ukphotographer wrote: RustyBug wrote:
... legislation is something that needs additional research. I\'d expect that Mr. Buff has already done so ... likely much more than any of us.
Paul Buff wrote:
The VML back panel bears the clear statement \"Contains components from various countries of origin\".
\'Made in the USA (Contains components from various countries of origin)\'
is another marketing half-truth. Vague enough to benefit from the qudos, and true enough to cover your back.
Certainly makes RustyBug happy, maybe that echoes what is wanting to be heard?
Why not just print the whole lot on the front, or is the motive that only half is really desired to be seen?
It\'s not a matter of making me happy ... it\'s a matter of being compliant with the LAW ... everything else here is people tossing hooey around about something they know absolutely nothing about. I didn\'t make the rules, Paul didn\'t make the rules ... but he seems to be abiding in the rules set forth by the law.
The leniency set forth in design & interpretation of the law is something that was established by others ... so whether we agree or not, like it or not, the LAW remains the law ... until changed through due process ... go lobby congress to change the rules for advertising, marketing and labeling. I for one can\'t stand all the BS that exists in marketing ... but the law allows for it, so \'Caveat Emptor\' is more important in today\'s realm than ever before.
I\'m not one for \'fine print\' either ... but that is part of the real world, EVERYWHERE. So, why is everyone so eager to bash on Paul when there are literally millions of other similar applications where the \'fine print\' is not obvious to the initial viewing.
I was simply suggesting that Paul has, in fact, displayed an awareness of the issue as I had suggested earlier.
ukphotographer wrote: RustyBug wrote:
... legislation is something that needs additional research. I\'d expect that Mr. Buff has already done so ... likely much more than any of us.
Paul Buff wrote:
The VML back panel bears the clear statement \"Contains components from various countries of origin\".
\'Made in the USA (Contains components from various countries of origin)\'
is another marketing half-truth. Vague enough to benefit from the qudos, and true enough to cover your back.
Certainly makes RustyBug happy, maybe that echoes what is wanting to be heard?
Why not just print the whole lot on the front, or is the motive that only half is really desired to be seen?
It\'s not a matter of making me happy ... it\'s a matter of being compliant with the LAW ... everything else here is people tossing hooey around about something they know absolutely nothing about. I didn\'t make the rules, Paul didn\'t make the rules ... but he seems to be abiding in the rules set forth by the law.
The leniency set forth in design & interpretation of the law is something that was established by others ... so whether we agree or not, like it or not, the LAW remains the law ... until changed through due process ... go lobby congress to change the rules for advertising, marketing and labeling. I for one can\'t stand all the BS that exists in marketing ... but the law allows for it, so \'Caveat Emptor\' is more important in today\'s realm than ever before.
I\'m not one for \'fine print\' either ... but that is part of the real world, EVERYWHERE. So, why is everyone so eager to bash on Paul when there are literally millions of other similar applications where the \'fine print\' is not obvious to the initial viewing.
I was simply suggesting that Paul has, in fact, displayed an awareness of the issue as I had suggested earlier.
ukphotographer wrote: RustyBug wrote:
... legislation is something that needs additional research. I\'d expect that Mr. Buff has already done so ... likely much more than any of us.
Paul Buff wrote:
The VML back panel bears the clear statement \"Contains components from various countries of origin\".
\'Made in the USA (Contains components from various countries of origin)\'
is another marketing half-truth. Vague enough to benefit from the qudos, and true enough to cover your back.
Certainly makes RustyBug happy, maybe that echoes what is wanting to be heard?
Why not just print the whole lot on the front, or is the motive that only half is really desired to be seen?
It\'s not a matter of making me happy ... it\'s a matter of being compliant with the LAW ... everything else here is people tossing hooey around about something they know absolutely nothing about. I didn\'t make the rules, Paul didn\'t make the rules ... but he seems to be abiding in the rules set forth by the law.
The leniency set forth in design & interpretation of the law is something that was established by others ... so whether we agree or not, like it or not, the LAW remains the law ... until changed through due process ... go lobby congress to change the rules for advertising, marketing and labeling. I for one can\'t stand all the BS that exists in marketing ... but the law allows for it, so \'Caveat Emptor\' is more important in today\'s realm than ever before.
I\'m not one for \'fine print\' either ... but that is part of the real world, EVERYWHERE. So, why is everyone so eager to bash on Paul when there are literally millions of other similar applications.
I was simply suggesting that Paul has, in fact, displayed an awareness of the issue as I had suggested earlier.
ukphotographer wrote: RustyBug wrote:
... legislation is something that needs additional research. I\'d expect that Mr. Buff has already done so ... likely much more than any of us.
Paul Buff wrote:
The VML back panel bears the clear statement \"Contains components from various countries of origin\".
\'Made in the USA (Contains components from various countries of origin)\'
is another marketing half-truth. Vague enough to benefit from the qudos, and true enough to cover your back.
Certainly makes RustyBug happy, maybe that echoes what is wanting to be heard?
Why not just print the whole lot on the front, or is the motive that only half is really desired to be seen?
It\'s not a matter of making me happy ... it\'s a matter of being compliant with the LAW ... everything else here is people tossing hooey around about something they know absolutely nothing about. I didn\'t make the rules, Paul didn\'t make the rules ... but he seems to be abiding in the rules set forth by the law.
The leniency set forth in design & interpretation of the law is something that was established by others ... so whether we agree or not, like it or not, the LAW remains the law ... until changed through due process ... go lobby congress to change the rules for advertising, marketing and labeling. I for one can\'t stand all the BS that exists in marketing ... but the law allows for it, so \'Caveat Emptor\' is more important in today\'s realm than ever before.
I\'m not one for \'fine print\' either ... but that is part of the real world, EVERYWHERE. So, why is everyone so eager to bash on Paul when there are literally millions of other similar applications.
I was simply suggesting that Paul has, in fact, displayed an awareness of the issue as I had suggested earlier.
Dec 30, 2010 at 01:57 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #9172210 « Vagabond Mini Lithium: Made in USA? »
