View Single Post
  #8  
Old January 24th 04, 11:54 PM
smh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

--------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
Peter R wrote:

What`s the reason for the apparent emnity between these two.Mike always
appears very helpful when a subject is raised.


================================================== ======
Who Is Mike Richter and
Why Are They Saying All These Horrible Things About Him?
================================================== ======

( No pipsqueaks have been able to prove ANY of these is a libel )
( -- despite Mikey's supposed to have proof of misquotes! )

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...mindspring.com
(Messages 23 -- 45)


===============================================
Mike Richter, any Material Connection w/ Roxio?
===============================================

================================================== ================
I'm brand new to all this. What exactly do you mean by lies?


There are too numerous, but some are collected he

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...mindspring.com
(Messages 23 -- 45)


I am missing something in undersanding the info at that link.
What is Mike Richter's connection with Roxio/Adaptec?


That's a million dollar question.

Videoman knew that Mike Richter was JUST a beta tester and NOT WORK for
cRoxio-Acraptec, and that Richter made no secret of that fact - nemerous
times even when such statement was not called for. Yet he asked:

Will you state for the record whether you are or are not
a stockholder/investor in either Roxio or Adaptec?

Why and what prompted Videoman ask the question?

There was NO RESPONSE from Mike Richter, in stark contrast to his piping
in --even when such statement is not called for-- with "just a beta
tester...not work for" drivel that's seemingly oozing out from all his
orifices. Wonder why not.


Relevant to the above question is this:

FTC GUIDES CONCERNING USE OF ENDORSEMENTS AND TESTIMONIALS IN
ADVERTISING

§255.5 Disclosure of material connections.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/endorse.htm

When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of
the advertised product which might materially affect the weight or
credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably
expected by the audience) such connection must be fully disclosed.

An example of a connection that is ordinarily expected by viewers and
need not be disclosed is the payment or promise of payment to an
endorser who is an expert or well known personality, as long as the
advertiser does not represent that the endorsement was given without
compensation.

However, when the endorser is neither represented in the advertisement
as an expert nor is known to a significant portion of the viewing
public, then the advertiser should clearly and conspicuously disclose
either the payment or promise of compensation prior to and in exchange
for the endorsement or the fact that the endorser knew or had reasons to
know or to believe that if the endorsement favors the advertised product
some benefit, such as an appearance on TV, would be extended to the
endorser.
================================================== ================