Supermarket finds

I saw this in our local grocery store this morning:

kity milk

New, from a company that likely has nothing to do with Disney whatsoever and probably stole the clip art off the internet— Kity Milk!

Seriously, would you let your child drink something called Kity Milk? I guess it’s better than Dogy Milk, or… actually, let’s stop there.

26 Comments

  1. 30 December 2006
    Reply

    For some reason (perhaps it’s the time of year) it makes me think of the meowing and barking versions of Jingle Bells…

  2. 30 December 2006
    Reply

    For some reason (perhaps it’s the time of year) it makes me think of the meowing and barking versions of Jingle Bells…

  3. Kahraman
    30 December 2006
    Reply

    Actually, ulker is one of the largest food companies in Turkey. They probably signed a deal with disney.

  4. Kahraman
    30 December 2006
    Reply

    Actually, ulker is one of the largest food companies in Turkey. They probably signed a deal with disney.

  5. 31 December 2006
    Reply

    Yeah, I know Ülker is a big company- I live in Turkey. In case you haven’t noticed (but how could you not?), even large companies in Turkey don’t usually find themselves above infringing a bit of copyright here and there.

    Regardless of whether there’s a deal with Disney or not, it still doesn’t change the fact that the term “kitymilk” appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with Disney, and the Disney characters appear out of place here, which was my original point.

    But thanks for your observation.

  6. 31 December 2006
    Reply

    Yeah, I know Ülker is a big company- I live in Turkey. In case you haven’t noticed (but how could you not?), even large companies in Turkey don’t usually find themselves above infringing a bit of copyright here and there.

    Regardless of whether there’s a deal with Disney or not, it still doesn’t change the fact that the term “kitymilk” appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with Disney, and the Disney characters appear out of place here, which was my original point.

    But thanks for your observation.

  7. 2 January 2007
    Reply

    um…if I may point out “kitymilk”, broken down spells kit y milk and furthermore proves that Ülker has a deal with Disney *grinning over my pointless observation*. I have a deal with Disney. Most Chinese toys also have permission from Disney and Big Foot has a deal with Disney. And Mickey Mouse is real and the tooth fairy and Santa too! Those whores at Disney!

  8. 2 January 2007
    Reply

    um…if I may point out “kitymilk”, broken down spells kit y milk and furthermore proves that Ülker has a deal with Disney *grinning over my pointless observation*. I have a deal with Disney. Most Chinese toys also have permission from Disney and Big Foot has a deal with Disney. And Mickey Mouse is real and the tooth fairy and Santa too! Those whores at Disney!

  9. 2 January 2007
    Reply

    Some further observations: Goofy is missing an extra tooth. It might indicate that they can get away with using similar characters with minor alterations. Note that Donald is slightly overweight and Mickey, I happen to know is crossing his fingers.

    It’s a sick world we live in.

  10. 2 January 2007
    Reply

    Some further observations: Goofy is missing an extra tooth. It might indicate that they can get away with using similar characters with minor alterations. Note that Donald is slightly overweight and Mickey, I happen to know is crossing his fingers.

    It’s a sick world we live in.

  11. 3 January 2007
    Reply

    Yeah, yeah, great research, and still completely ignoring the fact that you’ve apparently decided to miss my point entirely.

    But I guess there has to be somone to keep things obtuse here, eh?

    Anyway, I’m here to have fun, not to argue with you on complete non-issues, so…. I’ll bow out of this one now and let you discourse on how Bugs Bunny couldn’t possibly run off a cliff like that in real life because gravity would surely pull him down… I bet you were a fun child.

  12. 3 January 2007
    Reply

    Yeah, yeah, great research, and still completely ignoring the fact that you’ve apparently decided to miss my point entirely.

    But I guess there has to be somone to keep things obtuse here, eh?

    Anyway, I’m here to have fun, not to argue with you on complete non-issues, so…. I’ll bow out of this one now and let you discourse on how Bugs Bunny couldn’t possibly run off a cliff like that in real life because gravity would surely pull him down… I bet you were a fun child.

  13. 3 January 2007
    Reply

    hahahha good one. But um…Bugs Bunny is Warner Bros. NOT Disney. Melissa I’m going to have to point out that your research is lacking substance…and further more…:)

    Do you think that guy took my earlier comments seriously too???

  14. 3 January 2007
    Reply

    hahahha good one. But um…Bugs Bunny is Warner Bros. NOT Disney. Melissa I’m going to have to point out that your research is lacking substance…and further more…:)

    Do you think that guy took my earlier comments seriously too???

  15. 3 January 2007
    Reply

    I guess it’s possible, but much more likely that he’s just a demitroll.

  16. 3 January 2007
    Reply

    I guess it’s possible, but much more likely that he’s just a demitroll.

  17. 3 January 2007
    Reply

    Or a very serious spambot who works for Ulker.

  18. 3 January 2007
    Reply

    Or a very serious spambot who works for Ulker.

  19. Kahraman
    3 January 2007
    Reply

    I point out a mistake on your part and this is the thanks I get.

    Thank you very much for insulting me.

  20. Kahraman
    3 January 2007
    Reply

    I point out a mistake on your part and this is the thanks I get.

    Thank you very much for insulting me.

  21. 4 January 2007
    Reply

    Um…Mr. Kahraman…with all do respect, I believe the words “likely” and “probably” combined with the explanation provided by Ms. Maples stating that the point was regarding the RELEVANCY of Disney characters on the product in question, and NOT about whether Disney and Ulker have a contract, would indicate that there was NO mistake on her part.

    Furthermore, perhaps it is insulting to persist in pushing with facts irrelevant to the topic (unless intended as humor), assuming that the author has not done her homework. The fact is that the original insult came from you sir. YOU. Please read the comments over and you will see what I am trying to illustrate. Nothing hidden. The evidence is clear.

    Kitymilk and Disney characters, in my client’s…er..um…I mean Ms. Maples’ OPINION have no relevancy. She never stated that they had no contract.

  22. 4 January 2007
    Reply

    Um…Mr. Kahraman…with all do respect, I believe the words “likely” and “probably” combined with the explanation provided by Ms. Maples stating that the point was regarding the RELEVANCY of Disney characters on the product in question, and NOT about whether Disney and Ulker have a contract, would indicate that there was NO mistake on her part.

    Furthermore, perhaps it is insulting to persist in pushing with facts irrelevant to the topic (unless intended as humor), assuming that the author has not done her homework. The fact is that the original insult came from you sir. YOU. Please read the comments over and you will see what I am trying to illustrate. Nothing hidden. The evidence is clear.

    Kitymilk and Disney characters, in my client’s…er..um…I mean Ms. Maples’ OPINION have no relevancy. She never stated that they had no contract.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *