So basically there is no need for acourt dateandvalid evidence should not be presented by both parties?

Todd1700,

Again, back to the inapplicable car example.

What I am really shocked by is the amount of people who favor this lawsuit over hunting clothing.

It's largely a question of scale. It used to be that a great deal of religious symbols, prayers, and
other religious invocations were interwoven into the public sphere. And you know what, no one
rarely bothered to question or sue over those types of matters. But now everything is litigated
to death and thus every prayer at graduation is attacked as some kind of constitutional crisis.
I guess now, we'll be hearing 2nd Amendment defenses over the right to say that a piece of clothing
gives you an edge in hunting a four legged mammal. It's just silly that's all.

Todd, it's pathetic that everytime someone "lies," you are advocating running to the courthouse.

This thread is like a poorly shot deer in diminishing light, slowly walking away from you.......WHY WON'T IT DIE ALREADY!

It may come to that. Would sure save Scentlok a lot of embarrassement and legal fees. Science is the only "valid evidence" in reactivation of carbon. It can't be debated. Can you imagine Scentlok bringing out their "experts". "I saw a deer while wearing the stuff and my neighbor did too. It has to work." OR, " I don't care what Calgon, Chemron, and Siemens' chief scientists or chemistry booksstate about reactivating carbon, they just say that it has to be heated at high temps as they like to spend $$ foolishly." Science doesn't apply to "our carbon." Our carbon breaks all of the rules when it comes to science."

It is coming to that. I thought you knew.

What I believe what YOU are refusing to accept is that both sides believe they can with this with the evidence they have.

I would reserve judgement until hearing both sides.

Like I said, depending on the judgement, I may buy some. (not an owner now).

No one is debating a constitutuional issue. This is not some case ofa overly sensative person taking offense at seeing a cross in public or having to hear a prayer. It's a simple straightfoward fraud case. Are you advocating that fraud is okay? If so just stand up and say it loud and proud.

Nope, only when that lieconstitutes libel, slander or fraud. In this case it's fraud. If somebody wants to lie about how many fish they caught last week that's an entirely different and fairly harmless matter.

Well said Todd.

I have heard both sides; hence making my judgement.

Personally, I wait for court date after everything is put on the table.

Not me I wasted a whole day fishing that spot