Letter to a metal detector company

[michaelbane]

Micahelbane is actually contacting people and displaying a good deal of activism and all you do is hound him.

Thank you for sticking up for me, strat81.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If you had looked at the date on my letter, you would see there hasn't been enough time for a response. Be more careful with your facts in the future. And also with your spelling. It's tattletale.

And what's with your stooping to that type of statement? Hardly the high road. Other posters have disagreed with what I wrote, but gave constructive criticism. Is there some other reason you're critical of my letter that you're not telling us about?

Thanks for the spelling correction.

As for the date matter, let's see, you didn't say if you were using snail mail or email. If email, then there has been enough time to respond, hence the query as to whether or not you have had any luck.

Not High Road? Since when is telling another to bow down to your personal demands lest you try to inflict legal harm on them a High Road thing to do, especially given that they didn't break any laws? Hey, I didn't say anything to you after the first letter...

Is there some other reason you're critical of my letter that you're not telling us about?

Yes, you attacked the company's first amendment rights because you didn't like what they had to say and hoped to get them to comply via a threat.

As for getting the facts straight, maybe you should check your laws before threatening legal action. Since you want constructive criticism, then understand that a company won't take you very seriously if you suggest things that don't make sense. I don't think the AG is going to do anything to them for legally exercising their first amendment rights. Garrett knows this and as such, your second letter doesn't make sense.

In your first letter, you could have simply posted your concern about the tone of the ad, but instead, you were uppity and posted that you were actively engaged in a public campaign against Garrett for the ad by posting your letter on THR. That is a very poor way to open a dialog where you want something. It is a tactic where you are trying to gain power over your opposition by showing your prowess in attempting to make it known what you perceive as a public disgrace that you have exposed. Why would they even talk with you after that, much less bow down to your demands?

Here the problem is that since you have no power of your own, you have drawn upon that which you think you can harness from others. Here at THR, as noted previously, you (and us) are not in their main client base for security metal detectors. So you have tried to disgrace Garrett in a public forum where Garrett doesn't have a market. You then tried to bully them with the AG when they haven't broken the law. If you continue along these lines, you will only further weaken your position.

However, I am open on this. Have you figured out specifically what laws are supposedly being broken so that the Texas AG may address them with Garrett when they don't reply to you?

 

[michaelbane]

Since when is telling another to bow down to your personal demands lest you try to inflict legal harm on them a High Road thing to do, especially given that they didn't break any laws?

People do that all the time with companies, either through filing BBB complaints, Attorney General complaints or by lawsuits. My opinion is that their ads are deceptive. You are free to disagree. Just don't criticize my means of pursuing my position because you don't happen to agree with my position.

Yes, you attacked the company's first amendment rights because you didn't like what they had to say and hoped to get them to comply via a threat.

The company's first amendment rights are limited because the material in question is "commercial speech". The Supreme Court has ruled that commercial speech does not enjoy the same level of protection as political speech.

In your first letter, you could have simply posted your concern about the tone of the ad, but instead, you were uppity and posted that you were actively engaged in a public campaign against Garrett for the ad by posting your letter on THR. That is a very poor way to open a dialog where you want something. It is a tactic where you are trying to gain power over your opposition by showing your prowess in attempting to make it known what you perceive as a public disgrace that you have exposed. Why would they even talk with you after that, much less bow down to your demands?

Again, these are tactics that are commonly used by anyone who is upset with a company. We at THR use public pressure on business that post against CCW. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Don't forget all those "uppity" people that finally forced public transit integration in Montgomery through boycotting.

Here the problem is that since you have no power of your own, you have drawn upon that which you think you can harness from others. Here at THR, as noted previously, you (and us) are not in their main client base for security metal detectors. So you have tried to disgrace Garrett in a public forum where Garrett doesn't have a market. You then tried to bully them with the AG when they haven't broken the law. If you continue along these lines, you will only further weaken your position.

Again, I am not doing anything different than what is done when people are upset with other types of companies. And again, your statement that the company hasn't broken the law is your opinion only, not the final word on the issue.

However, I am open on this. Have you figured out specifically what laws are supposedly being broken so that the Texas AG may address them with Garrett when they don't reply to you?

I don't have any obligation to quote specific laws I think were broken. I went to the Texas AG's website, where it says they investigate "deceptive business practices". I honestly believe the statement made in the ad was inflammatory and not completely correct, and therefore deceptive. If you look in my letter, I never said I knew that the Texas AG would agree with me, although I obviously hope they do. All I did was tell the company that I would pursue the matter with the Texas AG, which any citizen has the right to do.