Eco-Aqualizer (may fama article)

I'll bet that psychiatrist was selling the "magnet" machine or held some patent for it.

Yeah, I'm also going into internal med. Psychiatry is all about trying out 5 different meds to see which one works. They get paid well and are 9-5. But wait, I want to see results.
 
Brad

No he wasnt selling anything. Fancy equiptment wouldnt make enough to pay the bills for a week in the UK. Over here psych are not payed a lot, indeed they fare badly compared to other specialties. There isnt much private work outside of London. The system groans under paperwork and rules.

The one positive is that it remains a pure clinical subject, with diagnosis being made by history and examination - tests come a poor third.
 
Hi Palooka
[welcome]
Being a professional psychic my magnetic persona told me you were new here.
 
This is my first and maybe my only post on this forum as I'm not a reef keeper but do keep planted tanks. I stated my opinions of the product under discussion on the Aquatic Plants Digest several months and today I received this interesting email.

Dear Mark,

We are writing to request that "SLANDER and DEFAMATION"
material be removed from the www.fins.actwin.com discussions web pages about our product, the ECO-Aqualizer.

Defined: "Slander and Defamation - are the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations meant to defame and damage another persons reputation. It is illegal."

After meeting we are our attorney, Trey Henderson, it has been
decided for the best interest of all parties involved, to cordially attempt and request that the following post be removed.

April 28, 2003 from Rex Grigg

April 23, 2003 from Jerry B

We request that these two post be removed immediately. Such remarks as "SNAKE OIL" is considered slander, especially when the author, publisher, printer, or party involved has willingly confessed that he or she has not tried, purchased, tested, or validated such defamatory remarks. But chooses to post remarks.

True we live in a society of f reedom of speech. But when such a defamatory remark is posted to the world via the internet and the business' sales ratio drops by a dramatic amount greater than proceeding months of sales, one must review the recorded statistics to determine the loss potential dated from this April 23rd and forward.

Since sales are generated solely by internet transactions, it is only obvious that search engine results are the main driver of this business. In the event of the above posts which appear on the front page of GOOGLE search engine , items 3 and 4, have been a significant main source of such defamatory issues and thereof.

In all civil actions for slander and libel the falsity of the
injurious statements is an essential element, so that the defendant is always entitled to justify his statements by their truth; but when the statements are in themselves defamatory, their falsity is presumed, and the burden of proving their truth is laid upon the defendant. The gen eral theory of law with regard to these cases is this. It is assumed that in every case of defamation intention is a
necessary element; but in the ordinary case, when a statement is false and defamatory, the law presumes that it has been made or published with an evil intent, and will not allow this presumption to be rebutted by evidence or submitted as matter of fact to a jury. But there are certain circumstances in which the natural presumption is quite the other way. There are certain natural and proper occasions on which statements may be made which are in themselves defamatory,
and which may be false, but which naturally suggest that the
statements may have been made from a perfectly proper motive. In the cases of this kind which are recognized by law, the presumption is reversed. It lies with the plaintiff to show that the defendant was actuated by what is called express malice, by an intention to do harm and in this case the question is not one of legal in ference for the court, but a matter of fact to be decided by the jury. Although however, the theory of the law seems to rest entirely upon natura
presumption of intention, it is pretty clear that in determining the limits of privilege the courts have been almost wholly guided by considerations of public or general expediency.

Papers published under the authority of parliament are protected by a special act, 3 & 4 Vict c. 9, 1840, which was passed after a decree of the law court adverse to the privilege claimed. The general rule now is that all reports of parliamentary or judicial proceedings are privileged in so far as they are honest. Even ex parte proceedings,in so far as they take place in public, now fall within the same rule. But if the report is garbled, the party who is injured in
consequence is entitled to maintain an action, and to have the
question of malice submitted to a jury.

As a cordial request, I ask that the po st be removed within 5 days. After speaking with the Editor, Mark Rosenstein, he has indicated that he would remove the post if contacted by the parties to do so. Otherwise, FINS will take no responsiblility due to the fact that these post are in the "mailing list archives". And authors of such post will be solely responsible.

If not removed, our attorney will have no other remedy but to see that justice is upheld and that such Slander and Defamation is valued in a court of law. If and when this takes place, we will sought after all parties involved, whether author, writer, publisher, and or moderators to be held fully liable for the valuation accessed by the courts.

I will add that the statements made by Rex Griggs, have not only been damaging to ECO-Aqualizer Corp., but also may have cost many deaths within the fish aquarium community. I strongly suggest that all parties should find out more about ECO-Aqualizer and our intent of saving fishes lives. Our product may be the biggest impact in this industry in saving marine fish with the introduction into captivity. As a fellow hobbyist, one must ask themselves, do I care about the fish? Or do I NOT care about their well-being?

Please see APPMA statistical results about the percentage of fish deaths within the marine hobby. The numbers are mind-boggling. The intent of ECO-Aqualizer is to significantly decrease those numbers.

Mark Rosenstein has given ECO-Aqualizer these email addresses as a correspondence of contact. Please RESPOND back to avoid further complications. Please respond to Mark Rosenstein, Editor of FINS, as well to update and remove such unvalidated remarks.

Sincerely,

Carl Denzer , President
Click to expand...
 
Defined: "Slander and Defamation - are the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations meant to defame and damage another persons reputation. It is illegal."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you can defame a product, that law reefers to people. In my remembrance, none of these posts have made any reference to the inventor himself.

It's logical that product reviews will influence sales, positively or negatively. That's how business works. IMO. there is no slander or defamation at play here.

Mike
 
LOL, maybe their sells drop cause the product doesnt do anything. I read on another forum someone set this product up and lost a bunch of corals that have been in the tank for quite some time.
 
I need to find a lawyer willing to do a couple of hours of pro bono work just to help me out here and get a few chuckles at the same time. I would like to see their certified sales figures. Also I have asked the owner of the company for a copy of the peer reviewed scientific study that proves their claims. I would like to know if it is possible to defame a product. Does one have to drive a Gremlin to know they are not the best car Detroit ever built? The funniest part about it is if you do a Google search for the product the two messages on the Aquatic Plants Digest come up since they are archived on a normal web site. But the 100's of posts about this product here and on other forums don't.
 
published with an evil intent

Yes, that must be why so many folks claim that it doesn't work as described. They are simply evil. :lol:

I will add that the statements made by Rex Griggs, have not only been damaging to ECO-Aqualizer Corp., but also may have cost many deaths within the fish aquarium community.

Oh, Rex, you awful fishkiller you. :D

FWIW, I think it is really sad, and usually shortsighted, when a company threatens to sue over public discourse. It would be one thing if a very small number of folks were supplying blatently false information about a product. It's quite another when large numbers of respected scientists state that they do not believe the stated mechanism of action.
 
I will add that the statements made by Rex Griggs, have not only been damaging to ECO-Aqualizer Corp., but also may have cost many deaths within the fish aquarium community. I strongly suggest that all parties should find out more about ECO-Aqualizer and our intent of saving fishes lives. Our product may be the biggest impact in this industry in saving marine fish with the introduction into captivity. As a fellow hobbyist, one must ask themselves, do I care about the fish? Or do I NOT care about their well-being?

This is to funny, where is their proof on deaths

:rollface: :rollface: :rollface: :rollface:
 
Rex Grigg said:
Does one have to drive a Gremlin to know they are not the best car Detroit ever built?
Click to expand...

Hey watch out there Mr. Grigg! Moderators--are we going to allow such comments about such a fine vehicle? :D
 
I've been trying for years to stop the needless deaths associated with Gremlins. The obvious answer is to cover the cars with magnets of an opposite polarity to all other cars. That way, they will never collide with any other cars. For some reason, however, the car industry calls it snake oil. I SAY AGAIN, HAVE THEY EVER TRIED IT TO KNOW?????
 
Carl Denzer making threats and Habib MIA...just a coincidence????


While I, unfortunately, never owned a Gremlin (just not THAT old sorry) I did own a Geo Metro once so I am quite appaled by the attitude that has been taken here! ;)
 
Carl Denzer making threats and Habib MIA...just a coincidence????


Habib never looked like the thug type, but maybe he altered his pictures to look more like someone you'd want to buy a kit from. :D
 
With Habib's great interest with the Eco-Aqualizer device I hope he didn't accidentially "polarically ionize" himself while testing a unit out. Dang that weird science stuff. It's dangerous. :hmm3:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JCOLE
Is muriatic acid safe for acrylic?
Replies
13
Views
594
griss
griss
M
How everything change and keeps changing
Replies
19
Views
427
MCReef1420
M
K
Mandarin QT methods
Replies
2
Views
206
Dr. Reef
Dr. Reef
M
Aquascape Opinions on 55gal mixed reef
Replies
7
Views
263
Reefing102
Reefing102
P
Cycling Questions
Replies
7
Views
393
SantaMonica
S
Back
Top