LA cyclist group event

[AMuzi]

Featuring a 'take the lane' exercise

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/video-captures-mob-of-bicyclists-beating-driver-in-downtown-los-angeles/
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[John B.]

On Sat, 20 May 2023 07:34:59 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>Featuring a 'take the lane' exercise
>
>https://ktla.com/news/local-news/video-captures-mob-of-bicyclists-beating-driver-in-downtown-los-angeles/

A group ride one assumes (:-)

But more to the point, yet another reason for someone to carry a gun.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Sat, 20 May 2023 07:34:59 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>Featuring a 'take the lane' exercise
>
>https://ktla.com/news/local-news/video-captures-mob-of-bicyclists-beating-driver-in-downtown-los-angeles/

There's always been thuggary, they've made movies about it..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wild_One

..but it seems to have become more rampant lately in the USA.
especially among young adults.

[Catrike Rider]

On Sat, 20 May 2023 20:11:24 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

...and more and more people are doing it.

[Sir Ridesalot]

I tried taking the lane but the police said I had to put it back. ;<)

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

If they're cowardly enough.

Here we see a detrimental effect of the internet. One incredibly rare event half a world
away makes some people think "Oooh, that's likely to happen to me!!"

In real life, it happens to perhaps one in a billion people. But saying that doesn't sell
advertisements.

- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Sat, 20 May 2023 15:03:12 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 9:13:21?AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 May 2023 07:34:59 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Featuring a 'take the lane' exercise
>> >
>> >https://ktla.com/news/local-news/video-captures-mob-of-bicyclists-beating-driver-in-downtown-los-angeles/
>> A group ride one assumes (:-)
>>
>> But more to the point, yet another reason for someone to carry a gun.
>
>If they're cowardly enough.

Suggesting that someone is cowardly implies that there's danger.

>Here we see a detrimental effect of the internet. One incredibly rare event half a world
>away makes some people think "Oooh, that's likely to happen to me!!"

Actually, the Internet is beneficial in that it provides the
information that there's dangerous people out there.

>In real life, it happens to perhaps one in a billion people. But saying that doesn't sell
>advertisements.

That some people want to carry a gun is none of your business, just
like it's nobody's business that you're afraid to fasten your shoes to
your bicycle pedals.

>- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:40:09 -0400, Catrike Rider
<sol...@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 May 2023 15:03:12 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
><frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 9:13:21?AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 May 2023 07:34:59 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Featuring a 'take the lane' exercise
>>> >
>>> >https://ktla.com/news/local-news/video-captures-mob-of-bicyclists-beating-driver-in-downtown-los-angeles/
>>> A group ride one assumes (:-)
>>>
>>> But more to the point, yet another reason for someone to carry a gun.
>>
>>If they're cowardly enough.
>
>Suggesting that someone is cowardly implies that there's danger.
>

I think you got that wrong. Cowardly actually means - "lacking
courage; ignobly timid and faint-hearted. You don't need to perceive a
danger to be a coward. Some People are terrified of Ghosts, for
example.

>>Here we see a detrimental effect of the internet. One incredibly rare event half a world
>>away makes some people think "Oooh, that's likely to happen to me!!"
>
>Actually, the Internet is beneficial in that it provides the
>information that there's dangerous people out there.

And again Frank distorts reality. Example: The Internet reports "Air
Crash in Afghanistan! 50 deaths!"

Does Frank really believe that hoards of USians suddenly start jumping
up and down, screaming, "Oooooo! That's gonna happen to me!"?

But on second thought, maybe Frank does just that. After all black
pickups terrify him.

>>In real life, it happens to perhaps one in a billion people. But saying that doesn't sell
>>advertisements.

But "advertisements" are a two way street aren't they. Your hopping up
and down and screaming about the terrifying AR type rifles, for
example, when reality is that more people are killed with hands and
feet then are killed with any sort of rifle. "False advertising" I
believe they call it.

>
>That some people want to carry a gun is none of your business, just
>like it's nobody's business that you're afraid to fasten your shoes to
>your bicycle pedals.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 21 May 2023 08:19:25 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

And yes, I do know I did misspelled "hoard" in this case... but I
wanted something for Frank to complain about besides his usual "I
din't Say that!"
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 9:20:59 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:40:09 -0400, Catrike Rider
> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>
> >Suggesting that someone is cowardly implies that there's danger.
> >
> I think you got that wrong. Cowardly actually means - "lacking
> courage; ignobly timid and faint-hearted. You don't need to perceive a
> danger to be a coward. Some People are terrified of Ghosts, for
> example.

Good example.

> >>Here we see a detrimental effect of the internet. One incredibly rare event half a world
> >>away makes some people think "Oooh, that's likely to happen to me!!"
> >

> And again Frank distorts reality. Example: The Internet reports "Air
> Crash in Afghanistan! 50 deaths!"
>
> Does Frank really believe that hoards of USians suddenly start jumping
> up and down, screaming, "Oooooo! That's gonna happen to me!"?

Yes, although I don't think of it as a sudden jumping. I think the news coverage of
those rare events contributes to the rather common fear of flying. See
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22431-aerophobia-fear-of-flying

"What causes aerophobia? ... Specific triggers might include: News stories about
terrorism, crashes or violence on airplanes."

> But on second thought, maybe Frank does just that. After all black
> pickups terrify him.

John, you're emulating Tom again - claiming I said something I never did. I complained
about the rudeness of some pickup drivers. I talked about being rudely tailgated by
a jacked-up pickup, and by another that purposely glared his light bar at me. I linked to
episodes of pickup drivers "rolling coal" on cyclists and other drivers. I never
said anything about fear, let alone terror. I'm no more afraid of those assholes than
I am of Tom. Irritated, yes; afraid, no.

Be careful about emulating Tom. It makes you look as bad as him.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Stop being dishonest about what I said. You're looking like Tommy. You
should be embarassed by that.

- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Sun, 21 May 2023 08:19:25 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:40:09 -0400, Catrike Rider
><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 May 2023 15:03:12 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>><frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 9:13:21?AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 May 2023 07:34:59 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Featuring a 'take the lane' exercise
>>>> >
>>>> >https://ktla.com/news/local-news/video-captures-mob-of-bicyclists-beating-driver-in-downtown-los-angeles/
>>>> A group ride one assumes (:-)
>>>>
>>>> But more to the point, yet another reason for someone to carry a gun.
>>>
>>>If they're cowardly enough.
>>
>>Suggesting that someone is cowardly implies that there's danger.
>>
>I think you got that wrong. Cowardly actually means - "lacking
>courage; ignobly timid and faint-hearted. You don't need to perceive a
>danger to be a coward. Some People are terrified of Ghosts, for
>example.

Doesn't being afraid of something (ghosts) mean that they perceive a
danger?

[Catrike Rider]

On Sat, 20 May 2023 20:42:44 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 9:20:59?PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:40:09 -0400, Catrike Rider
>> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>> >Suggesting that someone is cowardly implies that there's danger.
>> >
>> I think you got that wrong. Cowardly actually means - "lacking
>> courage; ignobly timid and faint-hearted. You don't need to perceive a
>> danger to be a coward. Some People are terrified of Ghosts, for
>> example.
>
>Good example.

coward
"One who shows ignoble fear in the face of *danger* or pain.One who
lacks courage to meet *danger*"

>> >>Here we see a detrimental effect of the internet. One incredibly rare event half a world
>> >>away makes some people think "Oooh, that's likely to happen to me!!"
>> >
>> And again Frank distorts reality. Example: The Internet reports "Air
>> Crash in Afghanistan! 50 deaths!"
>>
>> Does Frank really believe that hoards of USians suddenly start jumping
>> up and down, screaming, "Oooooo! That's gonna happen to me!"?
>
>Yes, although I don't think of it as a sudden jumping. I think the news coverage of
>those rare events contributes to the rather common fear of flying. See
>https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22431-aerophobia-fear-of-flying
>
>"What causes aerophobia? ... Specific triggers might include: News stories about
>terrorism, crashes or violence on airplanes."
>
>> But on second thought, maybe Frank does just that. After all black
>> pickups terrify him.
>
>John, you're emulating Tom again - claiming I said something I never did. I complained
>about the rudeness of some pickup drivers. I talked about being rudely tailgated by
>a jacked-up pickup, and by another that purposely glared his light bar at me. I linked to
>episodes of pickup drivers "rolling coal" on cyclists and other drivers. I never
>said anything about fear, let alone terror. I'm no more afraid of those assholes than
>I am of Tom. Irritated, yes; afraid, no.

So, Krygowski agrees that taking action to avoid irritation is not
cowardly.

>Be careful about emulating Tom. It makes you look as bad as him.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

I suggest that most people who carry a gun are not fearful of thugs,
either.

[John B.]

On Sun, 21 May 2023 04:54:01 -0400, Catrike Rider

<sol...@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 May 2023 08:19:25 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:40:09 -0400, Catrike Rider
>><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 May 2023 15:03:12 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>><frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 9:13:21?AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 20 May 2023 07:34:59 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >Featuring a 'take the lane' exercise
>>>>> >
>>>>> >https://ktla.com/news/local-news/video-captures-mob-of-bicyclists-beating-driver-in-downtown-los-angeles/
>>>>> A group ride one assumes (:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> But more to the point, yet another reason for someone to carry a gun.
>>>>
>>>>If they're cowardly enough.
>>>
>>>Suggesting that someone is cowardly implies that there's danger.
>>>
>>I think you got that wrong. Cowardly actually means - "lacking
>>courage; ignobly timid and faint-hearted. You don't need to perceive a
>>danger to be a coward. Some People are terrified of Ghosts, for
>>example.
>
>Doesn't being afraid of something (ghosts) mean that they perceive a
>danger?

Well, yes, they do fear something... but is it a danger? Really?

But admittedly the fear of ghosts could, in certain circumstances,
prove to be dangerious.

I was working night shift and came home, about midnight, to find my
wife sitting on the front steps of the house. She saw a ghost in the
house, she tells me. But as big, bad, hubby, is home she bravely
decides to go back in the house and checks all the rooms carefully and
apparently the Ghost was frighten by my coming home and left.

Now then, whether the ghost would have attacked her is problematic but
sitting outside the house in a rather remote part of the town, in the
middle of the night, could, if a evildoer were to walk by, prove to be
very dangerious.

>>
>>>>Here we see a detrimental effect of the internet. One incredibly rare event half a world
>>>>away makes some people think "Oooh, that's likely to happen to me!!"
>>>
>>>Actually, the Internet is beneficial in that it provides the
>>>information that there's dangerous people out there.
>>
>>And again Frank distorts reality. Example: The Internet reports "Air
>>Crash in Afghanistan! 50 deaths!"
>>
>>Does Frank really believe that hoards of USians suddenly start jumping
>>up and down, screaming, "Oooooo! That's gonna happen to me!"?
>>
>>But on second thought, maybe Frank does just that. After all black
>>pickups terrify him.
>>
>>>>In real life, it happens to perhaps one in a billion people. But saying that doesn't sell
>>>>advertisements.
>>
>>But "advertisements" are a two way street aren't they. Your hopping up
>>and down and screaming about the terrifying AR type rifles, for
>>example, when reality is that more people are killed with hands and
>>feet then are killed with any sort of rifle. "False advertising" I
>>believe they call it.
>>
>>>
>>>That some people want to carry a gun is none of your business, just
>>>like it's nobody's business that you're afraid to fasten your shoes to
>>>your bicycle pedals.

Frank's crusade against advertisement is foolish. How else does one
learn anything about a product before buying it. I see, for example,
descriptions of, for example, a Ford pickup. Quite informative and
certainly advertisement for the product (:-)
https://www.ford.co.th/en/showroom/future-vehicle/next-generation-everest/wildtrak
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Sun, 21 May 2023 17:57:32 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Sun, 21 May 2023 04:54:01 -0400, Catrike Rider
><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 May 2023 08:19:25 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:40:09 -0400, Catrike Rider
>>><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 20 May 2023 15:03:12 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>><frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 9:13:21?AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 20 May 2023 07:34:59 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Featuring a 'take the lane' exercise
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >https://ktla.com/news/local-news/video-captures-mob-of-bicyclists-beating-driver-in-downtown-los-angeles/
>>>>>> A group ride one assumes (:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But more to the point, yet another reason for someone to carry a gun.
>>>>>
>>>>>If they're cowardly enough.
>>>>
>>>>Suggesting that someone is cowardly implies that there's danger.
>>>>
>>>I think you got that wrong. Cowardly actually means - "lacking
>>>courage; ignobly timid and faint-hearted. You don't need to perceive a
>>>danger to be a coward. Some People are terrified of Ghosts, for
>>>example.
>>
>>Doesn't being afraid of something (ghosts) mean that they perceive a
>>danger?
>
>Well, yes, they do fear something... but is it a danger? Really?

Fear is a subjective experience. Krygowski suggests that it's
dangerous to have a gun in their home and thus, everyone, I assume
including himself, should be fearful of doing that, but many,
including myself, laugh at his fear.

[John B.]

rOn Sun, 21 May 2023 07:45:56 -0400, Catrike Rider

It's sort of playing with numbers and good advertisement for the anti
gunners. If you are murdered in a house where firearms are available
then, yes, you are more likely to be murdered with a gun. But even a
casual look at the upper New England State show that simply having a
gun in the house does not guarantee that a murder will occur in that
house.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

The only way that Slocomb could have come up with an example like that is if he is afraid of the ghosts in his past. So now we know what drives a non cyclist to post on a cycling group - he is trying to make up for his past sins and cannot.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/21/2023 6:57 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> Frank's crusade against advertisement is foolish. How else does one
> learn anything about a product before buying it.

Certainly advertisements are one way of learning about a product; but
product advertisements are propaganda intended to sell the product. They
are biased by definition and should be approached with some skepticism.

I'm not a fan of deceptive advertisements, or for psychologically
manipulative ones. Examples abound:

For decades "cowboy" themed ads equated smoking a cigarette with being
a real man, with freedom on the open range. What was _that_ all about?
Yet it convinced millions of middle-aged office workers to inhale
carcinogens.

Today, replace that horse and cigarette with a big pickup truck. The
office drone dreams about towing a trailer full of livestock or
splashing through a river, as in the ads. But in real life he sits
idling in a miles-long traffic jam in the city, and complains about the
price of gas for his gas hog.

Then there's the toothpaste that makes you 27% sexier; this year's new
smart phone that does the same things last year's phone did; the gear
train that shifts gears one hundredth of a second quicker; and of
_course_ the guns that every red blooded American needs because all the
other guys have, you know, guns. And because the world is so, so, so SCARY!

How to learn anything about a product before buying it? The internet is
full of product rating articles, if there's something you really need.
Publications like Consumer Reports or Which? or Wirecutter provide more
objective information.

Or just sit and ask yourself: Do I _really_ need this? Haven't I gotten
along fine without it for years? Is this really going to bring a
significant improvement to my life?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

I buy many things that I don't "really_ need." I just bought a fresh
bottle of Remy Martin, this morning.

>Haven't I gotten
>along fine without it for years? Is this really going to bring a
>significant improvement to my life?

One thing I don't need is advice from an ignorant, narcissistic Geek
like you, Krygowski.

[John B.]

I'm not so sure that Frank's assertions are accurate or even true. I
smoked for a considerable number of years and I don't believe that
the cowboy ads were even in use when I started smoking. In fact the
first cigarette ads I remember was "Lucky Strike Green Goes to War",
which was certainly not a "macho" sort of advertisement..

And, I lived, for some years, in parts of the South, noticeably N.W.
Louisiana where pickups were quite popular and I don't believe that
(one example) a bloke who owns two off shore oil,drilling rigs (big
money) drove a pickup because he had some dream of hauling a trailer.

In short, as usual, Frank exaggerates to the point of actually telling
lies, to prove his point. Or perhaps it is senile dementia and he
believes what he posts.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

ohferchrissake.

Without Bianchi riders in dramatic finish line photo posters
all over the shop (and 125 years of similar puffery) , we
would sell a lot fewer basic model Bianchis.

Your argument has no limiting factor except ads for products
you do not like are 'bad'.

[Frank Krygowski]

Let's try again, since you seem to have misunderstood.

John's stated the benefit of ads is learning about the product.

I said to be careful of deception; and of ads inducing inducing purchase
of roughly useless goods. And that there are less biased ways of
learning about products.

Your example just confirmed that, didn't it? The photos of elite
athletes winning on Bianchis caused people to buy Bianchis - IOW the
images worked for you and for Bianchi. Maybe some customers thought "A
Bianchi will make me faster than my buddy." Maybe some thought "This
must be a really reliable bike." Whatever! The buyer's psychological
association with a completely irrelevant image triggered a sale.

It's a lot different than a rational examination of needs and desires,
and choice of an appropriate device.

And BTW, I think this advertisement strategy increases sales for all
sorts of products, not just the ones I don't like. If it didn't work, I
don't think companies would spend money on advertisement.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 00:38:42 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

Krygowski always needs lots of other people around him.

To go off solo on a sailboat for several months as I did, or go solo
hiking, and sometimes camping up in Yellowstone or Glacier parks is
most likely not his thing. I understand that he once did a big long
ride across the USA, but not solo, he took his family with him.

..and yes, I had a gun when I was up in the high country of
Yellowstone or Glacier, but back then it was a .357 revolver. I also
carried bear spray.

[Catrike Rider]

Well, after all, he is a well known expert on what others should do.

[Catrike Rider]

Like I said elsewhere, here's Krygowski dispensing some fear.. be
careful," he says.

>Your example just confirmed that, didn't it? The photos of elite
>athletes winning on Bianchis caused people to buy Bianchis - IOW the
>images worked for you and for Bianchi. Maybe some customers thought "A
>Bianchi will make me faster than my buddy." Maybe some thought "This
>must be a really reliable bike." Whatever! The buyer's psychological
>association with a completely irrelevant image triggered a sale.
>
>It's a lot different than a rational examination of needs and desires,
>and choice of an appropriate device.

<EYEROLL> "Let me tell you what to do," say's Krygowski.

[John B.]

Have you noticed how similar Frank's and Tommy's posts are. Tom raves
about politics and Frank raves about guns, adverts and pickup trucks.
If anything Tommy's ranting seems to be a little more rational then
Frank's complaints.

Using Frank's arguments that advertisements causes people to buy
cigarette and tooth paste doesn't Frank's owning a motorcycle indicate
that he sees himself as some sort of "Hell's Angel? Roaring down the
road, leading the pack, wearing his "Harley Jacket"?

Just think how big and brave that must make him feel!
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 06:05:34 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

He probably doesn't ride it much. Motocycling doesn't provide much
social contact, and when he's alone, he has to face his
self-deceptions.

>Just think how big and brave that must make him feel!

Did he "really need" that motorcycle? Did it really bring a
significant improvement to his life?

[John B.]

Roughly useless... Ayup, like the guy that owns a car, a motorcycle
and a bicycle.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/21/2023 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Have you noticed how similar Frank's and Tommy's posts are. Tom raves
> about politics and Frank raves about guns, adverts and pickup trucks.
> If anything Tommy's ranting seems to be a little more rational then
> Frank's complaints.

You're reaching, John. You're feeling embarrassed about me pointing out
_your_ similarity to Tom.

> Using Frank's arguments that advertisements causes people to buy
> cigarette and tooth paste doesn't Frank's owning a motorcycle indicate
> that he sees himself as some sort of "Hell's Angel? Roaring down the
> road, leading the pack, wearing his "Harley Jacket"?

Hell's Angels don't ride antique BMWs. And antique BMWs don't roar.
That's part of what I like about this motorcycle.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

A Flying Pigeon ought to be more than enough for anyone. How many even
really need a bicycle?

[Tom Kunich]

I don't believe that Frank ever said that he had a Harley-Davidson. So exactly what additional lunacy from Slocomb is showing his dementia in full roar? Furthermore, Harley's are in pretty large demand world wide without anyone thinking they want to be a Hell's Angel.

The actual Hell's Angels were founded in Oakland by Sonny Barger. Far from an outlaw, Sonny was an author and a movie actor. Most of the other "gang members" were hard working middle class people that had to pay their way just like everyone else. Perhaps there were SOME that used drugs but some people in EVERY social group use drugs. Or haven't you noticed Coke-head Hunter Biden?

I spent several years racing motorcycles - Kawasaki. Does that make me an outlaw gang member? Then I became the safety director for the racing organization. What is that supposed to mean to demented Slocomb who believes that a Grand Jury is an actual court of law and its findings have legal bearing on anything?

I am hardly a friend of Krygowski's and disagree with him on almost every point he attempts to make but I have to admit that Slocomb makes Frank look completely normal.

[Tom Kunich]

I am assuming that you mean the largest manufactured Chinese bicycle and not a bird.

[John B.]

Well, why not a Flying Pigeon? Growing up (many) years ago we rode
U.S. made bikes very similar to the Pigeons - double top tube so you
could easily carry your mate on your bike, Nice fat tires to give a
good ride (which the Gravel guys have rediscovered), not terribly
expensive - my first bike cost my Father $3.00, used.

Single speed for sure but after all does one "NEED" more? The first
guy to ride across the U.S. (and circled the globe) rode a single
speed "penny-farthing" bike.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 21 May 2023 18:03:02 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, I believe that Frank has said that he owns a German made
motorcycle but I didn't accuse Frank of owning a Harley. Did I?

>The actual Hell's Angels were founded in Oakland by Sonny Barger. Far from an outlaw, Sonny was an author and a movie actor. Most of the other "gang members" were hard working middle class people that had to pay their way just like everyone else. Perhaps there were SOME that used drugs but some people in EVERY social group use drugs. Or haven't you noticed Coke-head Hunter Biden?

Errr Tommy! The Hells Angles were formed in 1948, when you were 4
years old. Sonny Barger didn't come along until 1957 (he would have
been 10 years old in 1948 :-) As for being a "good guy" his first
arrest was in 1963 when he was about 25 years old, for possession of
marijuana. He was arrested again on the same charge the following
year, and for assault with a deadly weapon in 1965 and 1966. He was
convicted for Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute
(1973), Conspiracy to transport and receive explosives in interstate
commerce with intent to kill and damage buildings (1988). Aggravated
assault (2003)

And was sentenced to 10 years-to-life imprisonment (1973)
and 4 years imprisonment (1989)

>
>I spent several years racing motorcycles - Kawasaki. Does that make me an outlaw gang member? Then I became the safety director for the racing organization. What is that supposed to mean to demented Slocomb who believes that a Grand Jury is an actual court of law and its findings have legal bearing on anything?

You were the Safety director for the AMA? (American Motorcyclist
Association)

And yet another skill discovered. Funny, you never mentioned any of
this before, isn't it? Faulty memory? Just remembered?

Tommy, you really, truly, are a piece of work.

>I am hardly a friend of Krygowski's and disagree with him on almost every point he attempts to make but I have to admit that Slocomb makes Frank look completely normal.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Radey Shouman]

And people lived for millenia without missing bicycles at all.

[Frank Krygowski]

Pay attention to my third question above: Is this going to bring a
significant improvement in my life?

In my long years of experience, owning a not-heavy bike with multiple
gears brought very significant improvement. It allowed commuting to
work, solo and family touring, lots of pleasant riding with good friends
and other activities that a Flying Pigeon would not permit.

(Those who dispute that are free to describe their own Flying Pigeon
bikes and how they ride them.)

But returning to Andrew's example, there would have been no significant
improvement in my life if I had bought Bianchis instead of Cannondales,
Raleighs, Bikes Friday, etc. There would be no significant improvement
if I now scrapped my bikes for modern carbon fiber bikes with 12 cog
setups.

And broadening that point, there would be no significant improvement if
I switched to the newest advertised toothpaste, pickup truck, vaping
device, cell phone, beer or whatever advertising fans are currently
drooling over.

Fans of advertising are welcome to explain how slavishly obeying
advertising has improved their lives. It should be interesting.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 11:36:01 -0400, Radey Shouman

Nor toilet paper

[Tom Kunich]

The bicycle was invented in the 1890's and became an OVERNIGHT success exceeding even the rapid growth of the smartphone which requires and entire technological support system. Although that moron, Slocomb, will no doubt say differently - the paved road system was invented to make bicycling easier.

[Catrike Rider]

You buy what you want, I'll buy what I want. Whatever reason(s) I buy
what I want is none of your business.

[Tom Kunich]

You've got this all wrong. Despite the Constitution, Frank has the entire right to order you to buy and own anything HE likes and to hell with your rights. How many times does he have to tell you and then tell me that he didn't say that?

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/22/2023 1:11 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> Frank has the entire right to order you to buy and own anything HE likes and to hell with your rights. How many times does he have to tell you and then tell me that he didn't say that?

Show me where I said that, Tom.

Nobody should trust your "memory" of what I said. In fact, nobody should
trust your "memory" of anything else.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

Who is a fan of advertising? I'm a fan of free speech, of which
advertising is one category.

[Tom Kunich]

I too am a strong defender of free speech.

But not sub rosa advertising by paying movie makers to make it appear that a product such as drinking whisky every day is a social norm. It isn't and if such payments are made a warning label that such propaganda is present should be prominently placed on the full screen long enough for slow readers to be able to read and understand. This is less strict than the smoking ads of these types which were entirely banned, saving countless lives. They cannot even advertise cigarettes' on TV anymore and watching old movies makes you instantly aware of the propaganda of the tobacco industry.

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 14:57:20 -0400, Radey Shouman

+1

Actually, I don't see many TV commercials. I very seldom watch
anything live. We record what we want to watch and I can fast forward
through the commercials.

[Catrike Rider]

There's a bit of irony in seeing Krygowky telling people not to
believe everything they see.

[John B.]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 11:36:01 -0400, Radey Shouman

Right! Growing up in a small New England town I don't remember ever
seeing an adult ride a bicycle. Walking to work, yes, but not cycling
to work. Bicycles were for kids!
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Well you USians seem to be a rather dirty bunch. The first U.S.
commercial toilet paper seems to date to 1857, a New Yorker named
Joseph Gayetty introduced and first patented toilet paper while the
use of paper for hygiene has been recorded in China in the 6th century
AD, with specifically manufactured toilet paper being mass-produced in
the 14th century. (:-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 09:16:34 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Err TOMMY!

The first evidence of hard surfaced roads dates to about 4000 B.C. in
the Mesopotamia cities of Ur and Babylon.

The oldest road in the world of which a considerable part of its
original pavement is still preserved is Lake Moeris Quarry Road, in
the Faiyum District of Egypt, dating to the 2500 - 2100 B.C. period

The Romans, beginning in about 230 B.C., built some 50,000 Miles of
hard surface road.

Evidence of a timber paved road has been discovered at the Glastonbury
Abbey, a monastery in Somerset, England. Probably dating to about 700
A.D.

I can go on, if you wish.

But to put it in every day terms... Once again you demonstrate that
"you don't know your arse from a hole in the ground"

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Well, John seems to be. See above: "How else does one learn anything

about a product before buying it."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

You know, in reality Frank's continued self-aggrandizing posting is a
form of advertisement. But rather the selling a product Frank is
"selling" himself. And, of course ignoring the reality that in many
cases he is talking about something about which he is actually
ignorant.

I asked him, once, how he could condemn people shooting at targets as
want-to-be military and he said he'd, "seen a picture".
Well, I came across a picture the other day
https://www.vindy.com/news/local-news/2022/06/youngstown-historical-center-forges-30-years-of-industrial-strength-history/
This is what a collage teacher looks like?
Granted I've not been the States for year but it looks more like some
unemployed stumble-bum. For God's Sake! He doesn't even have shoes.

https://psychcentral.com/blog/grandiosity-and-delusion-grandeur
It’s natural to take pride in your talents, believe in yourself, or
want to feel special.

Grandiosity, however, takes these traits to the extreme.
A grandiose self-image might lead you to:

Believe unique traits and talents set you above everyone else
Consider yourself unstoppable, untouchable, or destined for great and
important things
Have persistent feelings of superiority

... since grandiosity can also be a symptom of certain mental health
conditions, support from a therapist can make a big difference...

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 08:52:10 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

It seems that everywhere Krygowski looks he sees people doing things
he knows for an absolute fact, aren't in their best interest. Being an
all-knowing master of human enlightenment, and the sole keeper of the
rules for life, it's his duty to insist that those naughty individuals
transform themselves into clones of his godlike being, or explain
their refusal.

[John B.]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 04:59:24 -0400, Catrike Rider

Much like the Afro Guy (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

Being Croatian and Austrian Jew, I was brought up being treated as much less than anyone else only to discover as I matured that most of the people doing that were so stupid they didn't even have a reason to do that save to make themselves feel better than they were. Frank is an example of that. But John a far more sterling example.

[Radey Shouman]

He's got a point, don't you think?

I can't imagine any mechanism for eliminating advertising that wouldn't
make life worse for almost everyone. I approve of banning ads that are
demonstrably, factually untrue, but your big objections seem to be to
ads that primarily deal with feelings. Some of those are entertaining.

[Catrike Rider]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 16:05:25 -0400, Radey Shouman

Who gets to decide if an ad is untrue?

[Radey Shouman]

Eventually a law court.

[Catrike Rider]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 17:28:50 -0400, Radey Shouman

Oh, you want the government to do the "banning." I think there's a
law against that in the USA. It's called the First Amendment to the
Constitution.

[John B.]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 16:05:25 -0400, Radey Shouman

It's just another of Frank's fantasies. Or, at least "I" think that
most people can actually make up their own mind which toothpaste that
they want to buy. And, after all, you don't even have to buy tooth
paste... you could brush your teeth using a baking soda-salt mix.

But perhaps Frank's infuriated attack on the advertisement industry is
because he is susceptible to their claims and DID buy the wrong
toothpaste.

And his wife made him go back to the store and buy the correct brand.
Can you imagine the shame and ignominy? Telling the clerk, "My wife
says I bought the wrong brand of toothpaste. Can I exchange it?"
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Well, they do say that, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Perhaps toothpaste is too (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Or useful?
Or persuasive?
Or not?

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[AMuzi]

Maybe.
Most States distinguish between puffery and fraud.

[John B.]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 06:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

And here we had thought that you were a naturally born U.S.
citizen.....

But, as now you have admitted that you are some sort of alien why
don't you just "Go Home"!
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 17:28:50 -0400, Radey Shouman

But what IS "untrue"?

Using Frank's assertions, certainly some cowboys did smoke that brand
of cigarette and it is likely that someone using "that" brand of
toothpaste did find a new boy/girl/other kind, friend (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

A partial point at best. Advertising is fine for letting you know a
particular product exists. It's crappy for giving honest information on
the quality of the product, and even worse for helping you judge how
much, if any, improvement it will make in your life.

> I can't imagine any mechanism for eliminating advertising that wouldn't
> make life worse for almost everyone.

You should pass that point on to those people calling for elimination of
all or even most advertising. (I wonder who those people are?)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Hmm. So we're back to "Nothing can be known. All is mystery. Ommmm...."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 17:28:50 -0400, Radey Shouman

Nope. FTC (Federal Trade Commission) via "truth in advertising" laws:
<https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising>

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Joy Beeson]

On Sun, 21 May 2023 12:03:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Publications like Consumer Reports or Which? or Wirecutter provide more
> objective information.

I read a Consumer Reports article once.

It began by saying that only bikes that cost less than $200 would be
reviewed because lightweight, easy-to-pedal bikes are for people who
like to torture themselves.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[Catrike Rider]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 18:55:41 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 May 2023 17:28:50 -0400, Radey Shouman
><sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Catrike Rider <sol...@drafting.not> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 16:05:25 -0400, Radey Shouman
>>> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Who gets to decide if an ad is untrue?
>
>>Eventually a law court.
>
>Nope. FTC (Federal Trade Commission) via "truth in advertising" laws:
><https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising>

Actually, the FTC has to take their case to court, so Radey was right.

[Rolf Mantel]

No, a law court is not 'government'.

A law court should not be political (even though one political parts in
the US currently are doing everything they can to turn law courts into
political institutions).

Rolf

[Catrike Rider]

https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/the-role-of-courts-in-government.html

[AMuzi]

On 5/23/2023 9:14 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2023 12:03:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Publications like Consumer Reports or Which? or Wirecutter provide more
>> objective information.
>
> I read a Consumer Reports article once.
>
> It began by saying that only bikes that cost less than $200 would be
> reviewed because lightweight, easy-to-pedal bikes are for people who
> like to torture themselves.
>

And the (in)famous Consumer Reports review of three speed
bicycles. The only quality machine, a British made Raleigh
Sports was rated 'unacceptable' as the braking system was
'too responsive'.

Well, given the other crappy examples, the Raleigh was the
only one with a functional setup!.

(nice example of Overton or 'grading on the curve')

[AMuzi]

On 5/23/2023 8:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 17:28:50 -0400, Radey Shouman
> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Catrike Rider <sol...@drafting.not> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 16:05:25 -0400, Radey Shouman
>>> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Who gets to decide if an ad is untrue?
>
>> Eventually a law court.
>
> Nope. FTC (Federal Trade Commission) via "truth in advertising" laws:
> <https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising>
>

And more in the State courts by 'consumer protection' agencies.

[AMuzi]

One might hope.

In fact US Federal agencies, departments, bureaus bring
charges in their own in-house administrative 'courts'.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Nope. All the "independent regulatory agencies" have the ability to
compliance under their regulatory authority. I don't know about the
FTC, but I used to deal extensively with the FCC (federal
communications commission). The FCC orders compliance. If that
fails, they order a "notice of apparent liability". If that fails,
the FCC takes the case to Justice Department for enforcement. If a
fine is involved, the JD enforces collections. The mechanism has a
problem when it costs the JD more money to enforce a fine than they
can collect. That results in some rather astronomical fines for no
better reason than to get the perpetrators attention. Eventually,
there's a settlement for a much smaller fine and possibly a consent
decree. If this sounds like "guilty until proven otherwise", you
would be correct. At various points along the way, the alleged
perpetrator has ample opportunity to respond to the "notice of
apparent liability", make a deal with the FCC or JD, negotiate a
mutually tolerable fine, etc. I don't know if the FTC works in the
same manner, but I suspect it might be similar.

"The Federal Truth in Advertising Law"
<https://smallbusiness.chron.com/federal-truth-advertising-law-54043.html>
"The FTC has the legal power to order an offending ad to be pulled,
assess monetary fines on offending advertisers and to order corrective
ads to be run."

[Tom Kunich]

While that is true, it is very difficult to get ads into an actual courtroom.

[Tom Kunich]

The Constitution does not allow open fraud.

[Tom Kunich]

That was free speech opinion and not fraudulent advertising.

[AMuzi]

+1

[AMuzi]

On 5/24/2023 10:10 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

Really? Where?
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

IIRC that was considered a State matter and State Statutes
addressed it early on. Federal Statutes came later with the
abuse of the Interstate Commerce clause.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/23/2023 10:14 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2023 12:03:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Publications like Consumer Reports or Which? or Wirecutter provide more
>> objective information.
>
> I read a Consumer Reports article once.
>
> It began by saying that only bikes that cost less than $200 would be
> reviewed because lightweight, easy-to-pedal bikes are for people who
> like to torture themselves.

To evaluate that, it would be helpful to have the date of publication
(1960s?) and their exact wording.

I'm not saying CR is perfect. Ditto for the other publications. I've
come across other examples of CR's ignorance regarding bicycles and
bicycling.

But I am saying that such sources tend to be less biased than product
advertisers.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 08:05:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

Perhaps.. I don't know, I just read it from their website

[Tom Kunich]

Simply repeating a law tells you absolutely nothing about its actual use. There is ALWAYS legal options in the USA.

[AMuzi]

Surprisingly maybe, I agree with you. That's a low bar.

Regarding Consumer Reports specifically (not the only
offender) every 'expert' with whom I've discussed the
problem (audio systems, new autos, laundry machines) says
they are self important ignoramuses. Just as they are in
bicycles.

[Catrike Rider]

When a company advertises a good price for a product I want, it causes
me to look into the product. Beyond that, I ignore all forms of
advertisements. As for consumer reports, I ignore them, too. It's too
easy for them to take money under the table.

Bottom line is that everybody who tries to influence, has an agenda.

[Radey Shouman]

Catrike Rider <sol...@drafting.not> writes:

> On Tue, 23 May 2023 17:28:50 -0400, Radey Shouman
> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Catrike Rider <sol...@drafting.not> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 16:05:25 -0400, Radey Shouman
>>> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>

>>>>Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/2023 2:57 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/22/2023 11:36 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>>>> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> something you really need. Publications like Consumer

>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports or Which? or Wirecutter provide more objective
>>>>>>>>>>>> information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Who gets to decide if an ad is untrue?
>>
>>Eventually a law court.
>

> Oh, you want the government to do the "banning." I think there's a
> law against that in the USA. It's called the First Amendment to the
> Constitution.

I've never heard it used as a defense of fraud.

[Radey Shouman]

As they should. However there should be some legal means of sanctioning
outright material lies in advertising a product or service.

[Radey Shouman]

I never indicated any problem with romantically associating cowboys with
cigarettes, or snuff, or anything else. Not too much earlier the big
endorsers seem to have been physicians. Making positive health claims
for cigarettes, on the other hand, seems like it might cross a line.

[Radey Shouman]

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> writes:

> On Tue, 23 May 2023 17:28:50 -0400, Radey Shouman
> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Catrike Rider <sol...@drafting.not> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 16:05:25 -0400, Radey Shouman
>>> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Who gets to decide if an ad is untrue?
>
>>Eventually a law court.
>
> Nope. FTC (Federal Trade Commission) via "truth in advertising" laws:
> <https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising>

The first words from your link:

When the Federal Trade Commission finds a case of fraud perpetrated on
consumers, the agency files actions in federal district court for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
immediate and permanent orders to stop scams; prevent fraudsters from
perpetrating scams in the future; freeze their assets; and get
compensation for victims.

[Radey Shouman]

Any kind of legal action is painful, tedious and very expensive.

[Radey Shouman]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 5/23/2023 4:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/22/2023 2:57 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fans of advertising are welcome to explain how slavishly obeying
>>>>> advertising has improved their lives. It should be interesting.
>>>> Who is a fan of advertising?
>>>
>>> Well, John seems to be. See above: "How else does one learn anything
>>> about a product before buying it."
>> He's got a point, don't you think?
>

> A partial point at best. Advertising is fine for letting you know a
> particular product exists. It's crappy for giving honest information
> on the quality of the product, and even worse for helping you judge
> how much, if any, improvement it will make in your life.

>
>> I can't imagine any mechanism for eliminating advertising that wouldn't
>> make life worse for almost everyone.

> You should pass that point on to those people calling for elimination
> of all or even most advertising. (I wonder who those people are?)

A world with ads is better than a world without, don't you agree?

[Radey Shouman]

Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> writes:

> On Sun, 21 May 2023 12:03:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Publications like Consumer Reports or Which? or Wirecutter provide more
>> objective information.
>
> I read a Consumer Reports article once.
>
> It began by saying that only bikes that cost less than $200 would be
> reviewed because lightweight, easy-to-pedal bikes are for people who
> like to torture themselves.

All sources have their biases. At least with advertising you can guess
what they are.

[AMuzi]

There is.
After a complaint from the State consumer protection agency
(in Wisconsin that's within the Agriculture Department. Why?
no idea.) a suitable answer to dismiss is that the statement
is true. If the facts are still disputed the process moves
along (administrative hearing, possibly a case charged in
court) and as with most Statutes the process is the punishment.

I have no direct experience with Federal false advertising
regulations but I assume similarity.

[Frank Krygowski]

I think it's a strange thing to present as a binary choice. The extremes could be
zero advertising on one hand, and totally unrestrained, deceptive-as-you-like advertising
on the other hand.

Our current situation is, I think, lots of advertising that's OK, plus lots of advertising that's
deceptive and/or manipulative. At the minimum, much advertising promotes purchase of
lots of crap that does a person no significant good. Of course, some people seem to be more
susceptible than others.

I think it's valuable to approach advertising with skepticism. I think a lot of people use
insufficient skepticism. Lottery tickets are a good example of that. Next year's bicycle
design trend (whatever it may be) will likely be another good example.

- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 21:00:13 -0400, Radey Shouman

The reference was about advertisements that were simply untrue, which
is most advertisements. Fraud goes beyond the hyperbolic distortion
that's present in most ads.

[Catrike Rider]

+1

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 21:08:51 -0400, Radey Shouman

Filing for actions in a federal district court is for enforcement
action, not for deciding if the ad was true or otherwise. The actual
decision as to whether the advertisement is a scam is made by the FTC.
The federal district court only rules on whether the FTC followed fair
and proper procedures and whether the prescribed penalty is considered
fair and proper.

"A Brief Overview of the Federal Trade Commission's Investigative, Law
Enforcement, and Rulemaking Authority"
<https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/mission/enforcement-authority>
See the sections on "Administrative Adjudication" and "Enforcing Final
Commission Orders".
"The penalty is assessed by a federal district court in a suit brought
to enforce the Commission’s order."

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 21:14:08 -0400, Radey Shouman
<sho...@comcast.net> wrote:

>A world with ads is better than a world without, don't you agree?

That depends on whether you believe that the government is responsible
for protecting you (and the public) from misinformation, lies, scams
and unfair business practices. In general, the FTC only becomes
involved when the potential fines exceed the estimated investigation
and hearing costs. Minor violations by fly-by-night companies are
generally tolerated. That includes a large percentage of the online
advertisements such as the obvious lies and scams that seem to
dominate YouTube advertising. Whether the "right to lie in
advertising" is beneficial depends on which side of the line the
reader finds beneficial or profitable.

Slight Diversion: In college, I worked for a marketing research
company (that actually was an ad agency) preparing subliminal display
advertisements as part of various ad campaigns. In my never humble
opinion, subliminal ads are the most effective form of advertising.
Except for the most obvious and obnoxious examples, they are totally
unregulated because the rules and laws assume that subliminals don't
work.

[John B.]

We don't seem to have that sort of advertisement here. What is common
is gigantic signs saying, "Drink UmptiUmp Beer!" which from my younger
days seems sort of a waste of time since as I remember it most beer
drinkers were petty set "in their ways" and only drank "their" brand.

I looked up fraudulent adverts and it really does make me a bit
skeptical about "you guys back there". I found that Red Bull was sued
for an advert that said, "Red Bull gives you Wings" and Kellogg had
been sued for an add that read "Mini-Wheats improved "children's
attentiveness, memory and other cognitive functions,"

And I wondered.... who would get up in court and swear that they
really, truly, believed that an energy drink would make them grow
wings? Or that eating a breakfast cereal would improve a child's mind?

And even worse... that a Judge or Jury believed them?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

On 5/25/2023 3:13 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2023 21:14:08 -0400, Radey Shouman
> <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> A world with ads is better than a world without, don't you agree?
>
> That depends on whether you believe that the government is responsible
> for protecting you (and the public) from misinformation, lies, scams
> and unfair business practices. In general, the FTC only becomes
> involved when the potential fines exceed the estimated investigation
> and hearing costs. Minor violations by fly-by-night companies are
> generally tolerated. That includes a large percentage of the online
> advertisements such as the obvious lies and scams that seem to
> dominate YouTube advertising. Whether the "right to lie in
> advertising" is beneficial depends on which side of the line the
> reader finds beneficial or profitable.
>
> Slight Diversion: In college, I worked for a marketing research
> company (that actually was an ad agency) preparing subliminal display
> advertisements as part of various ad campaigns. In my never humble
> opinion, subliminal ads are the most effective form of advertising.
> Except for the most obvious and obnoxious examples, they are totally
> unregulated because the rules and laws assume that subliminals don't
> work.
>

The phrase
> "misinformation, lies, scams and unfair... practices"

describes Federal government better than most businesses.

[AMuzi]

Your average USAian may be no smarter than the advertisers
it seems:

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/personal-injury/warning-wearing-superman-costume-does-not-enable-flight/