Abd, I asked the first question because I believed it to be true. When the reporter is present, making the claim based upon his spade work, in asking him a question I am not obliged to go do spade work through hours of video tapes that I have watched and pages upon pages of prose I've skimmed if not read to come up with the exact source of my impression.
The demand for substantiation is obviously legitimate and he should have provided it in the article itself. If it was from a confidential source then he should have stated it. If his accusation was false then clearly it would be materially damaging to Inteligentry and no reasonable man would question the legitimacy of bringing at least civil suit against S. Alan. If his accusation was true then we open up the bulk of your verbose and incoherent critique to analysis -- a task for which I have no more time than I did to go do S. Alan's spade work for him. Suffice to say, "Puffery" doesn't apply if a statement has the following characteristics: The Dallas Court of Appeals came up with a four-part test to beused to distinguish between puffery and a potentially fraudulent misrepresentation. The four criteria are: (1) the statement's specificity; (2) the speaker's knowledge; (3) the comparative levels of the buyer's and seller's knowledge; and (4) whether the statement relates to the present or the future.16 In the future, please put your formidable rhetorical skills to better use than this. On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 10:54 AM 8/26/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > James Bowery > <<mailto:[email protected]>ja**[email protected]<[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> My question has been deleted from PESN. No answer to the question is >> evident. >> >> >> I assume you mean the question you posted here was what you asked on >> PESN. They deleted it?!? That's terrible. That's irresponsible. >> > > Not necessarily. The context was this statement from Sterling: > > "no one there (except John, allegedly) has ever seen a working engine >> yet" (as quoted by James). The full quotation is: >> > > http://pesn.com/2012/08/21/**9602163_Part_I--My_Concerns_** > About_Inteligentry/<http://pesn.com/2012/08/21/9602163_Part_I--My_Concerns_About_Inteligentry/> > >> Some of us want it to be true so bad that we have been extremely generous >> to Inteligentry, despite so many red flags, foremost being that no one >> there (except John, allegedly) has ever seen a working engine yet. >> > > Where is "there?" Stirling is apparently referring to the staff at > Inteligentry. He also reported, previously, comment from manufacturers. At > least one said that they had not seen a working engine. And the way he > presented this *implied* no contrary report from any of them. > > It is unlikely that Stirling would make his comment if anyone at > Inteligentry had told him they had seen a working engine. But, hey, people > make mistakes. Sterling might say, "Now that you mention it, Frank, the > janitor, did say he saw an engine running, and it dripped a lot of oil." > But probably not. > > Now, James' questions: > > There were two: > > > Is it not the case that Dan Glover of PTP Licensing has repeatedly and >> publicly made claims to the contrary? >> >> If so, on what basis you do accuse Mr. Glover of interstate fraud? When >> are you going to contact the FBI? >> > > The first question is a legitimate question, though the second question > shows the intention, it's trolling. A serious raising of this question > would do a little footwork first, and would actually quote Dan Glover. > I.e., what did he actually say that is supposedly contrary? > > James, however, has converted a *possible* -- not established -- > contradiction into an accusation of fraud. Dan Glover is a sales agent for > licenses. He might say just about anything, legally, the law recognizes > puffery as not being illegal, and typically actual license language will > state that no representations that have been made by anyone are being > relied upon, that only what is actually in the license agreement (or other > specificed documents) is represented as true. A criminal prosecution for > fraud would require *very clear* and intentional misrepresentation. If a > salesman says "manufacturers have seen working engines" -- based on what he > was told by the company that hired him, or even if he just made it up -- it > could be an error, but not at all fraud. Dan Glover, unless he establishes > it, has no *legal obligation* to establish the truth of what he says. > > If you think that it is the job of the FBI to protect you or others from > making stupid investment decisions, you are likely to be fleeced. They > won't, and they don't. > > If James actually posted the second question, I would not be surprised > that it would be deleted. It would add nothing to the value of the page. > Calling attention to possible mistatements by Dan Glover is pointing out > something that could be expected. A sales agent will give the official > company position. Dan may or may not have been careful. He's young, seems > sincere, and might be gullible as hell. I hope he's not allowing delay in > his wages or fees! > > If it's wages, he'd be first in line in a bankruptcy. If it's fees, he > could kiss them good-bye. Any employees (which could include John!) would > be first in line. > > James went on to state: > > > NOTE: I'm not interested in taking sides in this. I'm merely interested >> in the truth and this seems to be an important element of it. >> > > A non-existence accusation, accusing Glover of interstate fraud, and some > question about contacting the FBI is an "important element"? > > No, the only substance here is a claim that Glover has made contradictory > statements, which, even if true, would not be newsworthy. > > Can't you see the headlines?: > > "SALESMAN MADE FALSE CLAIM" > > Like, duh. > > "USED CAR SALESMAN LIED ABOUT CAR'S CONDITION" > > I guarantee you, that won't make the news unless something actually > newsworthy takes place, like a car dealer is sued and loses. The salesman > would not be prosecuted, almost certainly, unless something got nailed down > in writing and, say, made as a formal statement under penalty of perjury. > Even then .... > > "RUG SALESMAN SAID RUG WORTH 10X ACTUAL" > > "POPE CATHOLIC" > > > >
