Subject:
|
Re: A small rant on an unrelated issue
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:21:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
202 times
|
| |
|
|
[snip]
> If I were to claim in writing or on the air that Bruce Schlickbernd was
> arrested in Peru in 1974 for smuggling Bavarian Circus Midgets, I would be
> subject to libel and slander suits for presenting (presumably!) false
> information about a person. Even if I included a small disclaimer at the
> bottom of my statement such as "this story, and the one about Bruce's hefty
> fine for alphabetizing all the canned vegetables at a local grocery store,
> are intended for entertainment purposes only," I think I could still be sued
> if my (presumably) false claims resulted in damages to Bruce (that no-good,
> alphabetizing smuggler). Why, then, are bogus health companies not subject
> to similar liability for their claims?
Well it can be proven that Bruce is innocent of the charge. While there is no
proof that a *insert magic cure of your choice* works, there is also no proof
that it does NOT work. I agree that it is a stupid technicallity but that is
the idiocy of the Bureaucracy.
> I don't care if Jane Doe buys a useless ion bracelet for $20, but I'm
> bothered that John Smith might seek hot-rock therapy for his lung cancer
> instead of a treatment that actually works. How is it that these companies
> can make fraudulent claims with impunity? When was the last time one of
> these companies or "psychics" was successfully sued for damages? Is there
> any recourse for a consumer misled by such false advertising?
I do not belive that such a lawsuit would be successful for the aforementioned
reason and the fact that John Smith chose to forgo other treatments. Companies
that are guilty of (what any reasonably intellegent person could determine as)
false advertising should be held accountable in my opinion.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A small rant on an unrelated issue
|
| (...) I'll need to see that evidence before I can believe you, and it would need to be pretty convincing! 8^) (...) Yeah, that does stink. I think, though, that tests for validity *do* exist, such that an alleged (IE: Fraudulent) "psychic" could (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | A small rant on an unrelated issue
|
| Lately I've seen a bunch of commercials for pseudoscientific "health" products, such as magnetic insoles, ionic bracelets, and electro-stimulating gut reducers. In general, these products have been shown to have no beneficial medical effect, yet the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
