F1²

its good that they stop now..it'll be back in belgium soon enough

What is good mah?
And I don't believe the track will be back, ever... The sponsors reject, and there is nothing you can do ACCEPT getting rid of the law for a few years

its good that they stop the tobacco-advertising early.

"The sponsors reject, and there is nothing you can do ACCEPT getting rid of the law for a few years"
accept? except?

MIERENNEUKER! You know what I'm trying to say!

And why is it good they stop it early? That way we don't get a lot of money anymore!

because its positive that they set an example in removing tobacco-advertising

without it having any evidence of use?

Yes they do. And it is also a principle.

as ush say, principle.
and I think everyone would agree that its good to get rid of.

in time..all of the tobacco comercials will be removed but, yes, i don't see a reason for someone to do it earlier just to set an example.
The first 8 cars in points rule is good...though it's a big change.
And the one car per race is for now. it'll be one car per 4 races and more in future seasons...bummer.

it's not about getting rid of it, it's losing lots of money because of it!

and there is no conection between ads and actually buying the said product

but of course it is! listen to yourself! why would Marlboro spend MILLIONS AND MILLIONS on placing their brand on the Ferrari's and Schumi if they didnt knew it would work. of course it does.

namerecognision

In media class last year, we learned about this, and the theory that is WIDELY accepted, by scientists in this material, is that (if I remember correctly, otherwhise I should ask the midget again) you can filter out any ad you want, and judging products without getting guided by the ads.
How come some people don't smoke? Because if Marlboro spends millions on it, you would expact everyone has seen the ads and started smoking their brand

Don't be a fool; the idea is not that everyone who sees an advert will therefore buy the product! That is a ridiculous extreme.

But no matter what science you bring to the discussion, the POINT is that the tobacco companies advertise for a purpose. Name recognition or otherwise it is part of a trend that encourages smoking. Smoking advertising in Europe is banned in many ways already, and sponsorship has been a loophole around this- a loophole may authorities, rather reasonably, want closed.

i have no idea what you guys are talking about. but i hate car racing.

car? CAR??? *faints*
how do dare to call it a car???

yes yerss, what ush said. ads do make profit for the companies

the only way to proof that, mah, is for them to stop advertising, but you can be sure, they won't do that

what the heck? they know, and you better believe many have done tests on how profitable advertisement is. they do it for a reason

yes, in the '60 perhaps
can I have proof please? and not on some crappy website

what proof do you want. its folly to think that marlboro and the others would not be sure of if it's profitable to advertise. use your mind, not your stubborness!