Watchlords

I don't think it's realistic to look for the government to make this right. Let's face it: Between trying to get Lance Armstrong to pay back the money he stole and outfitting the Mexican mob with firearms they are stretched razor thin.
The real (though rhetorical) question is why doesn't the Swiss watch industry put the kibosh on Eyal? He's diluting the worth of their brand. After his well-documented (thanks to Koi) slaps to the face of the Swiss industry it is only they who can be blamed for allowing him to remain in the fold. Here I blame DD, the whores at the Basel watch fair, and, no doubt, all the crooks who take his payoffs.

jonnybardo wrote:
I'm not going to lose because I'm not going to play his game.... I don't know the guy from Adam, but what I perceive here is a very angry man, and possibly a delusional paranoid...
and you see the continued attacks and false accusations that I get from folks like TemerityB, can you see why I'd want to change that?

You're not changing dick, Huey, unless you finally figure out how to work the pins on your diaper. Notice the white colored type on my screen name here? I didn't get that with bubble gum wrappers; I had to earn the respect of the members and owners here. In that light, you're in way over your head, rook.

Delusional paranoid? So valid criticism is "paranoia" in your world. Here's a concept: Find a point made that isn't valid, then refute it. Other than that, you're just sticking and running, like a a certain 400-pound Texas turd who ran outta here blowing snot bubbles about a year ago.

Good lord, are you a whiny little know-nothing. Here's what your short and hopefully soon-to-be-over tenure at this blog has been: You're like a subscriber to Motor Trend who gets two issues in the mail, then writes a letter to the editor complaining that ther aren't any Ford Focus and Toyota Yaris on the cover. Hey, you like cars, and your Focus does everything that a Bentley Continental does, so what's the big deal about Bentleys and Porches? Fords and Chevy Cruises run down the same roads they do - forget that expensive stuff and concentrate on MY car - or maybe even used cars!

To continue to be blunt - your criticism of our take on Invicta MAKES YOU a Geek boi on its very face. You openly stood up for a brand on the very same thread is pointed out to clearly rip off its customers. What, did you miss something? Incredible.

Here's one more tip for ya, Pointdexter: Nobody's "attacking" anyone. When a post is as blatantly, incredibly, and woefully ridiculous as your take was, you deserve to be de-pantsed. And your take on this particular topic is amazingly dunderheaded. But even in your later comments, you're stickin' with it, eh?

About two years ago, I got into a big row here with another member over comments about WGs; he thought I was coming on much too strong. Know what we did? We argued it out, right here in the open, and in the end we agreed on some points, not on others. The other member was a real man about it - he came at me strong, and I returned the volleys. In the end, it all worked out - mainly because the man knew what the fuck he was talking about.

You, on the other hand? No proof of that.

:jkom:

DoctorIvey wrote:I don't think it's realistic to look for the government to make this right. Let's face it: Between trying to get Lance Armstrong to pay back the money he stole and outfitting the Mexican mob with firearms they are stretched razor thin.
The real (though rhetorical) question is why doesn't the Swiss watch industry put the kibosh on Eyal? He's diluting the worth of their brand. After his well-documented (thanks to Koi) slaps to the face of the Swiss industry it is only they who can be blamed for allowing him to remain in the fold. Here I blame DD, the whores at the Basel watch fair, and, no doubt, all the crooks who take his payoffs.

It is difficult to understand their passivity over the unabashed rape of their industrys' trademark. On the other hand, if they did wish to take up their cause, on what front would they engage their enemy? Given that U.S. regulatory bodies and law enforcement have been repugnantly flaccid on the issue, perhaps they should spend millions to engage courtesan counsel and litigate the matter in U.S. Federal Courts where they could expect the same.

The problem lies within. We have to keep up the pressure on Congress, regulatory agencies, and relentlessly pursue and expose all of the frauds in the U.S. market; IWG may be the most egregious predator, but, they are hardly alone. I agree that the government is very busy Doc, but retreat? Never. Time to draft reinforcements and keep up the all out assault.

DoctorIvey wrote:I don't think it's realistic to look for the government to make this right. Let's face it: Between trying to get Lance Armstrong to pay back the money he stole and outfitting the Mexican mob with firearms they are stretched razor thin.
The real (though rhetorical) question is why doesn't the Swiss watch industry put the kibosh on Eyal? He's diluting the worth of their brand. After his well-documented (thanks to Koi) slaps to the face of the Swiss industry it is only they who can be blamed for allowing him to remain in the fold. Here I blame DD, the whores at the Basel watch fair, and, no doubt, all the crooks who take his payoffs.

Doc, I agree with much what you said but one consolation is to look at the case against SWI. If the Swiss wins then there is still hope companies like Inshita will be a target as long as people make enough noise about their Swineseness. People just have to keep at it.

jonnybardo wrote:.... he can chase whatever windmills he so desires

Isn't that a TLC song ?

Listen "jonny", until you earn your long pants from Daddy you should probably not try to change the demeanor of a forum that you just joined.

I doubt you can resurrect yourself at this point, I would just creep into the background for awhile because we don't want no scrubs

3Flushes wrote:The problem lies within. We have to keep up the pressure on Congress, regulatory agencies, and relentlessly pursue and expose all of the frauds in the U.S. market; IWG may be the most egregious predator, but, they are hardly alone. I agree that the government is very busy Doc, but retreat? Never. Time to draft reinforcements and keep up the all out assault.

Now, this I like. Don't turn the other way if enforcing a rule is "too hard" - instead, go after 'em armed with facts and the law, then crush them into dust. One company pays the price, others become to scared to join suit. Sounds easy when you think about it. The proof is right there in the watches; take 'em out.

3Flushes wrote:
It is difficult to understand their passivity over the unabashed rape of their industrys' trademark. On the other hand, if they did wish to take up their cause, on what front would they engage their enemy? Given that U.S. regulatory bodies and law enforcement have been repugnantly flaccid on the issue, perhaps they should spend millions to engage courtesan counsel and litigate the matter in U.S. Federal Courts where they could expect the same.

The problem lies within. We have to keep up the pressure on Congress, regulatory agencies, and relentlessly pursue and expose all of the frauds in the U.S. market; IWG may be the most egregious predator, but, they are hardly alone. I agree that the government is very busy Doc, but retreat? Never. Time to draft reinforcements and keep up the all out assault.

The notion that the government might be grown using invicter as an excuse makes my inner libertarian blanch, shudder, and run crying into the corner where it weeps and quakes like a schoolgirl.

A few historical precedents might be helpful: Miss Cleo, the psychic, was brought down by the FTC and pinged by several states attorneys general. ExtenZe was forced to cough up money due to class action and a state attorney general or two. Activia: class action. Airborne: class action with CSPI used as a bludgeon.

A pattern suggests itself.

False advertising cases typically take the form of:
Business to business disputes under the Lanham Act
Suits brought by classes of consumers under state law
Proceedings before the National Advertising Division (NAD), the advertising industry's self-regulatory body
Proceedings brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or by comparable state agencies

Conspicuous by its absence is the US Customs and Border Protection.

The Panamanian couldn't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what NAD says or does which leaves state AGs, State level class action and the FTC.

Florida is possibly the most scam friendly state in the union. Otherwise all these watch "factories" would be in Long Beach instead of Broward and environs. No help from the AG here I would guess.

Class action isn't striking me as viable just yet because most of the fuckees seem perfectly content to be fucked. Any attempt to organize them would result in charges of "hating" and snot bubbles.

In order for FH to bring civil action they would have to show that they were being harmed - pretty solid in the case of Swatch / Hamilton regarding the Stuhrling Ricochet but less clear in the case of Russian Divers which are no longer deceptively marked and the FH rules are lax enough that the remaining models marked "Swiss Made" might very well be compliant. Or compliant enough that the end game is viewed as untenable by the trademark holder.

That leaves FTC which is already sufficiently staffed albeit possibly not sufficiently motivated.

I have a theory as to why sexual predator databases are almost exclusively male and it has nothing to do with adult males being any less active than female adults. It's simply because heterosexual adult females screwing 16 year old high school students results in little more than a very happy 16 year old male who is not only not damaged but may well brag about the experience through the rest of his life.

In much the same way a true WG will enjoy his fucking and brag about on at least one internet forum. He will not be a good target for a class action as it would cut off his nookie.

...ok, so it's a piss poor theory especially when addressing somebody with a background in psych but it does seem to fit the target class rather well. How do you convince somebody a nookie vacuum is good?

TemerityB, the main problem with what you keep saying is that you continue to misrepresent me: NEVER HAVE I DEFENDED INVICTA. Never. All I've done is defend folks that buy/like Invicta as not automatically worthy of derision. They are not the same thing, although the nuance seems lost on you (and it isn't all that subtle to grasp).

I especially like the female high school teacher analogy.

So the demise of such companies has to come from within, and that, the only way my friend is to starve off its revenue streams.

Conjurer, et tu? I give some back to him after he attacks me and that's worthy of a fuck you? Should I just bend over and take it as Temerity continues to misrepresent (or worse, outright lie) about what I've said?

jonnybardo wrote:Should I just bend over and take it...

Exaggerating a bit, seriously there is no need to bend over, at least not all the way

:8YKYHUH:

jonnybardo wrote:Conjurer, et tu? I give some back to him after he attacks me and that's worthy of a fuck you? Should I just bend over and take it as Temerity continues to misrepresent (or worse, outright lie) about what I've said?

Dude, give it a rest. We all read what you originally wrote, and if you'd bothered to read the other members here, the score is like 11-1. Quit while you're behind, little Geekette.

Let me take it a step further: Your original position, particularly in a thread such as this one, was the most idiotic reponse I've read in this forum this year. Deal with it; there's no justifying your stance, not with me and most others who know shit from Shinola. If your panties are in such a bunch over "defending the rights" of IWG buyers, methinks you are an Invica Ryan wearing a WL ball cap - faux from the word go. Oh, and in case you haven't figured it out: Yes, "people who defend/buy IWG" ARE worth of derision. It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it; if you can't deal, peel.

jonnybardo wrote:Should I just bend over and take it...

Why not? If you have ever spent money on A-Low.

jonnybardo wrote:Conjurer, et tu? I give some back to him after he attacks me and that's worthy of a fuck you? Should I just bend over and take it as Temerity continues to misrepresent (or worse, outright lie) about what I've said?

@jonnybardo

Stand your ground. Around here we let things play out which normally means people agree to disagree but each gets to state their positions.

The other option is to put someone on ignore. I am going to remind members about personal attacks on other members. One of the very few rules we have here. Take it to PM.

elau wrote:I especially like the female high school teacher analogy.

So the demise of such companies has to come from within, and that, the only way my friend is to starve off its revenue streams.

Further complicating the desire for the government to do something on our behalf is the issue of puffery.

The Federal Trade Commission has long recognized the defense of puffery.

Nearly fifty years ago, it defined puffery as a "term frequently used to denote the exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined."

The FTC has also generally held that puffery does not warrant enforcement action by the Commission.
...
Certainly, the reasoning goes, ordinary consumers will not believe that a widget marketed as the "Best Widget in the World" really is the best widget on the planet. Rather, we assume that ordinary consumers can be expected to distinguish between those advertising claims of fact and those of (obviously exaggerated) fiction. And once an advertising claim is deemed to fall into the latter category, it is unassailable because (so the reasoning goes) consumers do not believe it.

(quoted link is to an FTC PDF file - bold mine)

Which, if we had a couple lawyers here, could open up an interesting can. What exactly have those masters of verbal sleight of hand actually offered up that wasn't puffery? Certainly the Swiss marked Chinese product but that's history which the FTC won't address.

IMHO puffery would include:
Flame Fusion.
Tritnite.
Eco friendly fresh water mother of pearl.
Bonded at the molecular level.
Patented Swiss gold layering.
"This product would cost ten times more from any other Swiss manufacturer".

They've dropped the "natural" from Sandstone. I don't know where assisting Seiko or working with DD would fall. Part of the problem is that they flit from one actionable piece of bullshit to another quickly enough they're hard to pin. I'm pretty sure we can't attack based on what they used to mark "Swiss" or what they previously called "natural".

I'd like to see their revenue streams cut off but apart from notifying FTC and requesting that they float like a butterfly and sting like a bee I'm not sure where to start.

The FTC? Float like an anchor, sting like a ladybug.

Falstaff wrote:The FTC? Float like an anchor, sting like a ladybug.

Brilliant, but alas, true.

elau wrote:

DoctorIvey wrote:I don't think it's realistic to look for the government to make this right. Let's face it: Between trying to get Lance Armstrong to pay back the money he stole and outfitting the Mexican mob with firearms they are stretched razor thin.
The real (though rhetorical) question is why doesn't the Swiss watch industry put the kibosh on Eyal? He's diluting the worth of their brand. After his well-documented (thanks to Koi) slaps to the face of the Swiss industry it is only they who can be blamed for allowing him to remain in the fold. Here I blame DD, the whores at the Basel watch fair, and, no doubt, all the crooks who take his payoffs.

Doc, I agree with much what you said but one consolation is to look at the case against SWI. If the Swiss wins then there is still hope companies like Inshita will be a target as long as people make enough noise about their Swineseness. People just have to keep at it.

This is what I'm suggesting: AL is greasing the shit out of palms (in a way Lior would never know how). After reading the letter from DD on this forum it is difficult to believe that they would then do business with him. AL, Turd head, and Jim S. are what brought me to WL in the first place. I wasn't a fan of theirs. Far from it. But I was enthralled. Let me be clear: I'm accusing none of them of any wrongdoing here aside from what has been documented. I'm just saying that as I watched them on TV I thought to myself that they are very obviously crooks. And I don't mean salesmen-without-a-moral-compass crooks. I mean they had all the symptoms of every bunko artist I've ever met, and I've met a lot. When Turd head's past was revealed my thoughts about AL were strengthened. What sort of a person hires Turd head to be the public face of his business? Look at The Invicta Pavilion and their stupendous on-location photo shoots. They fairly scream Tony Montana. What are the odds (I wonder to myself) that AL is paying all the taxes he should? Every single thing about this company, from it's mouthpiece to it's South Florida location to it's photo shoots is like a caricature of crime. I had an uncle who was a fairly well-documented member of organized crime. He did a long stint in Lewisburg and always registered surprise that anyone could tell he was mobbed up. The man looked like Central Casting just sent down Mob Boss #1. He didn't see it. AL is no evil genius, because he's no genius. If he has a talent, in my opinion that talent is knowing how to pay people off and having the audacity to act boldly, if foolishly. When somebody here asks "Why pay any attention to Invicta?" the answer, for me, is that I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. Bernie Madoff and Lance Armstrong were accused for years of wrongdoing. Evidence was given and odds were cited insisting on the impossibility of their words being true. Yet for years the naysayers were branded with the exact same tags that the sheeple at WG hurl at us and others. Maybe I'm hopelessly naive but I can't help but think that sooner or later the chickens will go back to Panama to roost.

[quote="Hawk"]

elau wrote:I especially like the female high school teacher analogy.

So the demise of such companies has to come from within, and that, the only way my friend is to starve off its revenue streams.

Further complicating the desire for the government to do something on our behalf is the issue of puffery.

The Federal Trade Commission has long recognized the defense of puffery.

Nearly fifty years ago, it defined puffery as a "term frequently used to denote the exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined."

The FTC has also generally held that puffery does not warrant enforcement action by the Commission.
...
Certainly, the reasoning goes, ordinary consumers will not believe that a widget marketed as the "Best Widget in the World" really is the best widget on the planet. Rather, we assume that ordinary consumers can be expected to distinguish between those advertising claims of fact and those of (obviously exaggerated) fiction. And once an advertising claim is deemed to fall into the latter category, it is unassailable because (so the reasoning goes) consumers do not believe it.

(quoted link is to an FTC PDF file - bold mine)

Which, if we had a couple lawyers here, could open up an interesting can. What exactly have those masters of verbal sleight of hand actually offered up that wasn't puffery? Certainly the Swiss marked Chinese product but that's history which the FTC won't address.

IMHO puffery would include:
Flame Fusion.
Tritnite.
Eco friendly fresh water mother of pearl.
Bonded at the molecular level.
Patented Swiss gold layering.
"This product would cost ten times more from any other Swiss manufacturer".

They've dropped the "natural" from Sandstone. I don't know where assisting Seiko or working with DD would fall. Part of the problem is that they flit from one actionable piece of bullshit to another quickly enough they're hard to pin. I'm pretty sure we can't attack based on what they used to mark "Swiss" or what they previously called "natural".

I'd like to see their revenue streams cut off but apart from notifying FTC and requesting that they float like a butterfly and sting like a bee I'm not sure where to start.


[/quote

Puffery isn't going to help Invicta on much of it's claims. You can say that you're the official soft drink of summer, the best pizza in town, or that your fries are "world famous" but much of what SNBC claims on air could clearly be construed as false advertising. Certainly, you don't want to mess with words like "eco-friendly" nowadays without data to back your claims. This is even more deadly than making health claims about food. Sure, lots of people get away with it because so many do it, but once you get to a certain size you have to look out. Just ask Kevin Trudeau.
Besides, AL's well-documented lies are legion. Everything from DD modules purchased from the source to Granny Lalo inventing the Russian Diver are there for all the world to see. You want to know the truth? I'm half-suspicious those dials aren't even made from real Gibeon meteorite...

DoctorIvey wrote:
Puffery isn't going to help Invicta on much of it's claims. You can say that you're the official soft drink of summer, the best pizza in town, or that your fries are "world famous" but much of what SNBC claims on air could clearly be construed as false advertising. Certainly, you don't want to mess with words like "eco-friendly" nowadays without data to back your claims. This is even more deadly than making health claims about food. Sure, lots of people get away with it because so many do it, but once you get to a certain size you have to look out. Just ask Kevin Trudeau.
Besides, AL's well-documented lies are legion. Everything from DD modules purchased from the source to Granny Lalo inventing the Russian Diver are there for all the world to see. You want to know the truth? I'm half-suspicious those dials aren't even made from real Gibeon meteorite...

I truly hope you're right.

I would also like to think FTC might consider historical fraud given that most people don't crack the case on their Swiss watch upon receipt.

Edited to add:
"Eco Friendly" should be a major mis-step but I tend to wonder if MD saying a thing on a shopping channel would carry the same weight as print or web advertising by IWG? I believe Swatch tried to invoke DVR evidence but I don't know how it went.

Same thing with some of the nonsense uttered at WG - does it constitute advertising on the part of the IWG or merely somebody shooting their mouth off?

If only that 'watch' came equipped with a nice Padauk veneer option. It would make a handsome hip flask

JonnyBardo chill their just watches inanimate objects that have no feelings. Stop acting like their someone's kids. I buy what I like and can afford even if it is Invicta.