In Reply to: It's a con. posted by LarryB on March 21, 2007 at 11:52:56:
You've just defined a con, which, in case you didn't know, is short for "confidence game."A "confidence game" is where the "mark" is persuaded to part with something of value (usually money) because he is led to believe that he's getting something of value in return, but, in reality, is not.
There is, in the United States and elsewhere, a well-developed jurisprudence of consumer fraud law which, in simple terms, requires an advertiser to be able to back up performance claims in an ad with objective data.
And, while it's nice, from the high perch of being a "reviewer" for some obscure Internet website, to look down with condescension at the people "whose panties are in a knot," about things like this, the fact is that a person's money spent on a con could have been spent, for example, on a piece of recorded music. Presumably, for most people, the playback of recorded music is, after all, the object of all of this hardware. Consequently, even you might agree that it's better for the hobby to keep those people in business (i.e. musicians and songwriters) than the people who make things like "Intelligent Chips."
Edits: 90/82/00 90/82/00 90/82/00
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- congratulations, Larry - Bruce from DC 13:39:52 03/21/07 (4)
- "Bam, Bam, Bam!!!" - Bruce comes out with both barrells blaring... - darkmoebius 18:46:38 04/23/07 (0)
- Re: Just another shmuck with - geoffkait 16:24:28 03/21/07 (1)
- You are tangling with a hot-shot D.C. lawyer; if he says it's a con, it has to be a con. That, or... - clarkjohnsen 11:23:10 03/22/07 (1)
- That sums it very nicely, Thank you Bruce. - Dan Banquer 15:44:51 03/21/07 (0)