Subject:
|
Re: A small rant on an unrelated issue
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:12:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
254 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> [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.
I'll need to see that evidence before I can believe you, and it would need
to be pretty convincing! 8^)
> 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.
Yeah, that does stink. I think, though, that tests for validity *do*
exist, such that an alleged (IE: Fraudulent) "psychic" could prove his
ability. James Randi has for years offered a huge cash reward for anyone
who can demonstrate paranormal powers, and to date no one has touched it:
http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html
It seems to me that any psychic would be lured by the promise of a cool
million. Even if the alleged psychic alleged qualms about accepting money
in that way, he could always donate it; the credibility he'd gain would
guarantee a sizable return on that investment. The very fact that no
paranormalists have met the challenge is itself damning evidence against
their validity.
> Companies that are guilty of (what any reasonably intellegent person could
> determine as) false advertising should be held accountable in my opinion.
Amen, but I'm sticking to my story about Bruce.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A small rant on an unrelated issue
|
| [snip] (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
