Re: Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!

Yep, 
But I believe it hurts a business a lot if they lose the court of
public opinion here on the net. Even if they can beat up on a few very
skeptical people with the law. One or two comments is one thing from a
poster, but if the person keeps posting nasty stuff about a company,
then the company should go after them some. Slander is not good and
should never be done.

But I will be critical of product even if I have not tried it if they
cannot
explain how/why it works. A business does not have the right to
surpress questioning and by ignoring the questions, they invite this
type of situation to arise. Again, they hang themselves by their own
rope. They created the issues, not the potential customer.

One or two post should certainly be ignored or be addressed on topic
about their claims by the company.

Last I checked, a sciencist cost less than a lawyer:)
And you will get much good will from them vs a lawyer(which no body
likes:-)

Regards, 
Tom Barr


Chuck Gadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On 22 Nov 2003 10:54:18 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> >Your selling something that requires this approach in sales
> >By not doing that, it makes the consumer both paranoid/suspicious and
> >also the mere fact that you threaten instead of discussing gives a
> >horrid taste in ANY consumer's mouth.
> 
> I definitely agree with this point.  I have my opinion on the product
> in question based on the pseudo-scientific descriptions, but what
> makes me most skeptical is that rather than debate the science, they
> consult lawyers.    If there is solid science behind a product, then
> that seems that discussing that science would be the best way to
> response to critics.   
> 
> If I was selling a product that WAS snake-oil, then my only way to
> challenge critics would be thru a lawyer.
> 
> 
> Chuck Gadd
> http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua