Derek lied:
> On 7 Sep 2005 12:16:08 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> >Derek lied:
> >> On 7 Sep 2005 11:29:38 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >> >Derek lied:
> >> >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:24:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> [..]
> >> >> >Standard commercial law means that if a package says
> >> >> >"100%" anything, it must be true.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then all those non-cruelty and 100% animal free and
> >> >> friendly goods on the supermarket shelves are telling
> >> >> the truth?
> >> >
> >> >As far as saying they don't contain animal parts (to the best of the
> >> >producers' knowledge) and were not *directly* tested on animals,
> >> >probably so. That's a weak claim, though.
> >>
> >> I rang Tescos a while ago
> >
> >No, you didn't; you're lying again.
>
> The argument remains the same whether I'm lying or not.

No, it doesn't. Tesco wouldn't make such a claim even if you did call
them, which you didn't. Thanks for admitting you lied.

The nature of markets and business is such that firms, on average,
cannot get away with lying; especially relatively small firms in
competitive markets, when those firms are trying to establish a name
that the public will treat as synonymous with quality. If you opened
Derk's Grass-Fed Butcher Shoppe, we'd know that you're lying, because
you have no name to protect.