Well, I didn’t get back to trying to move some of the other content over to this site after the game last night, not that I really thought I would in the first place. I did go over to the other website and start looking at the stuff, but that just led to me reading it. Why I didn’t just download the files, then read them as I was copying them over to the new page is beyond me. I am not going to be able to use the current version of the html that they are in because of the different layout that I am going for here, but still if I would have read as I copied/pasted/uploaded I would probably have all of that done by now.
I am wondering if I really shouldn’t have done all of this stuff before I actually made the site active, the obvious answer is yes. The problem with that is that I probably would never have the motivation to do it, and, as previously stated, now that I am actually paying for this site, I think that the motivation may find me. Or I hope it does at the very least. It would be horrible if this site turned out to be like the coffee table that I took apart to sand and refinish about six years ago, only to complete just the top, after which I lost most of the parts and eventually threw it away. Happy thoughts.
I am not quite as concerned now about getting all of the links onto all of the pages as I had been previously. I don’t think that I will actually go back through these old updates to add the other features to the link bars as 1)I am the only visitor to this site. 2)I know where to find all the stuff. 3)If only the most recent update has the most recent links, as well as each of the content pages, that task will not be quite so monumental, even if I put it off for another six weeks. Not that that is my intention, but I do tend to procrastinate.
Well, perhaps after I have lunch of some sort I will get to actually moving some of that stuff over here and adding some links. But, first I simply must rant about something I saw during the game yesterday.
There were a lot of erectyle dysfunction commercials on during the super bowl. I don’t even want to get into why that is wrong on a lot of levels, but I will simply say that most men watching the game would not admit that they had any problem sexually even if they had lost their reproductive organs in a freak limbo accident. I guess the entire point is just to get the product name out there though, and for that it worked, hell I am typing about it.
There was one ad in particular that just reeked of wrongness. That was an ad for Levitra that featured Mike Ditka. Now in the ad Ditka is saying things such as baseball players don’t play when it rains, showing a picture of a light drizzle and people sitting in the dug out. Then It shows a football game going on in mud about seven miles deep, in a typhoon. Foolish things such as that. I guess he does have a point, but the whole commercial just made me question the validity of the arguments.
The obvious reference to baseball is the player for the Yankees (I think, can’t remember his name) who signed an endorsement deal with viagra. Now this baseball player is still playing, and still appears to be the type of person who wouldn’t really need to use it, but they wanted the star power. Ditka, on the other hand, hasn’t played in decades, and hasn’t even coached since what, the ’80s? So the first point I take from that is that levitra is for washed-up has-beens, while viagra is more for your active, youthful dysfunction market. I am not sure that they were actually trying to make that point, but that is sure what I took away from it.
Okay, now the rain. So they are saying that if you use viagra you can’t have sex when it rains, but if you use levitra you can slop around like a pig in the mud? Place any disturbing sexual image you like with that last sentence. I think both of the pills do exactly the same thing, so it seems to me that the reference to the rain has absolutely no point. Just, I guess trying to say that real (levitra) men play in all conditions, where wimpy (viagra) boys can only bang in sunny, dry weather. That is the only point that I can find in it anyway.
The commercial also fails to mention that the baseball players actually have to play 162 games a year, while the football players play 16. To me that is saying if you need to play the field once every couple of days you had better go with viagra, but, if you plan to have sex once every few weeks, then levitra is the pill for you. Wouldn’t it seem like someone in the marketing department would have seen the potential free marketing this was giving viagra? Perhaps they are trying to imply that viagra is for people who can never perform without it, while levitra is for the occasional limp-dick syndrome. You just don’t know, since they don’t do anything to clarify.
Well anyway, suffice to say that I think that was one of the lamest commercials ever. I would like to point out, though, that I saw a thing on ESPN some time ago about Ditka and Levitra. It seems that Ditka actually has erectyle dysfuntion and is endorsing levitra more to get the word out to other men that the condition is not something that you should be emarassed of. I find that to be kind of a noble thing to do, especially for someone as hard-nosed (pun intended) as Mike Ditka. It must take tremendous courage for someone that is in the public eye to come out and admit to that type of a problem. Like I said about the baseball player who endorses viagra, no one really thinks he needs it. While Ditka has admitted that he does.
Take from this rant what you will. If you happen to be Mike Ditka and you are reading it, I would like to say that I agree with you that erectyle dusfunction is not something to be embarassed about, but that damn commercial was.