FYI: ASA-Accugrade files new suit in US District Court

In article . net,
"Frank Provasek" wrote:

"Wolley Segap" wrote in message
...


But clearly Mark's intention appears to be a move toward consumer
protection. How do your comments apply?

Consumer Reports has never called for a boycott of a product that
tested poorly,
or called people "proven frauds" or a "fishwife."


But that has nothing to do with the laws you referenced. Perhaps I'm
just slow tonight.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:10:49 -0800, Wolley Segap
wrote:

In article . net,
"Frank Provasek" wrote:

"Wolley Segap" wrote in message
...


But clearly Mark's intention appears to be a move toward consumer
protection. How do your comments apply?

Consumer Reports has never called for a boycott of a product that
tested poorly,
or called people "proven frauds" or a "fishwife."


But that has nothing to do with the laws you referenced. Perhaps I'm
just slow tonight.

Someone being called a fishwife is one of the complaints listed in the
lawsuit. I hope that lawyer never gets near an elemntary school
playground...

In article ,
"Jorg Lueke" wrote:

Someone being called a fishwife is one of the complaints listed in the
lawsuit. I hope that lawyer never gets near an elemntary school
playground...

I know, Jorg. I was referring back to Frank's comments about certain
laws against boycotts.

"Steven Preston" wrote in message

Wolley asks (regarding Frank's post about Mark's boycott page):

But clearly Mark's intention appears to be a
move toward consumer protection. How do
your comments apply?

It doesn't- there is a good bit of enmity between Frank and Mark
and I
firmly believe Frank's post was a jab at Mark. IMO, there was
nothing
illegal about "Mark's" boycott (not as though it was his
exclusively
anyway) and Frank either knows that and let his personal feelings
get
the better of him or has allowed his feelings to blind him to what
should be obvious.


It depends on whether a jury would find it an economic boycott to
reduce competition and raise prices and run a company out of
business. Those are certainly the claims of Accugrade's filing.
Boycotts for "consumer protection" are iffy, because the group
seeking to "protect" consumers usually benefits from the target
going out of business, and if a jury feels that is the primary
motivation, whether correct or not, it can spell severe problems for
the "consumer protecters."

Boycotts that usually don't result in problems are those against
manufacturers of harmful products such as cigarettes, companies
that operate sweatshops or employ child labor or prison labor
overseas.

note.boy wrote:
Every issue of Autocar, it comes out every week, contains a full test of
a new model, they are rated from 5 stars (good) to 1 star (not good) but
one managed to get NO stars.

Go on ...go on....which car was it that got no stars at all?

Certainly no case to answer for `over grading' there then eh? :-)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:08:54 -0800, Wolley Segap
wrote:

In article ,
"Jorg Lueke" wrote:

Someone being called a fishwife is one of the complaints listed in the
lawsuit. I hope that lawyer never gets near an elemntary school
playground...

I know, Jorg. I was referring back to Frank's comments about certain
laws against boycotts.

I see, I can't see the plonked ones responses.

I would think they may have an action and could piggy back the
existing lawsuit if they could prove financial damages. What do you think?

I think this is nuts, because there is no way to prove that any single comment
made about the plaintiff on Usenet resulted in any specific decline in
business.

The difficulty of proving that Mr. A lost x amount of $$ because of a comment
or comments by Ms. B is insurmountable.

The plaintiff is just doing this to deter people.

Regards,
Tom

The Daewoo Matiz got no stars as, "we have serious doubts about this
car's stability".

It scorches from 0 to 60 mph in 19 seconds, yes 19 seconds, plenty
reason not to buy one, imagine driving a car incapable of overtaking
anything.

30 to 70 through the gears takes 25.2 seconds.

50 to 70 in top gear takes 29.3 seconds. Billy


Ian wrote:

note.boy wrote:
Every issue of Autocar, it comes out every week, contains a full test of
a new model, they are rated from 5 stars (good) to 1 star (not good) but
one managed to get NO stars.

Go on ...go on....which car was it that got no stars at all?

Certainly no case to answer for `over grading' there then eh? :-)

note.boy wrote:
The Daewoo Matiz got no stars as, "we have serious doubts about this
car's stability".

It scorches from 0 to 60 mph in 19 seconds, yes 19 seconds, plenty
reason not to buy one, imagine driving a car incapable of overtaking
anything.

30 to 70 through the gears takes 25.2 seconds.

50 to 70 in top gear takes 29.3 seconds. Billy


Ian wrote:

note.boy wrote:

Every issue of Autocar, it comes out every week, contains a full test of
a new model, they are rated from 5 stars (good) to 1 star (not good) but
one managed to get NO stars.

Go on ...go on....which car was it that got no stars at all?

Certainly no case to answer for `over grading' there then eh? :-)

Lol!

Are you sure it didn't have really large back wheels in comparison to
the front? Sounds more like a tractor they were testing than a car. Was
it the new lean mean sunflower oil burning machine they were testing in
it or something? :-)

It reminds me of all the old jokes about eastern european cars.....like
the reason they included heated rear windows as standard was so that you
could keep your hands warm while pushing.

I once had a Ford Escort 1.6 diesel, not by choice, that had a mighty 57
horse power, it required a weeks notice of an overtaking manoeuvre.
Billy


Ian wrote:

note.boy wrote:
The Daewoo Matiz got no stars as, "we have serious doubts about this
car's stability".

It scorches from 0 to 60 mph in 19 seconds, yes 19 seconds, plenty
reason not to buy one, imagine driving a car incapable of overtaking
anything.

30 to 70 through the gears takes 25.2 seconds.

50 to 70 in top gear takes 29.3 seconds. Billy


Ian wrote:

note.boy wrote:

Every issue of Autocar, it comes out every week, contains a full test of
a new model, they are rated from 5 stars (good) to 1 star (not good) but
one managed to get NO stars.

Go on ...go on....which car was it that got no stars at all?

Certainly no case to answer for `over grading' there then eh? :-)

Lol!

Are you sure it didn't have really large back wheels in comparison to
the front? Sounds more like a tractor they were testing than a car. Was
it the new lean mean sunflower oil burning machine they were testing in
it or something? :-)

It reminds me of all the old jokes about eastern european cars.....like
the reason they included heated rear windows as standard was so that you
could keep your hands warm while pushing.