A Fishkeeping forum. FishKeepingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FishKeepingBanter.com forum » rec.aquaria.freshwater » Plants
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 20th 03, 06:22 AM
Rex Grigg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!

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.

Dear Mark,

We are writing to request that "SLANDER and DEFAMATION"
material be removed from the www.fins.actwin.com discussions web pages about our product, the ECO-Aqualizer.

Defined: "Slander and Defamation - are the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations meant to defame and damage another persons reputation. It is illegal."

After meeting we are our attorney, Trey Henderson, it has been
decided for the best interest of all parties involved, to cordially attempt and request that the following post be removed.

April 28, 2003 from Rex Grigg

April 23, 2003 from Jerry B

We request that these two post be removed immediately. Such remarks as "SNAKE OIL" is considered slander, especially when the author, publisher, printer, or party involved has willingly confessed that he or she has not tried, purchased, tested, or validated such defamatory remarks. But chooses to post remarks.

True we live in a society of f reedom of speech. But when such a defamatory remark is posted to the world via the internet and the business' sales ratio drops by a dramatic amount greater than proceeding months of sales, one must review the recorded statistics to determine the loss potential dated from this April 23rd and forward.

Since sales are generated solely by internet transactions, it is only obvious that search engine results are the main driver of this business. In the event of the above posts which appear on the front page of GOOGLE search engine , items 3 and 4, have been a significant main source of such defamatory issues and thereof.

In all civil actions for slander and libel the falsity of the
injurious statements is an essential element, so that the defendant is always entitled to justify his statements by their truth; but when the statements are in themselves defamatory, their falsity is presumed, and the burden of proving their truth is laid upon the defendant. The gen eral theory of law with regard to these cases is this. It is assumed that in every case of defamation intention is a
necessary element; but in the ordinary case, when a statement is false and defamatory, the law presumes that it has been made or published with an evil intent, and will not allow this presumption to be rebutted by evidence or submitted as matter of fact to a jury. But there are certain circumstances in which the natural presumption is quite the other way. There are certain natural and proper occasions on which statements may be made which are in themselves defamatory,
and which may be false, but which naturally suggest that the
statements may have been made from a perfectly proper motive. In the cases of this kind which are recognized by law, the presumption is reversed. It lies with the plaintiff to show that the defendant was actuated by what is called express malice, by an intention to do harm and in this case the question is not one of legal in ference for the court, but a matter of fact to be decided by the jury. Although however, the theory of the law seems to rest entirely upon natura
presumption of intention, it is pretty clear that in determining the limits of privilege the courts have been almost wholly guided by considerations of public or general expediency.

Papers published under the authority of parliament are protected by a special act, 3 & 4 Vict c. 9, 1840, which was passed after a decree of the law court adverse to the privilege claimed. The general rule now is that all reports of parliamentary or judicial proceedings are privileged in so far as they are honest. Even ex parte proceedings,in so far as they take place in public, now fall within the same rule. But if the report is garbled, the party who is injured in
consequence is entitled to maintain an action, and to have the
question of malice submitted to a jury.

As a cordial request, I ask that the po st be removed within 5 days. After speaking with the Editor, Mark Rosenstein, he has indicated that he would remove the post if contacted by the parties to do so. Otherwise, FINS will take no responsiblility due to the fact that these post are in the "mailing list archives". And authors of such post will be solely responsible.

If not removed, our attorney will have no other remedy but to see that justice is upheld and that such Slander and Defamation is valued in a court of law. If and when this takes place, we will sought after all parties involved, whether author, writer, publisher, and or moderators to be held fully liable for the valuation accessed by the courts.

I will add that the statements made by Rex Griggs, have not only been damaging to ECO-Aqualizer Corp., but also may have cost many deaths within the fish aquarium community. I strongly suggest that all parties should find out more about ECO-Aqualizer and our intent of saving fishes lives. Our product may be the biggest impact in this industry in saving marine fish with the introduction into captivity. As a fellow hobbyist, one must ask themselves, do I care about the fish? Or do I NOT care about their well-being?

Please see APPMA statistical results about the percentage of fish deaths within the marine hobby. The numbers are mind-boggling. The intent of ECO-Aqualizer is to significantly decrease those numbers.

Mark Rosenstein has given ECO-Aqualizer these email addresses as a correspondence of contact. Please RESPOND back to avoid further complications. Please respond to Mark Rosenstein, Editor of FINS, as well to update and remove such unvalidated remarks.

Sincerely,

Carl Denzer , President



Semper Fi!

Visit the forums at Aqua Botanic!
http://aquabotanicwetthumb.infopop.cc/#1

Need Nitrate or Potassium for your tank? Go to www.litemanu.com
(Just a happy customer of the above!)
  #2  
Old November 20th 03, 10:39 AM
Graham Ramsay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!

"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.


There's no need to purchase this product before realising it is nonsense.
A read through the absurd web site is enough to come to the conclusion
that snake oil is an apt description.
I'd like to see them try and explain just exactly how their product works
with its far infrared waves and vibrational frequency effects. They'd be
laughed out of court.
To claim that fish have died because people have been put off buying
this useluess lump of plastic is beneath contempt.

--
Graham Ramsay


  #3  
Old November 20th 03, 11:06 AM
Happy'Cam'per
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!

Go Graham. I second that. What a crock of ****. I don't think their sales
have ever been that good anyway, and I seriously doubt that Rex's remarks
damaged sales in such a negative way. EVERYONE is entitled to their
opinions.
--
**So long, and thanks for all the fish!**


"Graham Ramsay" 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.


There's no need to purchase this product before realising it is nonsense.
A read through the absurd web site is enough to come to the conclusion
that snake oil is an apt description.
I'd like to see them try and explain just exactly how their product works
with its far infrared waves and vibrational frequency effects. They'd be
laughed out of court.
To claim that fish have died because people have been put off buying
this useluess lump of plastic is beneath contempt.

--
Graham Ramsay




  #4  
Old November 20th 03, 12:00 PM
Tasslehoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!


"ECO-Aqualizer's specific magnetic polarity kills algae growth. (From their
website)
Crikey jingoes, I probably wouldn't want to risk it for my planted tank if
IT does that to algae. lol.

"Graham Ramsay" 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.


There's no need to purchase this product before realising it is nonsense.
A read through the absurd web site is enough to come to the conclusion
that snake oil is an apt description.
I'd like to see them try and explain just exactly how their product works
with its far infrared waves and vibrational frequency effects. They'd be
laughed out of court.
To claim that fish have died because people have been put off buying
this useluess lump of plastic is beneath contempt.

--
Graham Ramsay




  #5  
Old November 20th 03, 03:17 PM
Peter Gennaro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!

If I remember right the Petswarehouse guy was counter-sued and thoroughly
crushed out of business.

Chuck Gadd has a link to it on his website.

"Rex Grigg" wrote in message
...
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.



  #6  
Old November 20th 03, 07:38 PM
coelacanth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!

"Peter Gennaro" wrote in message
...
If I remember right the Petswarehouse guy was counter-sued and thoroughly
crushed out of business.


Yes, but not before taking down a very good website and
costing several people thousands in legal fees. See
http://www.petsforum.com/psw/ for further gory details.

I would suggest that we write it ecoaq*lizer to keep our
bank accounts from dying like pl*co.

-coelacanth

P.S. I must say the flash animation is quite convincing,
except that the tank appears to be filled with
molecules of a trivalent-oxygen compound (H30?).


  #7  
Old November 20th 03, 08:18 PM
B Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!

"Peter Gennaro" wrote in message ...
If I remember right the Petswarehouse guy was counter-sued and thoroughly
crushed out of business.

Chuck Gadd has a link to it on his website.

"Rex Grigg" wrote in message
...
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.


I find it disturbing that Petwarehouse would even dare to attempt to
threaten a public forum like this. I have never used the product,
don't even know what it is-- but I do appreciate the time people take
to review other products.

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.
  #8  
Old November 20th 03, 08:54 PM
RedForeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!

snipped

I would suggest that we write it ecoaq*lizer to keep our
bank accounts from dying like pl*co.

-coelacanth


That is by far the funniest thing I've read in years....


  #9  
Old November 20th 03, 10:30 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!

"Tasslehoff" wrote in message . au...
"ECO-Aqualizer's specific magnetic polarity kills algae growth. (From their
website)


Humm, as someone with a very long history in the aquarium hobby,
business and also academic background specifically in algae's ecology,
physiology and biochemistry, I do find their claims to be a very long
stretch at best,but I would challenge them to show more research on
this topic to support thier contentions.

Simply saying something does not make it so. The consumer needs some
back ground to show this is really what is happening.
I can speculate and make some business claim, and then chase after
anyone that says different. But if you have something that is more
than speculation, then you can back it up with evidence.

Then legal BS is not needed.

Doh!!!!

The consumer certainly does not need a company threatening them.
Back up your claims --------if-------- you are reputable company.
If you don't, you might want to spend more on legal cost and get less
profit due to suing potential consumers.

Threatening people/potential consumers is never a wise method of
business.

So prove that it works.

Regards,
Tom Barr
  #10  
Old November 21st 03, 12:35 AM
Eric Schreiber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit!

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.

--
www.ericschreiber.com
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FishKeepingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.