RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

There are those who do buy items based onthe manufacturers specifications and details. There are laws to protect the consumers, so I canunderstand their purchases based on them. I don't believe there is any reason to ridicule them for that.

You have made your claim and it seems if people don't accept your opinion as final, then it's time for some ridicule. But maybe I misunderstood your "sticking your head in the sand" comment to mean something that it was not meant to be.

FWIW, I have never owned any scent eliminating garment, but depending on the outcome of this case, I may.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Sorry missed that one,or I don't remeber reading or responding to it. I don't ask questions I know the answers to.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

I do not believe Scent-Lok works and I am sort of happy they are being questioned. Activated carbon takes high temps of 800 degrees to reactivate it, there is no way their suits can handle that sort of heat.

I am not sure why it took so long to sue but it was inevitable.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Hey BobCo, not ridiculing but the info is out there, and people here and on other forums just sit here and say that they saw deer while wearing it,REFUSINGscienceand choosing make believe instead.Just do a google on reacivation of carbon. I have even called upcompanies that use carbon in their business's and specialize in using and reactivating carbon and asked them whether or not carbon clothing could possibly be reactivated in a homeowners' dryer. They just laugh and say no way.


http://www.chemvironcarbon.com/en/reactivation

http://www.water.siemens.com/SiteCol...on_q_and_a.pdf

http://www.onionenterprises.com/nws_June99.pdf


Here is the lawsuit for those interested.

http://www.skinnymoose.com/ALSLawsuit.pdf

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

The point of this thread is not to debate for the 5,000th time if Scent-Lok works, it is to debate
whether it is a matter that should be left to the individual consumer or if people should file a
lawsuit over a piece of clothing. I don't have my "head in the sand" - I was commenting
specifically on the propriety of filing a suit.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

So Don....the scientist from NC State is a fraud?He said the home dryer could handle the task. I think we're choosing to believe what we want....on BOTH sides......but to say one scientist is incorrect and another isn't.....isabove my expertise.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

You are being intentionally ridiculous. That is quite obviously just a spokesperson using a "Figure of Speach". No reasonable human with an undamaged brain could honestlytake from that statement that Waddell is claiming that this camowill grant actual literal invisibiity. It is completely different however to make a straight foward comment like "Just throw the scent-lok suit inyour dryer for 30 minutes and it will be reactivated". That's not a figure of speach. That's not an attempt at humour. That's a lie.

And you are trying to use a technicallity to dodge the example. The point being that a car company would not be excused for false advertising so why should a hunting related clothing company? But hell, I'll give you an even better example that relates exactly to activated carbon clothing. What if Ford sold you a car that quit working a week after you bought it.So you call them and they tell you another lie about how to get your car working again. Later you discover theyknew that the car would stop working rather quickly and they also knew there was actually no way to ever get it working again. Would you let them slide on that deal and just go buy another new car?

You do know that it is a complete and utter myth that any scientist has ever said that a helicopter or a bee should not be able to fly?

Call Calgon Carbon Corporation or Chemviron Carbon and tell them that the multimillion dollar equipment they use togenerate temps of 1000 plus degrees inthe literal vacuum environment required to reactivate carbon is no longer needed. Tell them all they need is a 500 dollar Lady Kenmore dryer from Sears to accomplish the same task. When they get through laughing at you, come back here and post what they say to you.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

I don't post comments often, but at times I find some topics of great interest, with that being said.

Defendants have uniformly misrepresented to consumer that their "innovations would not only eliminate 100% of human odor but, could be reactivated or regenerated in a household dryer after becoming saturated with odors (Fallacious statement of itself). This is the premisses of the Law suit not that it may have worked for some and not others.

This is the focal point of the law suit and I can see where each side of the forum is having polemic debate thereof. Those who choose and have purchased the suits and have some success be it the suit or not, and those who had no success at all have their ostentatious beliefs it’s not practical according to the slogan(s), or the very little amount of carbon the suit bares in it’s eliminating abilities to lure in consumers.

I take no sides, but find it amazing that there’s so much polemic debate about ALS vs the consumer of a product that may have aided others, and misrepresented a majority few who acted upon it’s own advertisement. We know the Tobacco industry has been through it, yet people still make the purchase after the numerous law suits it faced.

Again after litigation of such case giving, a settlement will be reached, no Company wants bad press and I assure you ALS will change it’s wording, advertisement etc. and continue to do business with those consumers who choose to have their ostentatious beliefs thereof. As the consumer we learn lessons everyday about any particular product and it’s marketing, advertisement and yet many still make such purchase as they see fit. "What’s good for me, may not be good for you" and vise vera we all want that edge, and many will pay the price to achieve such so be it I say.. My aphorism Choose your own Poison!

I see many acquisitions made by both sides of this forum, one that protects the product and one that never used or has no interest in such. However the key here should be focused on the Marketing and the Advertisement it utilized to misrepresent, defraud etc. as the said Law Suit mentions by Minnesota Law.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

I dont think it is 100percent but I think it helps give you a slight edge

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Yea. If he is claiming carbon can be reactivated in a homeowners' dryer.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

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

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

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.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

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

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

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." :eek: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."

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

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).

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

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.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Well said Todd.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

I have heard both sides; hence making my judgement.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

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

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Not me I wasted a whole day fishing that spot;)

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Here is the phone number 1-800-422-7266 of Calgon Carbon Corporation. You scent lok defenders go on ahead and call them. Tell them what idiots they are for wasting millions of dollars on the equipment they are using to reactivate carbon. Tell them that the guys at scent-lok told you all they needed was a Lady Kenmore from Sears. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya! :D

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Seriously you need to realize that people are buying this crap product based on those "lies". They are being dupped. I have a hard time believing that you can't believe they are being sued.

Todd brings up very valid points. Your the one going off on a religiousdiatribe that makes no sense what so ever.

Your comments lead me to believe that you feel that because suckers are born ever minute (they are) that a companies motto should be to "Find each and every one".

Those companies have misrepresented their product and twisted science.

Tom

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

I don't understand why many of you arepoliticizing this issue. It seems its more about who's right and who's wrong.

There aremany products out there that do notwork as advertised as some have already mentioned. For example, I have a friend,we will call him John, who purchased a penis pump a few months ago. The advertisementclaims the pumpwould increasethe size of his penisby 25%. Well I--err John, has yet to see any results. Upon further investigation John has found scientific evidence that the penis pump does not work. Why is the penis pump stillaround if it is proven scientifically not to work? My only answer is that it must be working for someone.

It all comes down to consumer choice.We all have the right to choosewhat wewant to purchase. I am glad I have the opportunity to choose if the products like stink lok or the penis pumpwill work for me, I mean John.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

OMG!

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Because who would like to be the poster boy suing the penis pump industry. Could that be you BDC? LOL.

Tom

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Wow, I read through fourteen pages of this thread and just see the same thing. People who use ScentLok/ScentBlok and think it work and those who don't. I don't use these carbon suits and don't like some of the advertising practices, but I don't believe a lawsuit is the best method. I've been involved with lawsuits both personally and professionally (companie that I worked for), and don't wish that on anyone, except the worst of the worst, which I don't believe Scent Lok is.

I believe the poster who said it would never get to court is probably correct. I have been involved witha dozen lawsuits over the years, and I never have seen one that wasn't settled before a court date, even when one of the parties knows absolutely that they are right. And countering a suit is an expensive proposition.....even if you are right, you lose in the end.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

You would have to ask John that question. LOL

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

What's funny is.....even if the SL comapnies win their suit....by proving their case....there will STILL be those who pawn it off as "snake oil".

Watch.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

And if they find that it is a load of crap; there will still be believers.
Watch.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

BINGO!!! You beat me to it.[8D]

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

I won't be one of them, KP. I'll jump ship right here in public.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

statjunk,

My "religious diatribe" is very relevant. It is simply an example to highlight the highly litigious nature of
our society. Why should all the answers be found in courts? You mean to tell me that 40 years ago
people would sued over hunting clothes? Oh, let me guess, you would naively believe there was no
creative/deceptive marketing back then.

I am not the one who thinks a sucker is born every minute, you are the one with the condescending
attitude who thinks that the "poor little consumer" is just helpless and stupid and can't make up
his own mind about how to spend his money.

Why are you so worried about what other people do with their money?

I'm done arguing with people who can so passionately argue about a frivolous suit.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

When I worked at the archery shop Scent Loksent us a piece of the fabric. We poured perfume in a jar and placed the fabric over the top.
You couldn't smell the perfume through the fabric. As the days went on and the fabric got saturated with the fumes of the perfume you could start to smell it through the fabric. We took the fabric off put it in the dryer then placed it back on the jar. Guess what, You couldn't smell the perfume through the jar again. So did the dryer reactivate the carbon or not? It made me a believer but I also know that the odds are if a deer gets down wind it will smell you period! But I think it helps enough that a deer may not be able to pick up the scent strong enough to get spooked.
It isn't a matter of bashing on somebody because they use or don't use the product. And if I didn't get a good deal on mine (free) I may not buy any with my own money. I killed lots of deer before this stuff came out!

Darrall

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Well then…

If someone were to prove, you know, scientifically, that the earth was more than ten thousand years old, and that there was never a huge flood that covered the lands (well you know, not in the last ten thousand years, where did all that water go again?) and also prove that we didn’t spawn from one single pare of hominids; would you jump off of the Christianity ship?

I think that's a fair question.

KP

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

I thought "faith" and "testimonials" had no place in this argument?

I'm trying to play by the rules set forth by the nay-sayers.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

see now thats were i disagree...i use it and love it

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Tap dancing at its finest…
I didn’t say anything about faith, or testimonials. Go back and read the question. Should I end my hypothetical situation with “…in a court of law”?

KP

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Here ;)

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

hahahaha.... i have to skip the post and read the next... I cannot ever understand it.:D

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

KP:

If you have something to ask me about my faith....I'll answer it via PM. If it's about this particular thread....I'll do so, here.