Yes, I got that. The point that I'm making, despite your infinite wisdom, is that just because there seems to be no logical reason behind something, doesn't mean that there is a logical reason behind it, aside from a marketing gimmick. So, which approach is correct?
I never said that when there doesn't appear to be a logical reason behind something that a logical reason exists. This is a logical fallacy (strawman) and I suspect a deliberate one. My point is simply that the lack of apparent logic doesn't prove a lack of logic - that because you or I don't understand something doesn't make it incomprehensible.
I'm not trying to suggest that things which have no apparent logic do. Merely that you can't say they don't simply because you don't see any logic.
Friend, this isn't one of them. I promise you.
Oh, well if you promise... we can all trust you, right? Because even though there's no evidence that we can we can all simply assume that there must be a reason we can trust you, right?
Certainly. Where to start? Well, a quick example would be if you were to go to Discount
Advanced Nutrients, you'll see some bundles; bundles that not only *seem* like they make sense, but actually *do* make sense. They have a "Bigger Buds Kit" which included a package of AN's bloom stimulants/pk booster. Another bundle they sell is the "Fuzzy Root Recipe" which includes their main 3 beneficials products, and a free package of Carbo Load to serve as food for your bene's. You feeling enlightened yet? :handshake
So what you're saying is that the company you clearly dislike can "arbitrarily" bundle things and you don't like those bundles, and another company you have no apparent bias against can "arbitrarily" bundle things and you like those bundles? If only I could theorize an underlying theme to explain that...
It's entirely plausible that, in an effort to improve sales, a retailer "bundled" products in a way that appears to make more sense to buyers (who are generally not experts in horticultural nutrition), but has no actual basis in what is the best combinations for plants.
I'm not saying that's the case, simply that it's equally plausible. It's simply a question of who you want to assume has a dark motive behind their actions.
If I did, I would have to charge them $375. You know, to support the movement and all.
Give it a shot, for all you know they might pay for the input. The worst that could happen is they say "no".
Yes, you are terribly clever for spotting what is clearly a typing mistake. You have won the Internet and I must now submit myself to 4 days continual flogging by flying monkeys.
Or not.
Wow. That's just... wow.
Advanced nutrients cannot in good conscience leave that up to the population as whole?
Re-reading that it doesn't look right, you're correct. What I mean to convey is that simply because it's an issue that effects everyone, a company with good conscious cannot simply leave it to everyone else to deal with it. They must join in. In fact, because a company can wield greater influence than an individual, there's an increased responsibility to do so.
Like how I support gay rights even though I'm not gay. I'm not going to simply leave the issue to everyone else. It's what I believe is right, so I help as best I can.
I think you're under the impression that AN isn't completely fleecing you with some of their products. Yay! AN! Do the fighting for us! Here, take my wallet! You do know what's best for us, afterall.
I often wonder who these people are who actually answer e-mails from Nigeria to claim those lottery winnings.
That's nice of you to say. So not only am I too stupid to realized I'm being fleeced, but I'm also too stupid to avoid being taken in by a Nigerian scam?
You're right, I couldn't POSSIBLY consider what I get for my money to be worth it. At least I couldn't think that and not be an idiot, right? Because if I don't see the world exactly the same way you do, and value money and the return for it exactly the same way, I must be delusional, stupid, or otherwise defective.
OR
I'm the kind of person (and there are many different kinds) that places a somewhat different aesthetic value on what he expects for a dollar. And not being the kind of person (who's also represented here) who feels threatened by someone with a different aesthetic, I don't call anyone who spends more or less on a similar product than I names simply because it makes me feel less secure about my own choices.
You and I are allowed to consider different products the ideal combination of price and quality. That's perfectly fine. I don't feel the least bit threatened by someone spending less than I do, nor do I feel less happy with my choices when someone else spends more. I'm happy, they're happy, there's no need to tear anyone down.
But, HEY, that's the power of marketing. Hitler would've been just an asshole with a funny mustache, otherwise.
Godwin's Law. If you can't win the argument, invoke the Nazis. Because that ALWAYS works.
You won the Internet again. That must be some kind of record!
