Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
 

"Eric Schreiber" wrote in message
...
Rex Grigg wrote:

You really have to watch what you say and make sure you don't give
opinions anymore. I received this nice email this evening. Just a
heads up for all of you.

If they've really met with their attorney, maybe they could ask him to
write their letters for them in the future, as it's quite clear that
Carl Denzer lacks any substantial grammatical skills.

Seems to me it should/would be the lawyer's writing and sending the letter,
either way. And from my limited experience with litigation, they NEVER send
such notifications by email, but always through registered mail.

There's some BS going on here somewhere.

Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
 

You make an interesting point. Yes, attorneys do generally write such
letters and send them registered. Sounds like someone in the company may
just be threatening to consult with attorneys, which costs $$$, and
self-drafted their own "cease and desist letter".

--
Bob Alston

bobalston9 AT aol DOT com
"Aardvark F. Bandersnatch, Esq." wrote in message
news:88Wvb.211663$9E1.1136430@attbi_s52...

"Eric Schreiber" wrote in message
...
Rex Grigg wrote:

You really have to watch what you say and make sure you don't give
opinions anymore. I received this nice email this evening. Just a
heads up for all of you.

If they've really met with their attorney, maybe they could ask him to
write their letters for them in the future, as it's quite clear that
Carl Denzer lacks any substantial grammatical skills.

Seems to me it should/would be the lawyer's writing and sending the
letter,
either way. And from my limited experience with litigation, they NEVER
send
such notifications by email, but always through registered mail.

There's some BS going on here somewhere.

Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
 

Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
 

If you bought their product and expressed dis satisfaction,
that would be different, but none of you have done that.

All I said about them is their English sucks. It ain't slander because it's
true.

There is a well known name in the industry who markets products that I
have often heard people refer to as snake oil, but if people said that
publicaly on the internet, they would be crazy! Because they would get
sued and they would lose...most likely.

No, I don't think they would. You don't have to buy a perpetual motion machine
in order to prove it doesn't work. What usually happens is the thing PSW
counted on: people would rather shut up and or pay up than go to court.

Am I being over cautious?
Maybe I am, but I have good reason to be. The Pets whse thing IS
different. Complaining of bad service is not slander.

As I recall, you didn't want us speaking up about that, either.


Leigh

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/halloween/881/

Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
 

(Robert H) wrote:

If you bought their product and expressed dis satisfaction,
that would be different, but none of you have done that.

No, we've just pointed out that their marketing information sounds a
lot like psuedo-science (opinion), that their grammar skills are
horrible (true), and point out where NASA (to whom EcoAqualizer
attributes it's technology) has dismissed the alleged magical
properties of far infrared bioceramics.

The Pets whse thing IS different. Complaining of bad service is not
slander.

Not that it made a difference to the people who Novak sued.


--
www.ericschreiber.com

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 wrote in message . ..
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

Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
 

Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
 

Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
 

I don't know what you are reffering to, but obviously none of this is
getting thru to you. I'm not the enemy here. I'm not involved and I am
not the one threatening to sue.

Every time something like this comes up, you post warning us of the dire things
that can happen to us if we dare say bad things about businesses. If I were
the cynical type, I might think you were trying to discourage people from
dissing bad service or bad products because you are yourself a business person.
But luckily, I'm not, and I assume you are just overly concerned about our
welfare.

Well, we're all adults. Those of us who have been posting to this thread have
been following the PSW mess from the beginning. We know the risks we are
taking by speaking out. We know them all too well. Obviously, if we're still
speaking out, we've made some decisions about freedom of speech vs. risk of
lawsuits. Trust us to make our own decisions, okay?

Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!
 

Slobodan Milosevic is American?!? Funny, he
doesn't sound American--Maybe it's just a
Canadian accent or something...

-coelacanth

"Squidvark" wrote in message
...
tose (LeighMo) wrote:

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.

Careful, they could try you in the International Criminal Court which
is designed specifically as a kangaroo court for Americans.