Kayaks or sort of.

"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.

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:36:37 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"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.

Well, of course! A bunch of soused lab rats that can't reset the pins are
likely to get all surly, start gnawing on staff and have to be put down...

/daytripper (happens all the time ;-)

"daytripper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:36:37 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"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.

Well, of course! A bunch of soused lab rats that can't reset the pins are
likely to get all surly,

It ain't so much the intoxication as it is the morning
after.......surly?......sheesh!

start gnawing on staff and have to be put down...

I guillotined six of 'em this afternoon.

/daytripper (happens all the time ;-)

Well, actually, about once a week, on average.

Wolfgang
long about the time ya yank the brain out, it's pretty obvious who gets the
best laugh.

"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

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"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.

Yep, that IS an important detail. And, as I said, I don't have a problem
with your family suing the manufacturers of the boat. Nor, for that matter,
do I have any illusions about what my opinions on the matter should be worth
to you. However, callous as it may sound under the circumstances, if I were
afraid of water and a poor swimmer I don't think I would have put their
claims to the test. For anyone with a personal connection to this event,
even a connection as tenuous as a cyber friendship, it is of course a
tragedy, one of countless such tragedies that occur all over the world every
day. Obviously, the vast majority of us have no connection whatsoever
(beyond a shared humanity) with most such events. When we ARE connected, I
think it is instructive to ponder on how we react to similar situations when
we are not.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"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.

Yep, that IS an important detail. And, as I said, I don't have a problem
with your family suing the manufacturers of the boat. Nor, for that
matter,
do I have any illusions about what my opinions on the matter should be
worth
to you. However, callous as it may sound under the circumstances, if I
were
afraid of water and a poor swimmer I don't think I would have put their
claims to the test. For anyone with a personal connection to this event,
even a connection as tenuous as a cyber friendship, it is of course a
tragedy, one of countless such tragedies that occur all over the world
every
day. Obviously, the vast majority of us have no connection whatsoever
(beyond a shared humanity) with most such events. When we ARE connected,
I
think it is instructive to ponder on how we react to similar situations
when
we are not.

Well and delicately worded, Wolfie, and for the record, (strange as it
seems), your opinions actually do matter to me. And my family and I decided
not to sue the manufacturer because of your specific reasons: dad had a
large responsibility to be accountable for himself. If I didn't have so much
experience in boats, I might not be so acutely aware of the share of
responsiblity that he had.

I contacted the owner directly, and got him to promise to make changes to
his website: all passengers in rapidly moving boats must have PFDs on, all
children in any boats must have PFDs on, no fishermen are standing and
casting in small boats unless the boat is grounded, and a large safety
message is linked to his page outlining that self-responsibility boatowners
have. He adhered to our agreement for about a year, then slowly started
slipping the old pictures back in....

--riverman