[soundhaspriority]

I guess I screen so much of this out, I tend not to take note of it.. If
that is the situation, it's not right. But as in the college catalog case,
one is not necessarily required to specifically identify material as
advertising in order to gain protection from fraud-based complaint. I
believe the legal standard is whether a normally intelligent person would be
able to make the distinction.

Is this the case with Rochlin's site?

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Robert said:

All this is as puzzling to me as it would be to someone hearing it for
the
first time. If Mr. Rochlin's activities are not sanctioned by everyone on
the personal level, the courts have endorsed much or all of it as one of
the
primary engines of Capitalism -- advertising. According to capitalists,
encouragement of consumption is vital to prosperity.

I think Jute's point was that Rochy doesn't present his plugs as adverts,
but rather as (impartialish) reviews. If he's just a shill, his role
should
be made clear.

I don't trust any review anymore. My standards have become too internal
for
that. Perhaps you, too?

Sad to say, squawking about shilling is a behavior evinced most often by
the Audio 'Borgs.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day radiation poisoning.