Kayaks or sort of.

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.

John Edwards is gonna be lookin' for work after tonight. I hear tell
he's damn good at that sort of thing.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"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.

I use to take care of some Charles River rats. They were second generation
cesarian delivered rats, After the first experiment they were to be
disposed of. Some we took to a snake farm where they made treats for
rattle snakes the size of stove pipes.
We tested several batches to find out if rats can swim without there
wiskers, Have you ever tried it??

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"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

"B J Conner" wrote in message
...
I use to take care of some Charles River rats. They were second
generation
cesarian delivered rats, After the first experiment they were to be
disposed of. Some we took to a snake farm where they made treats for
rattle snakes the size of stove pipes.
We tested several batches to find out if rats can swim without there
wiskers, Have you ever tried it??

Nope. Why were you interested in whether or not they could swim without
their whiskers?

Wolfgang

"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