Originally posted by finnegan
That is false. The FTC may begin patrolling blogs on December 1st, but we are not sure about that yet because we have not discussed that. Through
your misdirection we have been discussing whether any of us right here are federal agents. You are spreading false information and that is what you
have complained about.
Here is my source: FTCnotice
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 255
Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice of adoption of revised
Guides. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 2009.
Please supply your source which states this action is already in place before Dec 1st and it would be nice if we could someday discuss whether they
will be patrolling blogs or acting on consumer alerts but that evidently is not the purpose of your thread.
You make it quite obvious you do not understand the difference between the law, which FTC enforces, and the "Guides" which advise people of what the
FTC is doing.
Source? U.S. Government, Highlands High School; U.S. Government 101, University of Texas; United States Congress, 15 U.S.C. 45.
Oh, and the FTC:
The Guides represent administrative interpretations concerning the application of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the use of
endorsements and testimonials in advertising. They are advisory in nature, and intended to give guidance to the public in conducting its
affairs in conformity with Section 5.
The LAW is unchanged. The FTC administration and the "czar" who enforces it HAVE. Thus, new "Guides" are warranted to be fair.
have the authority per "the FTC Act, section 5.
Now, you can't say, "I didn't kow that" when they come get you.
If new members have stated many times that you are making untruthful posts by proclaiming other members as government agents
They are not. I do not. Prove otherwise.
Can't, can you? I said other members have "tossed around" the 'agent' stuff. Never said why or against who.
Your wishful thinking clouds your reason.
You continually refer to new members without profiles
There's nothing "repeatedly" or "continually" anywhere is my posts.
Prove otherwise. You can't
YOU are repeating the same baseless statements.
Just look at this thread, and see how each of your posts contains the same crap.
Over and again.
Baseless and baselesser.
Personally it seems to me disinfo can come from anyone, no matter what the profile says or how long they have been a member.
OK. Here, I'll repeat myself:. The unfounded, unsourced, un-cited nonsense, and plagiarized statements are the KEYS. Profiles and membership are
just additional factors.
You just don't get it it, do you?
It is our duty to challenge those when they come up, but not to create a straw man argument so we can engage in character assassination
against an entire group.
Most character assasinations I've seen have been self-inflicted. I've made no scattered personal accusations, AS YOU
ACCUSE. Yuo take the
elements I described and set them apart.
That is not what I said. That is misrepresentation and misdirection.
Add up all the pieces, and it may mean something. Individually, out of context, they are meaningless.
Ever heard of the concept that "the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts?" (probably not, or I wouldn't be having to explain this to you)
Taking any one or two parts out of their context is dishonest, and proves nothing. Except gross sensitivity to certain parts.
You repeatedly accuse new members without profiles of being government agents.
Really? Where? How many times? What threads? SHOW ME!
The reason it is baseless is because it is your opinion. You provide no evidence of it.
Then, I'm equally entitled to hold "your opinion" of my sources as "baseless." Even steven, no? It works both ways; that's why I said your
"concideration" means nothing to me. It is an opinion. Yours.
Ad hominem would be grouping new members without a profile into a number of possible government agent suspects thereby negating any comment
No. "Ad hominem" is a personal attack on the author, intended to discredit him personally, rather than his argument.
Source? English, Highlands High School; English 101, Philosophy 101, UT; Merriam-Webster, "New World Dictionary."
[edit on 13-10-2009 by jdub297]