Fark is my preferred jar of excrement to stick my nose into.

mauricecano: If the claim was true why not bring the jar of crap for the judge to smell himself?

Most judges don't tolerate much crap in their courtroom.

Jenkem?

Next thing you'll try and make me believe is that asshole douchebags dont get their spouses new cars without their input and give them as gifts with ribbons wrapped around them to surprise them.

Wouldn't they have some record of this testing panel to present?

I always wondered what qualifications were needed for being a 'Panelist'. I guess now I know.

Brother_Mouzone: Next thing you'll try and make me believe is that asshole douchebags dont get their spouses new cars without their input and give them as gifts with ribbons wrapped around them to surprise them.

Oh, but they do.

HotWingConspiracy: Wouldn't they have some record of this testing panel to present?

or witnesses. Although, I'd rather the CEO put his face in excrement for a few hours, kiss his wife, and then take the stand.

/if you believe in your product...

Is it Cat-turd-day already?

Kind of like a Republican walking through a sweat shop. "Nope. I don't see anything wrong here."

Brother_Mouzone: Next thing you'll try and make me believe is that asshole douchebags dont get their spouses new cars without their input and give them as gifts with ribbons wrapped around them to surprise them.

My wife hates those commercials for that exact reason, I have long been tempted to buy her one just to get her upset.

I think the problem was that they didn't report they recruited the panelists from a particularly dark corner of craigslist, and that they not only did not find the smell offensive, but were pretty turned on by the whole ordeal.

Oakland, Calif.-based Clorox says it's disappointed in Tuesday's ruling. It says it defends the ad's truthfulness.

No shiat?

Take the Pepsi challenge. I prefer the fuzz.

MayorOfJefferton: I think the problem was that they didn't report they recruited the panelists from a particularly dark corner of craigslist, and that they not only did not find the smell offensive, but were pretty turned on by the whole ordeal.

You, sir, owe me some glass cleaner and paper towels. And I have marked your posts so I can avoid drinking coffee as I read them in the future.

cubic_spleen: Kind of like a Republican walking through a sweat shop. "Nope. I don't see anything wrong here."

Look, we all know that during election time you watch CSPAN and MSNBC and gently touch yourself all day long - but not everything is fodder for political comments.

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: cubic_spleen: Kind of like a Republican walking through a sweat shop. "Nope. I don't see anything wrong here."

Look, we all know that during election time you watch CSPAN and MSNBC and gently touch yourself all day long - but not everything is fodder for political comments.

Just testing the limits of Poe's law. Haven't reached them yet.

And I haven't watched cable or network news (or touched myself) since the day I got teh internets, back in 1995.

HotWingConspiracy: Wouldn't they have some record of this testing panel to present?

You're the jerk... jerk: Brother_Mouzone: Next thing you'll try and make me believe is that asshole douchebags dont get their spouses new cars without their input and give them as gifts with ribbons wrapped around them to surprise them.

My wife hates those commercials for that exact reason, I have long been tempted to buy her one just to get her upset.

Hence the name?

You know, I'm always surprised that anyone would be subjects of many types of studies. Especially medical and drug studies where it says stuff like "we gave 11 healthy individuals such and such" -- I mean people that aren't even sick are willing to let experimental drugs be given to them. It is pretty common for deodorant studies to actually have people sniffing sweaty armpits or socks. I'm pretty sure Clorox could have actually done the study mentioned, even if the judge wasn't up to it.

Like Cheerios and their bullshiat "lowers cholesterol" claims, it's a problem of exaggeration that isn't obviously a joke (Toyota Tundra passes that test as it is so over the top it's clearly a joke). They're showing people smelling cat poop in litter at mere inches away, then saying they "can't smell anything". That is absolutely not true and misleading. Of course you smell something and it isn't a wonderful odor. You could say "I smell less bad" or show them smelling the room and say "I don't smell the kitty pan". Those might well be true. But this ad is implying that in order to be the same or superior, their competitors would have to create litter that masks ALL ODOR from inches away, and since they can't do that (and the product advertised can't do it either) then it's a misleading, untruthful and illegal advertisement.

Brother_Mouzone: Next thing you'll try and make me believe is that asshole douchebags dont get their spouses new cars without their input and give them as gifts with ribbons wrapped around them to surprise them.

My wife did that to me in 2006 and the first words out of my mouth were "what the hell did you do that for?"

/yes, it even had a bow.

Calling Mythbusters... Calling Mythbusters....

I'm less concerned what only eleven people say about, well, not just my preferred brand of cat litter, but damn near anything I buy.

Seriously? You're letting what is less than a jury decide on the products you buy? There may be more fundamental problems here than a dodgy Advertising claim if that's the case.

SkunkWerks: Seriously? You're letting what is less than a jury decide on the products you buy?

Because whether my cat box stinks is way more important than whether some sucker I've never met gets put away for life right? LOL

Brother_Mouzone: Next thing you'll try and make me believe is that asshole douchebags dont get their spouses new cars without their input and give them as gifts with ribbons wrapped around them to surprise them.

A house in Grand Blanc, MI put their Corvettes on the lawn with big ribbons every Christmas season. Didn't enjoy that either.

pnjunction: SkunkWerks: Seriously? You're letting what is less than a jury decide on the products you buy?

Because whether my cat box stinks is way more important than whether some sucker I've never met gets put away for life right? LOL

Considering the job our justice system does with 12 people...

They probably did the sampling in Germany...

Ideas for the next Febreze commercial...

cefm: Like Cheerios and their bullshiat "lowers cholesterol" claims, it's a problem of exaggeration that isn't obviously a joke (Toyota Tundra passes that test as it is so over the top it's clearly a joke).

Cheerios' problem was not 'truth in advertising' law, but the FDA. High fiber foods have been found to lower cholesterol. Cheerios is high in fiber. So, Cheerios should help lower your cholesterol. But the FDA drug laws say that if you want to make a medical claim, you have to do the study on the compound you are selling and have it restricted by drug laws. Some almond company ran into the same problem last year, almonds were found to do something, they put that on their label, and the FDA told them to stop making medical claims or expect their product to be controlled like a medicine.

Haven't a clue what Toyota adds you are talking about, though.

Only politicians are allowed to lie in commercials, and the stench is usually worse than a dirty litter box...just sayin'