Michel Fortin › Comments

"Were there any "myths" you busted that never made it to air (i.e., they were edited out or cancelled by Discovery Channel or the producers)? If so, what were they?" - Michel Fortin

"Antone, I agree with you that this is smart business up to a point. For example, that's why many associations exist. But you nailed it when you said: "Agreeing to a pricing scheme and taking products off the market during other launches to reduce competition." I'm far from being a lawyer, but this is exactly what appears to be happening, here. But let me add another viewpoint... You said it's no problem if they join together to "time their product releases." That's probably where it starts to fall apart, because these are not releases. They are not even product launches, for that matter. They are close-ended sales events. They are deliberately priced high, and taken off the market after a period of time (often, through faux scarcity), to make room for the next "launch du month." The goal? To siphon as much money from the market as possible. Whether this is actually legal or not is arguable, and by arguable I mean in a court of law. But it does appear to be unethical -- at least, to..." - Michel Fortin

"Antone, I agree with you that this is smart business up to a point. For example, that's why many associations exist. But you nailed it when you said: "Agreeing to a pricing scheme and taking products off the market during other launches to reduce competition." I'm far from being a lawyer, but this is exactly what appears to be happening, here. But let me add another viewpoint... You said it's no problem if they join together to "time their product releases." That's probably where it starts to fall apart, because these are not releases. They are not even product launches, for that matter. They are close-ended sales events. They are deliberately priced high, and taken off the market after a period of time (often, through faux scarcity), to make room for the next "launch du month." The goal? To siphon as much money from the market as possible. Whether this is actually legal or not is arguable, and by arguable I mean in a court of law. But it does appear to be unethical -- at least, to..." - Michel Fortin

"Antone, I agree with you that this is smart business up to a point. For example, that's why many associations exist. But you nailed it when you said: "Agreeing to a pricing scheme and taking products off the market during other launches to reduce competition." I'm far from being a lawyer, but this is exactly what appears to be happening, here. But let me add another viewpoint... You said it's no problem if they join together to "time their product releases." That's probably where it starts to fall apart, because these are not releases. They are not even product launches, for that matter. They are close-ended sales events. They are deliberately priced high, and taken off the market after a period of time (often, through faux scarcity), to make room for the next "launch du month." The goal? To siphon as much money from the market as possible. Whether this is actually legal or not is arguable, and by arguable I mean in a court of law. But it does appear to be unethical -- at least, to..." - Michel Fortin

"Excellent article, Ray! Well said." - Michel Fortin

"Excellent article, Ray! Well said." - Michel Fortin

"Excellent article, Ray! Well said." - Michel Fortin

"Dan, Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. Excellent post, sir. And I'm glad you're back, too. I was getting DobermanDan Dee-tees. ;)" - Michel Fortin

"And many of these questions are close-ended. By asking you a close-ended question (and forcing you to answer it, which they can by asking the judge), they also close any chance of giving context or elaboration. They skillfully do so to lead the witness, manipulate the answer in their favor, or influence the jury's perception. It's like when a lawyer asks you this type of question, and you attempt to explain or try to give it context before you do answer, or even answer with "it depends," they stop you and say "Yes or No, Mr. Haas. Please answer the question!" How can you work around that? You simply can't. Yup, damned if you do, damned if you don't." - Michel Fortin

I like how the jury can be instructed to disregard a statement, but once they've heard it, it is going to influence them regardless of instruction to the contrary. - Trina L.C. Sonnenberg

"And many of these questions are close-ended. By asking you a close-ended question (and forcing you to answer it, which they can by asking the judge), they also close any chance of giving context or elaboration. They skillfully do so to lead the witness, manipulate the answer in their favor, or influence the jury's perception. It's like when a lawyer asks you this type of question, and you attempt to explain or try to give it context before you do answer, or even answer with "it depends," they stop you and say "Yes or No, Mr. Haas. Please answer the question!" How can you work around that? You simply can't. Yup, damned if you do, damned if you don't." - Michel Fortin

"And many of these questions are close-ended. By asking you a close-ended question (and forcing you to answer it, which they can by asking the judge), they also close any chance of giving context or elaboration. They skillfully do so to lead the witness, manipulate the answer in their favor, or influence the jury's perception. It's like when a lawyer asks you this type of question, and you attempt to explain or try to give it context before you do answer, or even answer with "it depends," they stop you and say "Yes or No, Mr. Haas. Please answer the question!" How can you work around that? You simply can't. Yup, damned if you do, damned if you don't." - Michel Fortin

"Ryan, I agree. But while I can't speak for Carlon, I think I understand what he's trying to say. The issue is not about questioning something, which is good and healthy. It's about using questions to make assertions indirectly in an almost passive-aggressive way -- not to state an opinion but downplay and even berate the opinions of others. Questions are the basis of progress and civilization. If we didn't question, we wouldn't have philosophy -- or philosophers -- who changed the world through the power of questions. BUT... While I agree with Jesse Ventura that there's nothing wrong to ask questions, I think it's better to debate something you are questioning rather than using questions to mask your true intent -- which is to denigrate and condescend, or manipulate and quash other dissenting opinions (by not making an outright statement). Or even advance one's own agenda. Like politics, for example. ;) It's like Carlon who said, "Dude…just give me your point so I can shoot it down...." - Michel Fortin

"Ryan, I agree. But while I can't speak for Carlon, I think I understand what he's trying to say. The issue is not about questioning something, which is good and healthy. It's about using questions to make assertions indirectly in an almost passive-aggressive way -- not to state an opinion but downplay and even berate the opinions of others. Questions are the basis of progress and civilization. If we didn't question, we wouldn't have philosophy -- or philosophers -- who changed the world through the power of questions. BUT... While I agree with Jesse Ventura that there's nothing wrong to ask questions, I think it's better to debate something you are questioning rather than using questions to mask your true intent -- which is to denigrate and condescend, or manipulate and quash other dissenting opinions (by not making an outright statement). Or even advance one's own agenda. Like politics, for example. ;) It's like Carlon who said, "Dude…just give me your point so I can shoot it down...." - Michel Fortin

"Ryan, I agree. But while I can't speak for Carlon, I think I understand what he's trying to say. The issue is not about questioning something, which is good and healthy. It's about using questions to make assertions indirectly in an almost passive-aggressive way -- not to state an opinion but downplay and even berate the opinions of others. Questions are the basis of progress and civilization. If we didn't question, we wouldn't have philosophy -- or philosophers -- who changed the world through the power of questions. BUT... While I agree with Jesse Ventura that there's nothing wrong to ask questions, I think it's better to debate something you are questioning rather than using questions to mask your true intent -- which is to denigrate and condescend, or manipulate and quash other dissenting opinions, by not making an outright statement. Or even advance one's own agenda. Like politics, for example. ;) It's like Carlon who said, "Dude…just give me your point so I can shoot it down...." - Michel Fortin

"Excellent post. Yes, lawyers do this very well. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" question. And, if answering the question either way can be incriminating, you can plead the fifth (unless you have a smart enough lawyer to object to the line of questioning, since it's leading the witness). Problem is, pleading the 5th amendment makes you look guilty in the eyes of the jury no matter what -- they think, "What has he got to hide?" This was certainly the case with O.J. Simpson. Sure, Mark Furhman was racist, and it was proven that he is. When asked if he tainted the blood evidence, he pleaded the 5th. Problem is, the prosecuting lawyers were just as much douchebags because they didn't object -- or the judge was, if he allowed the line of questioning if the prosecutors DID object. In the end, it added just enough "reasonable doubt," along with the "if the glove don't fit" theatrics, by the defense to get a murderer off scott-free. Excellent post as always, Carlon." - Michel Fortin

"Excellent post. Yes, lawyers do this very well. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" question. And, if answering the question either way can be incriminating, you can plead the fifth (unless you have a smart enough lawyer to object to the line of questioning, since it's leading the witness). Problem is, pleading the 5th amendment makes you look guilty in the eyes of the jury no matter what -- they think, "What has he got to hide?" This was certainly the case with O.J. Simpson. Sure, Mark Furhman was racist, and it was proven that he is. When asked if he tainted the blood evidence, he pleaded the 5th. Problem is, the prosecuting lawyers were just as much douchebags because they didn't object -- or the judge was, if he allowed the line of questioning if the prosecutors DID object. In the end, it added just enough "reasonable doubt," along with the "if the glove don't fit" theatrics, by the defense to get a murderer off scott-free. Excellent post as always, Carlon." - Michel Fortin

"Excellent post. Yes, lawyers do this very well. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" question. And, if answering the question either way can be incriminating, you can plead the fifth (unless you have a smart enough lawyer to object to the line of questioning, since it's leading the witness). Problem is, pleading the 5th amendment makes you look guilty in the eyes of the jury no matter what -- they think, "What has he got to hide?" This was certainly the case with O.J. Simpson. Sure, Mark Furhman was racist, and it was proven that he is. When asked if he tainted the blood evidence, he pleaded the 5th. Problem is, the prosecuting lawyers were just as much douchebags because they didn't object -- or the judge was, if he allowed the line of questioning if the prosecutors DID object. In the end, it added just enough "reasonable doubt," along with the "if the glove don't fit" theatrics, by the defense to get a murderer off scott-free. Excellent post as always, Carlon." - Michel Fortin

"FANTASTIC!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you. It's about time, too. ;)" - Michel Fortin

"Erin, here's an interesting take on this... http://www.entrepreneurs-journ.../" - Michel Fortin

"Erin, here's an interesting take on this... http://www.entrepreneurs-journ..." - Michel Fortin

"Erin, here's an interesting take on this... http://www.entrepreneurs-journ..." - Michel Fortin

"Erin, here's an interesting take on this... http://www.entrepreneurs-journey.com/2641......" - Michel Fortin

"Erin, here's an interesting take on this... http://www.entrepreneurs-journey.com/2641......" - Michel Fortin

"Kevin, you missed my point. "Hunting" may be considered immoral to a vegan or vegetarian. Not to everyone. And that's my point -- morality is different for everyone, as Ryan pointed out." - Michel Fortin

You are paid to write copy, not a product review. You choose your clients, and that is where responsibility ends IMHO. If you don't like the product, you don't take the job. - Trina L.C. Sonnenberg

"That's what happens when you touch-type and respond very quickly, without editing, lol!" - Michel Fortin

"Kevin, you missed my point. “Hunting” may be considered immoral to a vegan or vegetarian. Not to everyone. And that's my point — morality is different for everyone, as Ryan pointed out." - Michel Fortin

"Kevin, you missed my point. "Hunting" may be considered immoral to a vegan or vegetarian. Not to everyone. And that's my point -- morality is different for everyone, as Ryan pointed out." - Michel Fortin

"Kevin, you missed my point. "Hunting" may be considered immoral to a vegan or vegetarian. Not to everyone. And that's my point -- morality is different for everyone, as Ryan pointed out." - Michel Fortin

"That's what happens when you touch-type and respond very quickly, without editing, lol!" - Michel Fortin

"That's what happens when you touch-type and respond very quickly, without editing, lol!" - Michel Fortin