![]() |
Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:02:30 -0600, "Bob Alston"
wrote: Hey - check out these two pages for the "technology" behind this Far Infrared: Far Infrared is simply HEAT. That's all it really means. But Far Infrared makes a product sound much more impressive. Chuck Gadd http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua |
Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:52:36 -0700, Chuck Gadd wrote:
On 20 Nov 2003 11:18:15 -0800, (B Lee) wrote: I find it disturbing that Petwarehouse would even dare to attempt to threaten a public forum like this. I have never used the product, IMPORTANT DISTINCTION HERE!!!! It was not Petwarehouse (now Doctors Foster & Smith's Pet Warehouse). It was Pets Warehouse. Personally, I highly doubt Petswarehouse would be successful in such a lawsuit. Bad PR also. The press would have such a field day with a story like that. Well, the case has been going on for about 2.5 years now. Regardless of how successful it will be in the end, the case has succeeded in causing grief and expense to a bunch of fellow aquaria hobbyists. Chuck Gadd http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua Do you supose that they changed their name so as not to be confused with the other 'pets warehouse'? The good doctors run a great operation and hopefully did not get hurt by being mistaken for those ***********s. |
Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
The good doctors run a great operation
I agree. I order from them every few months. Chuck Gadd http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua |
Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
Eric Schreiber wrote in message . ..
tose (LeighMo) wrote: LOL! I gather this company is not based in an English-speaking country. I wouldn't worry too much. Unlike Mr. "I live 5 minutes from the federal courthouse," they're probably going to find it a lot harder to file lawsuits against U.S. defendents. They claim to be based in Houston, but you certainly wouldn't know it from their language skills. All I can say is you guys that know the history have big kahonies here! Just a little friendly warning, there is a big difference between complaining of bad service and ridiculing a product. I would have been much more impressed if they publicaly challenged the skeptisism and explained how it worked than threatening to sue, but they wouldn't be the first to succeed at a suit of this type. It would be entirely different than the PSW suit. Robert |
Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
Eric Schreiber wrote in message . ..
tose (LeighMo) wrote: LOL! I gather this company is not based in an English-speaking country. I wouldn't worry too much. Unlike Mr. "I live 5 minutes from the federal courthouse," they're probably going to find it a lot harder to file lawsuits against U.S. defendents. They claim to be based in Houston, but you certainly wouldn't know it from their language skills. I am more interested in hearing arguements on the scientific principals the company claims, and if it does work, what affect it would have on a planted aquarium. What affect would it have on carbon dioxide, posite and negative ions, cations and anions, the nitrate uptake of the plants, plant photosynthesis, DOC levels... I did a search on the product in Google and came up with lots of stuff..(never saw Rexs comments, but lots of talk about the product in lots and lots of forums) There was plenty of sketicisim both in freshwater and Marine forums, but not all negative. They do have their supporters. FAMA magazine wrote a very positive review of it, and Monolith Marine Monsters, M3, is not only seling the product, but gives much detailed information about how it works and the science behind it. M3 has long had a reputation of selling only high quality specialty equipment. Many of you have their C02 equipment and swear by them. Even with past troubles, M3s reputation for its product line has been sterling, (much to my dismay!) http://www.marine-monsters.com/front...aqualizer.html There are other very well respected dealers putting their reputation on the line by selling this product. I personaly am very skeptical of it, but I also would like to know more about how practical it would really be in a freshwater plant tank assuming it does work. This type of discussion would be much more usefull, and much safer when it comes to personal liability for making such comments publicaly. Robert |
Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
(Robert H) wrote:
I am more interested in hearing arguements on the scientific principals the company claims Unfortunately, their marketing information is pretty vague. One claim they did make, about Far Infrared and bioceramic elements from NASA, was pretty much debunked by material on NASA's own site: http://tinyurl.com/vwq7 M3 has long had a reputation of selling only high quality specialty equipment. Many of you have their C02 equipment and swear by them. Even with past troubles, M3s reputation for its product line has been sterling, (much to my dismay!) http://www.marine-monsters.com/front...aqualizer.html Looks like they're printing an expanded version of the manufacturer data. As has been noted before, far infrared is nothing more than heat. Without some energy source, how is the product increasing the far infrared level above ambient? That naturally occurring magnetic field in all oceans and lakes is also in all aquariums - it covers everything on earth. You don't need a special magnet to produce the effect, since it's already there. "Because like-charges REPEL each other, the water molecules separate or split and become smaller structured molecules". You don't split a water molecule and get a smaller water molecule - you get two hydrogen and one oxygen atom. There are other very well respected dealers putting their reputation on the line by selling this product. I think it would be great to have my opinion on this proven wrong, but I don't expect it to happen. The "how it works" information I've seen has had far too much new-wave bafflegab and psuedo-science sounding terminology to convince me that it's legitimate. -- www.ericschreiber.com |
Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
They claim to be based in Houston, but you certainly wouldn't know it
from their language skills. Near as I can tell, they have their web site hosted with a company in Houston. But if you look at their actual physical addresses (listed on their web site, under "contacts"), they're all overseas, in places like Thailand, the Malta Islands, Indonesia, Singapore, Portugal, etc. If they want to file a lawsuit in the U.S., they're going to have to hire a lawyer. I think they'll find American lawyers are a lot pricier than American webhosting. |
Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
Folks that behave poorly in business to potential customers and go
after customer are MUCH worse off in the long run, even if they do manage to silence someone. Instead they immediately threaten you. Gee, that will win praise on the net real fast. They **** and moan about one of two post then threaten someone who will then tell everyone about it while if the company had just gone about their business, that little post in some obscure mailing list about some plants would not have been noticed but by coming out after the customer, this really brings the fight out for everyone to see and the court of public opinion will weigh very heavily against the business, not the consumer. Now MOST businesses understand this, some fruitcakes evidently do not. But it's okay, they hurt themselves the worse. Some actually end up in Bankruptcy court and file Ch 7 or Ch 11. I know one such case. Too bad they cannot come forward and discuss things like bad service issues, science behind the product and convienice, address the folks that are skeptics or at least beat the skeptics in a debate/discussion. This is much better business approach and wins more sales than the legal billy club. They do not have time to discuss the product/service but these same companies have the time to call their lawyers and sue consumers, gather evidence? I would gladly buy from SeaChem, Marineland, and other companies that talk to hobbyist and give details. They do not threaten the customer if the customer does not like it. They spend less time/energy etc on legal issues and more on good service and doing things for customers that win loylaty. It's cheaper to simply give something away than to sue someone. It's a better investment. SeaChem made a number of things that were controvesial, but they won folks over slowly with good service and supporting the hobby. If they have a critic they try everything to solve the issue and have sent replacement products to those with issues at no cost etc. This is good business ense and a much better investment in the long term than threats. Business to business uissues are different but you never go after a customer, you always try and work it out with them. Got a critic and don't like what they said? Get off your butt and defend it and not with lawyers. If it works you need to know why it works and explain it enough to make sense to the consumer. 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. The web is a big place and the court of public opinion weighs very heavily here, you will not win in business using your approach, that I do know. Most successful companies really do not waste their time or energy of such stupid notions as to go after a consumer. It's bad business. Going after a customer cost a great deal and takes a long time, even for legal hobbyist and they always lose in the end. I'd much rather take any cost/profits etc and use it to build the business rather than defending what one person said on a long forgotton post. The nastygram post from these companies are used against the companies in the court of public opinion on the web for all to see. That's the worse thing you can do as a company. The company only discredits themself by avoiding a discussion and threatening the consumers. Compliments are one of the best investments a copmpnmay can make to consumers, legal threats to consumers are some of the worse. Say , "Yes, good points dear consumer...." then go to explain an answer....it's easier than talking about law. Regards, Tom Barr |
Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
On 22 Nov 2003 10:54:18 -0800,
) 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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FishKeepingBanter.com