"misterfact" wrote in message
...
(misterfact) wrote in message
...
I'll post about 50 of them here in the next few weeks.

PLEASE DON'T!!


Well let's see. Enough theorizing! Heres another actual case:

A case from where, please--What's the source?

A county government jurisdiction proposed a law to ban the use of a
consumer product. This proposed ban made sense because according to
the product safety data sheet on the product- "continuous breathing of
the fumes can cause permanent liver and reproductive cell damage."

The talk show host called the proposed government ban "stupid". He
presented a false

How do you know the analysis was fake? Source, please?

chemical analysis of the product which "PROOVED"
that the product's fumes were NON-POISONOUS! It is quite obvious that
by lying about the health risks-

How do you know he was lying? Why is it obvious?

the host's intentions were to get the
public to apply pressure in getting that ban lifted- because the ban
had no health safety basis!

Well- let's see if that example gets any of your interest. Should we
have this talk show host investigated for receiving money from the
product's manufacturer- for promoting their product by lying about it.

What makes you think he was receiving money from the manufacturer?
Do you think he should be investigated because it's _possible_? I don't.


Or should we just sit by and twittle our thumbs and allow this kind of
broadcast fraud to continue?

That'd by my wish/

You certainly haven't presented the slightest but of evidence in the
specious example above to show that any fraud whatsoever has been committed.

Regards,

Don