Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Dyson is in the news frequently and so a dedicated thread.

.

Hello DIB:

Thanks for posting.  Very interesting ruling.  First, an observation on your post above:  You impugn the ASA and the expert vacuum industry witness with the same names as you do for those who have said the same here in the past [anti-dyson].  Facts and truth are anti-falsehoods. Not anti-[supply your own favorite name brand].  Where one stands depends on where he/she sits!

I fully concur with the ASA ruling.  If I can summarize the major findings: The ASA upheld Electrolux'es claim that the suction of the Intensity is 50 percent greater than a dyson DC14 [when the Electrolux bag needs changing].  But...and this is the biggie...Electrolux'es conclusion that it deep cleans better [as a result of the suction] was overruled by the ASA.  Why?  Electrolux did not provide sufficient data to prove the conclusion.

Of note:  Electrolux is the company that makes the EUREKA Boss Smart vacuum [bagged] which makes the claim that it outcleans a dyson DC07 by 60 percent.  Also the same company that claims it produces the first recycled vacuum. 

Also of note: The ASA did not concur with the validity of the claim that dyson is the leading upright in the UK [dyson claimed it is a reference to dyson and hence the reason for the complaint].  Instead the ASA said it did not collect and review current UK vacuum sales data to verify the claim.  Recall dyson had only 28 percent of the UK vacuum market in 2007.  ASA implies that another vacuum brand may be the leader, not dyson.

ASA held Electrolux to a high standard for its claims: Cleans deeper and more intensely [than presumably a dyson to which it is compared].  ASA wanted proof to substantiate the claims!  No longer giving a pass as just sales puffing. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

I would recommend you go back and re-edit your post for truthfulness and accuracy.  I have suggested and/or said in past posts that others here were bias, anti-Dyson, but never drunks. - A forum search will prove I have never said this as you say.        DIB 

Hit a nerve, did I?  They say the truth hurts.  See why? 

No need for me to edit/change/word smith.  I specifically quoted the name you most often use to impugn posters here in brackets in my original post [anti-dyson].   And for your benefit I elaborated further on the notion that truth and facts are NOT anti-any particular name brand save errors and falsehoods.  Surely, you have the maturity, wisdom and wherewithal to accept and comprehend the veracity my statements.  

There is an old school saying:  If the shoe fits, wear it!!  This shoe fits you like a glove.  

Carmine D.

Carmine,

If I need a lesson in truth taught by condescending maligners, you’re the man.  If I need a lesson on bad-mouthing and lying of the good - again, you're the man.  You will have to excuse me, but I will be sidestepping your freak show.        DIB

This is not about me.  I didn't post the ASA ruling and couch with a question that has a pre-conceived notion.  And ask for readers' comments in support of that notion.  I responded and said sorry guy.  I agree with the ASA.  Nothing new here.  I have been saying the same since 2002 about dysons.  Nothing new too is the response to the ASA ruling by DIB.  [MOTOR must be feeling the guilt twinges].   The infamous anti-dyson label. 

The above facts are self-evident to any one with a grade school IQ/education.  But, make no mistake about it DIB and MOTOR.  If you want to go toe to toe on this with me, rather than cut your losses, then take your best shots.  I'll thrust and parry with you both.  No problem.  This time I got the ASA in my corner. 

But you watch and see how quickly Mike W. locks this thread.  Blame whoever you want for it's demise, but the bottom line will be the end for this dyson thread.  I can live very well with that end.  Can you?

Carmine D.

Dusty:

I said [read it] DIB resorted to the same tact with the ASA [name calling] as he uses for all posters who say the same as the ASA [anti-dyson]. 

Calling the ASA [and the expert industry witness] anti-dyson is malicious and imputes evil motives.  Is that what DIB is saying about the ASA?  The ASA is malicious and has evil motives?  That sounds to me like DIB is calling the ASA's ruling and opinions into question.  He's saying they are not based on truth and facts but prejudice.  Come on Mr. Word Smither.  This is a grade school level lesson!

Not the same as calling the ASA drunks, which BTW DIB never did.  He asked readers whether they are or not?  As one would say to another:  What are you drunk?  Readers can laugh at this comment, even I suspect the ASA.  Because it's used for hyperbole: To make light of something and be funny! 

DIB emphatically calls the ASA anti-dyson.  That is no laughing matter.   It's not funny.  It's a demeaning and libelous label.  And a basis for the ASA, in its role as a neutral industry arbitrator, to consider legal action. 

Carmine D.

Hi Dusty and Motorhead,

Thanks for the support.  Like I proved Carmine wrong when he was maligning Mr. Dyson and claiming he stole and/or strong armed a small time inventor when this inventor posted here that he was infringed on over the DC15.  I do not remember seeing Carmine reverse his stance or signal any sort of regret of this false stance and malign (he brought zero proof, and only mud slinging).  Enough of Carmine, I have been watching the ASA for some time and their involvement in the Hoover U.S. v. Dyson counter suit.  I have on file a Bloomberg news report on this lawsuit and have been putting all the pieces and timeline together of how Hoover’s $627,600,000 claimed damages against James in a false advertising lawsuit.  Some here say Hoover was not hurt by James but Hoover believed it was.  The ASA had a huge role in ending Dyson’s “No Clogging” claim here and in the UK and maybe eleswhere too (at least for now) and bringing this lawsuit to a settlement.  It is big business and it’s ugly.  The ASA may or may not be able to tweak their adjudications much, but they can certainly delay the release of a ruling which can help Hoover U.S./UK and hurt Mr. Dyson big time.      DIB

P.S.  Carmine, there is no need to re-interpret my posts, my linked documents or news stories.  We are all grown ups here and need not have your personel translation, tweaks and spins on said docs, reports and posts.  Due your own homework, and quit sponging off of and spinning mine.

The current ASA ruling is clearly and cogently based on the facts and evidence presented in the case [read: the truth].  It is in no way, shape, or form anti-dyson, as claimed, IMHO.  I've stated my reasons above. 

Furthermore, as I said, if the ASA is anti-anything, as is claimed, it is anti-false and misleading advertising claims by product makers.  This is it's stated and approved authority and mission.  All the aggrieved parties whether complaintants and/or defendants, agree in advance to accept the ASA decisions as the final rule making authority.  They do so knowing that there is no further recourse for appeal after the ASA.   This presupposes that all the parties have the maturity, wisdom, and wherewithal to accept and comply with the ASA rulings [without resorting to name calling before/after]. 

Carmine D's Law:  Where one stands, oftentimes depends on where he/she sits.  The proof is self-evident.

Carmine D.