Kit·Blog Notes — Comments on “Lovemarks”

Kit·Blog Notes Comments — Stefan on “Lovemarks”

Fri, 16 May 2008 10:20:24 +0200

Reply no.: 1. On 16 May 2008, 10:20 AM, Stefan wrote: ]]>

Thank you for bringing this up.
I’ve been thinking the same for the past year & was wondering when someone more in the public spotlight then myself would expose that damn book.
It’s always infuriating when you are treated by a writer/publisher like you have a subaverage IQ.

Thanx again Kit for bringing this up. I feel better now.

Any thoughts? Reply to this comment.
Too narrow? Subscribe to global comments feed.

Kit·Blog Notes Comments — Razvan Roman on “Lovemarks”

Fri, 16 May 2008 11:36:23 +0200

Reply no.: 2. On 16 May 2008, 11:36 AM, Razvan Roman wrote: ]]>

After reading the first half I took a pause and had the exact reaction of the second half of the article.

Useless to say I was relieved when the bullshit was exposed.

Any thoughts? Reply to this comment.
Too narrow? Subscribe to global comments feed.

Kit·Blog Notes Comments — Kit on “Lovemarks”

Fri, 16 May 2008 12:00:59 +0200

Reply no.: 3. On 16 May 2008, 12:00 PM, Kit wrote: ]]>

Industry insiders took its word-substitution scam as a token of joyful articulate incompetence ever since its publication, but such low-level candy has a certain appeal to young outsiders—that’s why exposing it as an intellectual fraud is an act of decency.

Any thoughts? Reply to this comment.
Too narrow? Subscribe to global comments feed.