Accugroove site update.....

[seamonkey]

I love these threads, they are really good at curing GAS

+1
I know I'm totally crossing one manufacturer off my list. Surprisingly, it's not Accugroove.

 

[PB+J]

It's difficult to debate with you when you twist my words. Did I say that I could sue Moooooooo for wishing me out of business? I said that wishing me out of business proves a malicious intent to any falsehood that he might post about me. That's all. Not that hard to understand.

So now we have to do Law 101? The right to freedom of expression is not absolute. In the United States there's no "prior restraint." You can say anything you want. Go ahead. Then you get to stand behind it. Google that. Check Oliver Wendell Holmes' incredibly famous opinion on the 1st Amendment. I guess you never heard that you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. If you want to be critical, try thinking critically. duh.

Yes, the "clear and present danger" test. Know it well. It doesn't apply to consumer issues like this, it applies to freedom of speech in time of war--it was about violations of the Espionage act. Are you seriously arguing that this is a matter of national security, and that if accugroove is called on its fake marketing, the terrorists win? That it's equivalent of the time of war Holmes refered to?

Saying that, based on examination of the available evidence, product X does not work as claimed is entirely legitimate and not prohibited in any way. You're blowing smoke.

I guess now if I buy miracle whitening colgate, and my teeth don't get whiter, i can't say so? I can whisper it to my friends, but not in public? I bought a VW Jetta. it was an extremely unreliable car and did not work as they advertised. There, I said it publicly. Better watch out for VW's lawyers, eh?

Seriously--back off and think it through. The accuswitch does not do what they claimed it does--it can't. Simple as that. It's not a question of malice--you can have all the malice you want, if your claims are true, and what's more, if you believe they are true for good reason and act on them, you are not guilty of libel, even if you were wrong. Suppose I have reason to believe that the porch in front of my house was built below standard and might collapse, and I take pictures showing why I think so, and I announce to the world that the guy who built the porch is a crook. It's not libel if I have reasonable to believe I'm right, no matter how much malice I might have.

The laws of physics are pretty reasonable grounds, no? As are the impedance plots, and the investigation by bassplayer, and the comments by other speaker designers. So there is no basis for libel claims

 

[Thunderfunk]

+1
I know I'm totally crossing one manufacturer off my list. Surprisingly, it's not Accugroove.

Those on the waiting list thank you.

 

[Thunderfunk]

Yes, the "clear and present danger" test.

When you call someone a fraud it's actionable. I'm not even talking about the AccuSwitch. You said you have the right to say anything you want. I said you don't. Now you're qualifying it. Good move. Can you say Valerie Plame?

"Never argue with a fool. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience."

I guess I learned my lesson.

 

[Blues Cat]

Why are you guys wasting your time w/this junk? If there's any crime it's that AG cabs are so expensive & still using carpet.

 

[PB+J]

When you call someone a fraud it's actionable.

Almost anything is "actionable." Any fool can file, or try to file, a pointless lawsuit--that's "action," but it's still foolish. Let me try one more time to explain this--it's not libel if you call someone a fraud based on reasonable evidence. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as "fraud" in a legal sense--in your argumennt, accusing someone of fraud, even if he really IS a fraud, would be "actionable." I'm sure someone who makes fake claims wants to believe this, and i'm sure anyone can see why.

You said you have the right to say anything you want. I said you don't. Now you're qualifying it. Good move. Can you say Valerie Plame?

I can say "valerie plame" but I have to admit I have no idea why you want me to. Is accugroove a CIA front? does Valerie Plame play bass? Maybe the accuswitch is actually a top-secret anti terrorist device? Can you say "crazy?"

"Never argue with a fool. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience."

I guess I learned my lesson.

Apparently not. You've managed to equate criticism of accugroove with A: violations of the espionage act, and B: the outing of a classified CIA employee. I'm confident that anyone reading this thread will see where foolishness lies. I'm gpoing to bed now, but I look forward to checking this thread first thing in the morning

 

[Thunderfunk]

Almost anything is "actionable."

Sure it is. So don't worry about this little slip up. You'll probably get sued for something else anyway.

...it's not libel if you call someone a fraud based on reasonable evidence.

And what's your evidence? You "think" he's a fraud? That's your defense? Good luck. You're going to need it.

I can say "valerie plame" but I have to admit I have no idea why you want me to.

You said you have a 1st Amendment right to say anything you want. I gave two examples familar to everyone that you don't have the right. Now you're trying to weasel out of your statement. Go ahead and continue to twist it. It's very funny watching you serve all over the road.

Yes, the "clear and present danger" test. Know it well. It doesn't apply to consumer issues like this, it applies to freedom of speech in time of war--it was about violations of the Espionage act.

Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theatre is only illegal during a time of war? The "Clear and Present Danger" exception? You got that Tom Clancy law degree don't you. I'm just exposing you for what you are. Continue. This is funny.

You've managed to equate criticism of accugroove with A: violations of the espionage act, and B: the outing of a classified CIA employee. I'm confident that anyone reading this thread will see where foolishness lies

You're twisting again. I'm just trying to keep you on point. You think you can call someone a crook and it's OK because you THOUGHT he was a crook? Your evidence is you had a hunch? I hate to be the one to tell you, but "ignorance of the law is no excuse." You and Moooooo are on very thin ice.

And I love the excuse that libel's hard to prove. So go ahead. Bet your house you won't get sued. And don't mind me. I'm only trying to muzzle your "free expression." You guys are too much.

 

[seamonkey]

"Fire Fire Fire" - everybody out of this thread! It's all Funk'd up.

 

[BadB]

Thunderfunk, speaking of keeping on point, since you and Whappo Grande seem to be buddies, could you ask him a question and post his responses? From the outside looking in, I see a manufacturer getting called on an advertising claim. He posts that he has no comment, citing advice from his attorney. He then drops off of TB completely, and removes his advertising claim. Now, what is a man on the outside supposed to think? I can see the no comment, but to disappear and quietly remove his advertising claim...hmm. Now I'm not going to call Whappo Grande a liar or anything like that, but, to quote a previous poster: it sounds like "Snakeoil". My shared opinion, of course. No basis on personal knowledge of fact. Simply hearsay. An opinion based on general consensus. (I sure hope my disclaimer protects me from libel). My question would be to ask him to explain that particular sequence of events. I sure hope you can help me out here. I would not expect him to provide me with a candid answer. I have heard a lot of good things about his cabinets and his customer service, and it pains me to think that I might have to scratch his products off of my GAS list simply because I don't agree with the business practice that his actions imply. I guess I am looking for a reasonable explanation. Thanks.

 

[Blues Cat]

Why are you guys wasting your time w/this junk? If there's any crime it's that AG cabs are so expensive & still using carpet.

 

[bongomania]

Thunderfunk, I haven't posted in any of the Accugroove threads previously because I don't own any of their products nor do I have my EE degree yet.

But I can guarantee you, after reading all of your posts on the subject, that I will never buy a Thunderfunk amp.

 

[Moo]

You and Moooooo are on very thin ice.

What are you going to do? File a patent against us?

 

[ogyen]

This feels like living in a kevin smith movie, I love it. Getting sued for trash talking on the internet!?! No one seems to be able to stop file sharing of music, movies, and a host of indecent activities, but AG with their unlimited resources are gonna sue people on a message board? Hilarious.

 

[Thunderfunk]

This isn't national security, as your absurd comparisons have made clear.
Yes, it's called "the clear and present danger test" by those who know anything about the law...

Then why did YOU equate yelling fire in a theatre to a national security issue? You continue to make up "facts" to support your "logic" and accuse me of saying things I never said. Good luck with that.

--are you threatening to sue me?

No. You'd plead insanity. I'm just warning you that you are responsible for what you say here.

 

[PB+J]

Umm, thunderfunk, it was you who brought up Holmes and Valerie Plame, not me--I never "equated" this silly accuswitch debate with national security, you did. I just responded to you. Check it out, read back, you'll see.

I haven't made up any facts, I've stated opinions based on the apparent evidence. And I've offered my understanding of the law, which could of course be wrong, but I doubt it, and i've explained why.

Thanks for the warning--I'll make sure to avoid any contact with you or your products in the future.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

This article may be of interest. I don't offer it as infallible, but whoever wrote it knows more than I do, certainly, and it agrees with what I've seen elsewhere. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just a citizen.) Not particularly the introductory sections (including "excuses") and the part on US law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

 

[Thunderfunk]

...could you ask him a question and post his responses? From the outside looking in, I see a manufacturer getting called on an advertising claim. He posts that he has no comment, citing advice from his attorney.

Now, what is a man on the outside supposed to think?

You can think anything you want. Mark has been advised not to discuss it. That's his decision. Good or bad it's not mine to make. Most manufacturers don't even read this forum. Does that make them bad? Around the NAMM show I heard this site called "TalkTrash." Maybe a clue?

Mark has removed the switch. Now you can judge his cabs on performance without the controversey. This is taken as an admission of guilt? Again, speculation posing as fact. So many mindreaders here. Why so much anger about this? Guys who don't own AG cabs, and will never afford them, pretend to be personally offended. Acme and Bergantino taking the lead in the attack. Two companies that I understand will be hurt if AG gets their patents. And I'm not even talking about the switch. I've said that I don't know how it works, or if it works, and I don't care. I've extended an offer of a 5-year warranty on my amps if you're running an AccuGroove with the switch. That should tell you I have confidence in AG and I know they've done extensive testing of their own. One amp blows up and AG steps up and takes responsibility, and that's an admission of guilt? No one said the switch blew up the amp. One amp failing for unknown reasons in how long has the switch been out?

My complaint in all of this is the personal attacks on Mark and the AG company. These attacks are base on hearsay, and then there's a lot of squirming, "Well, I read it in a magazine." You read in BP that Mark's a fraud? I don't think so.

It's too bad that Mark hasn't answered your questions. Why don't you call him?

 

[Thunderfunk]

Umm, thunderfunk, it was you who brought up Holmes and Valerie Plame, not me--I never "equated" this silly accuswitch debate with national security, you did.

Post #298

Yes, the "clear and present danger" test. Know it well. It doesn't apply to consumer issues like this, it applies to freedom of speech in time of war--it was about violations of the Espionage act. Are you seriously arguing that this is a matter of national security(?)

Spin, spin, spin. Caught and exposed in another lie. Admit it. Your real name is fluffer-nutter.

 

[georgestrings]

Thunderfunk, I haven't posted in any of the Accugroove threads previously because I don't own any of their products nor do I have my EE degree yet.

But I can guarantee you, after reading all of your posts on the subject, that I will never buy a Thunderfunk amp.

What he said....



- georgestrings

 

[metron]