On 1/20/2011 9:00 AM, Herbert Graf wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:29 +0000, Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:
>>> So, what I'm saying since obviously letting people understand what I
>> say
>>> once isn't enough in this case: is that if someone relies exclusively
>> on
>>> the marketing material released by the vendor, that the person who
>> falls
>>> for the marketing material deserves to be fleeced once in a while.
>> What does the business who publishes the misleading marketing material
>> deserve?
> An obviously loaded question. The "issue" I see is the definition of
> "misleading". This isn't as cut and dry as many people think it is.
>
> Obviously, if public safety is at issue then some regulatory control is
> necessary (even there though the lines are not clear). If no-one is
> getting hurt, then things are a little more murky.
>
> I'd go so far as to say that the definition of "marketing material" is
> "misleading". ALL marketing trumps up it's product more then it should.
>
> Look at hair shampoo ads for a great example. Is the fact that your hair
> will NEVER look as good as the model's hair in the ad, no matter how
> much of that shampoo you buy, reason enough to label the ad as
> "misleading" and require government control? Where is the line drawn?
> Weight loss ads? What about internet ads that claim certain speeds that
> you KNOW you'll never get in real life?
>
> So, to answer your question: it depends. If the business is malicious
> about it's marketing, i.e. harming people in some way (like a product
> promising to cure cancer that results in the patient forgoing proven
> treatments), then I'd say criminal proceedings should occur. If there's
> no harm (other then people buying something that might not work exactly
> as stated) then I'd lean much more to no government intervention. I can
> see that in some cases though things might get far enough to require
> intervention, but that should be on a case by case basis.
>
> TTYL
>
The safest thing is to use common sense.

If something is too good to be true, it probably isn't.

I always wait at least a year before using a new electronic device. This=20
gives
the makers time enough to eliminate the bugs. Saves a lot of grief for=20
everybody.
It doesn't mean that the new device maker is trying to defraud anyone,=20
its just the
way people ARE in general; they get excited about something new, and while
excited overlook things.

I was not impressed by GW, "no-down" mortgages, cold fusion, or about a=20
thousand
other amazing things of the last decade. Maybe I am just getting old....

--Bob A


e
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.