug that they couldn't spend a little more time to test it on different types of couples. Doing their homework would basically eliminate the need for lawyers to insist on CYA mode when you make the damn commercial.
I hate lawyers and I don't know why I considered law school.