Kayaks or sort of.

"Frank Reid" wrote in message

Its intriguing. If anyone would like, send me one and I'll put it
through its paces for a year or two.
Frank Reid

There's a pretty obvious joke in there somewhere. I'll leave it to Choc or
Vang to add some suitable imagery.

bruce h

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:19:11 -0800, "bruiser"
wrote:


"Frank Reid" wrote in message

Its intriguing. If anyone would like, send me one and I'll put it
through its paces for a year or two.
Frank Reid

There's a pretty obvious joke in there somewhere. I'll leave it to Choc or
Vang to add some suitable imagery.

Joke? Hell, this is a sure-bet financial gold mine a' happening!

We pool some money, buy a really fat policy, and wait for the inevitable!

/daytripper
(Sorry Frank. Nothing personal, but an opportunity is an opportunity ;-)

daytripper writes(of Reid's kayak idea)

this is a sure-bet financial gold mine a' happening!

We pool some money, buy a really fat policy, and wait for the inevitable!

are you suggesting that someone would be gullible enough to underwrite such a
policy?? Cripes! I figure his wife has to take out special riders on the
policy to get homeowner's coverage.
At any rate, should Frank like to motor his way through Penn's in May, I will
wait for the inevitable, down by the whirlpool behind the Sportsman's Club,
rope in hand. I feel an obligation to be ready to rescue the guy, just to hear
the story afterward!! Should he take it out on the inner harbor, they could
probably charge extra for the window seats at Phillips, just for the
entertainment value.
Tom
P.S. Man, if we could pony up for a couple of these puppies, we could have
river races replace the Orange Caddis rodeo at Penn's. Imagine the fun, the
challenge of zipping up and down stream around the various submerged objects:
rocks, logs,
Dave LaCourse and suchg!!!!

this is a sure-bet financial gold mine a' happening!

We pool some money, buy a really fat policy, and wait for the inevitable!

are you suggesting that someone would be gullible enough to underwrite
such a
policy?? Cripes! I figure his wife has to take out special riders on the
policy to get homeowner's coverage.
At any rate, should Frank like to motor his way through Penn's in May, I
will
wait for the inevitable, down by the whirlpool behind the Sportsman's
Club,
rope in hand. I feel an obligation to be ready to rescue the guy, just to
hear
the story afterward!! Should he take it out on the inner harbor, they
could
probably charge extra for the window seats at Phillips, just for the
entertainment value.

SPLORK!

MAAAAA! They're makin' fun of me again. Facts is facts, who better to test
out the unsinkable? A boatload of passengers on the Titanic who's families
have their own stable of high-dollar barristers or me?
--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

"daytripper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:19:11 -0800, "bruiser"

wrote:
Joke? Hell, this is a sure-bet financial gold mine a' happening!

We pool some money, buy a really fat policy, and wait for the inevitable!

/daytripper
(Sorry Frank. Nothing personal, but an opportunity is an opportunity ;-)

Hmm...not so far from the truth. My father drowned out of a boat almost
exactly this size two years ago. He believed the advertising that showed
someone standing up and fishing in it, and although he was afraid of the
water, he didn't have a life jacket and when he stood up to test the
stability (he was seen from shore), the boat shot out from under him and he
went in. Took 10 days to find his body.

Check out the similarity of these two pictures. One if from this 'Mokai'
boat, the other is from the boat dad drowned out of.

http://www.mokai.com/gallery.htm (bottom row, third picture in)
http://www.seaeagle.com/motormount/SE6.asp (picture in top right, as they
rotate through).

Neither guy has a life jacket, both are stand-up casting, both are in
ludicrously tiny boats. Anyone want to sponsor me in a lawsuit, I'll split
it 50-50. If this advertising isn't negligent, not much is.

--riverman
(My apologies for bringing in the sober side of this.)

In article , riverman
wrote:

Anyone want to sponsor me in a lawsuit, I'll split
it 50-50. If this advertising isn't negligent, not much is.

I'm shocked. "Wicked" is the word - in the old sense. Really, really
bad.

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
om...
In article , riverman
wrote:

Anyone want to sponsor me in a lawsuit, I'll split
it 50-50. If this advertising isn't negligent, not much is.

I'm shocked. "Wicked" is the word - in the old sense. Really, really
bad.

With all due commiseration for Myron's loss, it is hard for me to understand
how any normal adult can be unaware of the inherent danger in standing up in
small watercraft, regardless of what a manufacturer may claim for a product.
It is particularly difficult for me to grasp why anyone who is afraid of
water (and thus, presumably, a poor swimmer at best) would do so without a
PFD.

I don't doubt that some sort of legal action might be undertaken
successfully against the manufacturers and/or whoever else may be
responsible for portraying such an activity as being safe. Frankly, I don't
have much of a problem with it either. But it does raise some interesting
ethical and common sense issues. Just how much responsibility should
manufacturers or promoters of products and activities that are inherently
unsafe, to one degree or another, assume? Does anyone really believe that
adults need to be warned about the risks associated with sky diving,
smoking, hot coffee, pyrotechnics, running across flaming coals, wading in
streams, guns, electricity, hypothermia, or a virtually endless list of
other hazards? Well, yes, of course they do. And they are right.....to a
certain extent. Some dangers are not so obvious. Others are unmistakable.
In fact, most of the things that kill people or cause grievous bodily harm
are not mysterious secrets.

If anyone can find a way to suck a few million dollars out of McDonalds,
Microsoft, GE, Phillip Morris, GM, etc., I say more power to 'em. It
appears that the majority of Americans agree with this stance, and there can
be no doubt that many a jury has. But no one should labor under the
misapprehension that winning a damage award necessarily validates a specific
grievance from a moral point of view.

Wolfgang

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:19:17 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
news:020320042219395749%lazarus@stonecurlewfilms. com...
In article , riverman
wrote:

Anyone want to sponsor me in a lawsuit, I'll split
it 50-50. If this advertising isn't negligent, not much is.

I'm shocked. "Wicked" is the word - in the old sense. Really, really
bad.

With all due commiseration for Myron's loss, it is hard for me to understand
how any normal adult can be unaware of the inherent danger in standing up in
small watercraft, regardless of what a manufacturer may claim for a product.
It is particularly difficult for me to grasp why anyone who is afraid of
water (and thus, presumably, a poor swimmer at best) would do so without a
PFD.

I don't doubt that some sort of legal action might be undertaken
successfully against the manufacturers and/or whoever else may be
responsible for portraying such an activity as being safe. Frankly, I don't
have much of a problem with it either. But it does raise some interesting
ethical and common sense issues. Just how much responsibility should
manufacturers or promoters of products and activities that are inherently
unsafe, to one degree or another, assume? Does anyone really believe that
adults need to be warned about the risks associated with sky diving,
smoking, hot coffee, pyrotechnics, running across flaming coals, wading in
streams, guns, electricity, hypothermia, or a virtually endless list of
other hazards? Well, yes, of course they do. And they are right.....to a
certain extent. Some dangers are not so obvious. Others are unmistakable.
In fact, most of the things that kill people or cause grievous bodily harm
are not mysterious secrets.

If anyone can find a way to suck a few million dollars out of McDonalds,
Microsoft, GE, Phillip Morris, GM, etc., I say more power to 'em. It
appears that the majority of Americans agree with this stance, and there can
be no doubt that many a jury has. But no one should labor under the
misapprehension that winning a damage award necessarily validates a specific
grievance from a moral point of view.

Wolfgang


The last product I designed has a 3v coin cell battery, about the size of a
stack of three US quarters. We had to put a label over the battery with the
international "do not eat this" pictograph - otherwise we had to include the
moral equivalent of an EIS in 16 different languages...

/daytripper (pre-emptive engineering: it ain't all skittles and beer ;-)

"daytripper" wrote in message
...


/daytripper (pre-emptive engineering: it ain't all skittles and beer ;-)

WARNING!: Skittles and beer have been shown to be deleterious to laboratory
animals.

Wolfgang
and they ain't atkins friendly, neither.

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...


I don't doubt that some sort of legal action might be undertaken
successfully against the manufacturers and/or whoever else may be
responsible for portraying such an activity as being safe. Frankly, I
don't
have much of a problem with it either. But it does raise some interesting
ethical and common sense issues. Just how much responsibility should
manufacturers or promoters of products and activities that are inherently
unsafe, to one degree or another, assume? Does anyone really believe that
adults need to be warned about the risks associated with sky diving,
smoking, hot coffee, pyrotechnics, running across flaming coals, wading in
streams, guns, electricity, hypothermia, or a virtually endless list of
other hazards?

I agree with your assessment, except for one important detail. SeaEagle in
particular specifically advertised that their boats were so safe that you
could stand up in them and fish without fear of falling overboard. Its one
thing to assume that the public knows more than it does. Its another to
actually misrepresent something to enhance sales. If they merely showed the
pictures and said nothing about it, that would be a different matter. This
is probably the difference between the two advertisements.

--riverman