(no subject)

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

Comments

[amadoj0nes.livejournal.com]

Not an ad.

[nosyparker.livejournal.com]

And not vintage. Why is this so hard for people?

[otana.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

Well, I thought it was appropriate, anyway. I've seen book and magazine covers posted here! They're not ads either, unless you want to argue that they are…

Anyway, I say it's appropriate - what is a catalog, but ads? - and funny. If the mioderator disagrees, she may yank it, and I'll tip my hat with no ill feelings.

[nosyparker.livejournal.com]

I'm not so crazy about the book and magazine cover posts, but it could be convincingly argued that covers are ads -- for the books and magazines themselves. What you've posted isn't what's even remotely appropriate here. It's not only not an ad, it's not even vintage -- rather, a comic referencing a "vintage" period. And perhaps worst of all, it's not even entertaining or interesting!

I'm not a mod or anything. Just my $0.02. The web is rife with great vintage ads that are far more appropriate for this community than what you've posted here.

[gangwaygirls.livejournal.com]

Well, I thought it was amusing.

[amadoj0nes.livejournal.com]

try lj_funnypictures. :)

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I was going to make a general call to lighten up, but I figured it best just to leave it alone.

[hierophantrix.livejournal.com]

I chuckled. And catalogues are ads. No more a strech than a book cover is in selling it's contents. I know this is a cartoon, but who says we can't have a laugh about ads as well as posting ads themselves. I enjoyed the chuckle and thank you. I'm bowing out now as I've nothing else to say other than "what's sauce for the goose....