My favorite disclaimer......

!!!! WARNING !!!!

This program has the capability to melt any engine. The user assumes all
liabilities for any damage to any property, personal or public. The author
assumes no responsibilities for any damage. Don't blame me. How did you get
this program anyway? If you damage your car, you shouldn't have been left
alone with this program in the first place. Don't sue me because I should have
known you were stupid. That would just prove my point. Good Luck!

THIS PROGRAM IS FOR OFFROAD USE ONLY !!
Copyright Nothing-Better-To-Do-Software 1999

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Steve, very simple. If the 10% (again, as EdsB52 said-an arbitrary figure)known contain the essential elements of the situation, you can keep piling on superfluous arguments to equal 90% but THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS AND ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO MAKE THE JUDGEMENT. However, I obviously didn't make that clear because your example had nothing to do with fact, it had to do with a poll. My contention only is referring to a case with factual elements. Now I agree if we aren't presented with the essential facts then the judgement can be wrong. My point is that once you identify the key elements--assuming they are protrayed accurately--I don't care what the rest of the details are. So what happens in many cases like this is, yes, the 10% DOES represent the whole, and the 90% is excuses, blaming others, etc. So considering that, EdsB52, woa, that's NOT good. What was good, though, was the "pop-tort reform". Got a chuckle out of that. And I'm for people being able to avail themselves of "DUE process", but there are plenty of clear cases of people trying to avail themselves of "UNDUE" process. These are the cases that are so obvious that I am referring to only needing a FEW simple facts to decide (the "10%")and not needing to hear the rest of the excuse, finger-pointing, whining, and jibberish to follow.

If 10% of the facts are not representative of the whole, then we never get to the other 90%, which relegates the superfluous contention void. 10% is 10%, we need all of the information before we can convict or exonerate.

"Now I agree if we aren't presented with the essential facts then the judgment can be wrong. My point is that once you identify the key elements--assuming they are portrayed accurately--I don't care what the rest of the details are."

That's the problem here, we got a brief summary that may or may not have even occurred. Sometimes cases are decided by details. Besides, let's let the judges admit or reject these 'details,' and if admitted, allow the juries to establish how much weight they place on these details. In any jury trial the judge is the finder of law and the jury the finders of fact.

"And I'm for people being able to avail themselves of "DUE process", but there are plenty of clear cases of people trying to avail themselves of "UNDUE" process. These are the cases that are so obvious that I am referring to only needing a FEW simple facts to decide (the "10%")and not needing to hear the rest of the excuse, finger-pointing, whining, and jibberish to follow."

I agree that there are many people trying to steal undue (good one) process, but should we summarily obstruct others that might have legitimate cases to ensure the phonies don't get their day? In other words is more harm done by allowing the phonies to ensure the legitimate have due process, or is more harm done by strictly pre-screening all of the cases that might sound frivolous and run the risk of precluding due process to legitimacy? Honestly, there are no 'obvious cases.'

Here's an actual case in my jurisdiction for which I recently watched the civil trial. I'll give it to you in media format. Three cops shoot to death two unarmed Arizona teens, details at 11. Everyone clear about the facts? I sure am. That's about 10% of the facts and it's actually accurate. With that, why don't we all post conclusions as to who's at fault criminally or civilly? I'm serious, post why you think the cops should be criminally prosecuted or exonerated and why. Then, post why the cops should be civilly sued successfully and why. Then I'll give you the rest of the details and we'll see how far off we are with our predictions. And Steve, if you know the details as you probably do, don’t give it away.

[This message has been edited by EdsB52 (edited 07-31-2001).]

I should have been more clear and put "the facts" in parentheses to show I was referring to the SO-CALLED facts.

Here's the problem:

1. I hear the REAL facts of a case.
2. My bias makes me not like the obvious conclusion.
3. Since I refuse to accept the obvious conclusion, I go searching for more facts but find none.
4. So now I start taking non-facts--excuses, "mitigating circumstances", other "factors", etc.--and start presenting them as FACTS. I keep finding more and more of them to try to DISTRACT people from the REAL facts, attempting to obscure or bury the ESSENTIAL, REAL facts among all the made up "facts".
5. I can't get many people's focus off the GENUINE facts with my made-up, manipulated "facts", so I accuse those people of "JUST NOT GETTING IT". In fact, they really do get it, but I keep accusing them of just not getting it, and if they were as smart or open-minded as I was, they would get it.
6. There are STILL people I can't distract from the real facts, so I just CONTINUE and CONTINUE to pour out VOLUMES of irrelevant information, hoping that by sheer repetition and volume I can distract others.
7. I try to justify these actions by "wanting THE WHOLE truth" to come out, instead of being honest and admitting that yes, these are the REAL facts, but due to my bias we should ignore them and focus on these non-issues so the outcome will go my way.
8. I try to develop a system where I can get SOMEONE ELSE to PAY for the opportunity to do this, but under the NOBLE guise of wanting equal opportunity for all.

There's the plan. How does it work? Pretty well if you are EdsB52. That is what I was referring to by him being consistent in his posts. Check this thread out, then compare it to other threads he has been in where others disagree with him.

My Dad slept in a fox hole on Christmas Eve in the Ardens forest in 1944 next to his tank so that Ed can say whatever he wants, and so can you, and so can I.

To censor anyone is un-american. To clamp down on lawsuits blindly is wrong.

america is based on the idea that people will rise up and we hope for and expect the best from everyone. That means we have to be patient and longsuffering when someone is wrong, and hope in the end we all reach the promise land together.

if you dont like what Ed posts, then dont read his post.

if you want to censor anyone then

BITE ME!!!!

Hey Ken, I don't want to censor anyone, so I'm going to decline on your offer to bite you.

Censorship happens all the time, just to varying degrees, including by yourself. So to blindly repeat the "anti-censorship mantra" is thoughtless.

It's not a matter of personally not liking EdsB52's posts, it's letting his method of operation go unchallenged, which happens all the time in our society.

Hey, Ken, if you don't like my posts do one of two things, would you? One, don't read them (your advice to me). Or two, read them, disagree, and then tell me to bite you, OK?

Finally, I am greatly appreciative of what your father did.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: 1. I hear the REAL facts of a case.

What makes you think that what we have heard about this case are the complete and total facts? Does any one have a copy of the court filings? Or are you just trusting that you have been provided with the complete story?

Steve, nothing in this particular case. The points I have been making were more of a general way to approach a case or situation.

And regarding whether I have been provided with the complete story, or accurate facts, again in general principle if it comes from "the news media"--no absolutely not.

I was going to reply to this but my son wants a Pop-tart. It's a cherry frosted one.

Oreif, you may want to borrow the fire extinguisher from the fiero before putting it in!

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: I should have been more clear and put "the facts" in parentheses to show I was referring to the SO-CALLED facts. Here's the problem: 1. I hear the REAL facts of a case. "I saw on the news this morning where this lady dropped her pop tart in the toaster and left it while she drove her kids to school. When she got back, her house was on fire. So, she is going to sue Kellogs for making pop tarts and Black and Decker for making toasters. I wonder if her opening statement would be---"Oh, I am not an idiot for leaving a heating appliance turned on while no one was at home. It is everyone elses fault, not mine." These are the real facts? Media initiated facts that were heard and related by someone with extreme bias. Even if they are 100% factual they don't allow for these little details in which someone was referring. Details that might absolve the manufacturers or civilly implicate them. If you ever brief a case, you'll review the Facts, Issues, Reasoning, and Decision (opinion and dissent). Of course that has more to do with appellate cases than trial level ones, but this may very well end up in appellate court. The point I'm making is that hearsay through a Fiero club generated by some sleazy media source is not considered reliable by any standard. 2. My bias makes me not like the obvious conclusion. No, my objectivity makes me search the objective truth. 3. Since I refuse to accept the obvious conclusion, I go searching for more facts but find none. No, most of the time I do find more facts, however it may or may not change my opinion of the outcome. 4. So now I start taking non-facts--excuses, "mitigating circumstances", other "factors", etc.--and start presenting them as FACTS. I keep finding more and more of them to try to DISTRACT people from the REAL facts, attempting to obscure or bury the ESSENTIAL, REAL facts among all the made up "facts". I didn't mitigate anyone’s actions in this case. I might have proposed hypotheticals to fill in the voids of what little information we do have and qualified them merely as such. 5. I can't get many people's focus off the GENUINE facts with my made-up, manipulated "facts", so I accuse those people of "JUST NOT GETTING IT". In fact, they really do get it, but I keep accusing them of just not getting it, and if they were as smart or open-minded as I was, they would get it. If you're going to run smack, you shouldn't misquote people. We have no certifiable facts, so the rest of your rhetoric is just ramble. 6. There are STILL people I can't distract from the real facts, so I just CONTINUE and CONTINUE to pour out VOLUMES of irrelevant information, hoping that by sheer repetition and volume I can distract others. Sounds like your concession speech. 7. I try to justify these actions by "wanting THE WHOLE truth" to come out, instead of being honest and admitting that yes, these are the REAL facts, but due to my bias we should ignore them and focus on these non-issues so the outcome will go my way. How dare me, wanting to hear the whole truth like that. You probably subscribe to the notion that juries only be present during opening arguments and summation. 8. I try to develop a system where I can get SOMEONE ELSE to PAY for the opportunity to do this, but under the NOBLE guise of wanting equal opportunity for all. Equal opportunity is highly overrated, right? X. There's the plan. How does it work? Pretty well if you are EdsB52. That is what I was referring to by him being consistent in his posts. Check this thread out, then compare it to other threads he has been in where others disagree with him.

I love all the attention. You're prompting others to spend their day reviewing my long-worded posts, I should make you my agent!

You see this little button at the bottom, ?

It is there for a purpose.

Not trying to flame you...yet your posts are not wordy...just REPLYING w/QUOTE ( ) and then requoting them again is your argument making your posts seem longer but more importantly, annoying.

I will not get into the argument regarding this persons, what I believe as a "frivilouse" not to mention "pointless" lawsuit from a product liablity standpoint as I deal with the insurance and bogus claims as it is and can state their case will not go anywhere in a court of law as the person themselves showed neglect of responsibility.

------------------

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: My Dad slept in a fox hole on Christmas Eve in the Ardens forest in 1944 next to his tank so that Ed can say whatever he wants, and so can you, and so can I. To censor anyone is un-american. To clamp down on lawsuits blindly is wrong. america is based on the idea that people will rise up and we hope for and expect the best from everyone. That means we have to be patient and longsuffering when someone is wrong, and hope in the end we all reach the promise land together. if you dont like what Ed posts, then dont read his post. if you want to censor anyone then BITE ME!!!!

Three cheers for your dad and I hope he is still happy and well. Not to diminish in any way the efforts and sacrifices of the soldiers in the Viet Nam, Korean, Gulf, or all other wars since WWII, WWII was the last war based on legitimate freedom from opposing forces that could have eliminated our brand of freedom as we know it in our homeland. All honest, brave soldiers are heroes, but that war (needless to say) was the only war not based on some fruitless political agenda. I recently did a report about the South Pacific theatre of WWII and lost all pity I may have had for Japan after being pelted in Tokyo with conventionals for months, and then punctuated with Little boy and Fat Man. As Germany was invading Poland (1939), Japan was majorly F'ing with the US and China at the same time. Japan stole the Marianas from Germany in about 1919, who had just bought them (Saipan) from Spain 20 years prior. Then Japan went on a rampage and took just about the entire South Pacific region. Three days after they bombed Pearl Harbor, they took Guam, which was and still is a US territory. You ask why are the Marianas important? The Enola Gay and Boxcar were launched from Tinian, an island in the NMI (Northern Marianas Islands), 100 miles North of Guam and 20 miles South of Saipan. An interesting factoid is that in, I believe August of 44, the two aforementioned bombers were launched and dropped their load three days apart. It was obvious to all that even before the first nuclear bomb was dropped, that Japan was going to fall. If there were any doubts at that point, they were dashed by the first bomb. So two days after that first bomb at Hiroshima, a day before the last was dropped, Russia declares war on Japan. And we were afraid of Russia in the cold war? What a political piece of crap perpetuated by political America to further the manufacturing of war toys and to make a few people rich. Russia has done little substantial in the area of war outside their country, and zip outside their continent. We gave them most of the armament they had in WWII. Kind of spoiled the show when communism fell in the former U.S.S.R. for the politicians who wanted to keep the war machine running.

Who is it, Brokaw or one of those other news anchors that wrote the book, "The Greatest Generation?" Well, he was absolutely right when he referred to people born in the teens and twenties as the greatest generation that contributed to the war effort. I have always said that if I could change the year I was born, I would choose 1920. Thank your dad for me Ken.

EdsB52, just keep replying. That makes my point even better than what I keep saying.

Ed, there is more then enough contradiction in most of your posts that obviously keeps you entertained and not to mention on a majority of everybodys "hate lists" that we may have.

In my last paragraph/response, I wasn't going to get involved and/or go into as indept of detail as you have and get into the argument. I just stated my view of the situation and my "brief" opinion. There is a difference that once again, you failed to see. POST AWAY and quote me if you wish.

------------------

quote Originally posted by JSocha: Ed, there is more then enough contradiction in most of your posts that obviously keeps you entertained and not to mention on a majority of everybodys "hate lists" that we may have. In my last paragraph/response, I wasn't going to get involved and/or go into as indept of detail as you have and get into the argument. I just stated my view of the situation and my "brief" opinion. There is a difference that once again, you failed to see. POST AWAY and quote me if you wish.

You wrote;

"Ed, there is more then enough contradiction in most of your posts that obviously keeps you entertained and not to mention on a majority of everybodys "hate lists" that we may have."

Well point out the contradictions then. Don't reply that it's not worth your time; you've come this far. Am I on people's hate list? Then you make a another assumption; you contend everybody has "hate lists," when you write, 'everybodys "hate lists."' I believe that most people in this forum do not have a hate list, especially one that is comprised of other forum members. There you go again, you take a few percent, or in this case a fraction of 1% and make it representative of the whole. This forum has 2,800+ registered members. How many of them at any time have espoused hate toward me? And of those, how many still have a problem with me? And of those, how many have a "hate list?" Do you see how we end up with less than 1% of the members possibly naming me on their "hate list?" For now, I believe you're the only one in this forum with a "hate list," and you comprise approximately .0357% of the PFF membership. If others have "hate lists," please come forward so we can adjust the numbers to reflect a factual representation. Furthermore, if I'm on that "hate list," please indicate so, so we can adjust those numbers if necessary.

Then you wrote;

"In my last paragraph/response, I wasn't going to get involved and/or go into as indept of detail as you have and get into the argument. I just stated my view of the situation and my "brief" opinion. There is a difference that once again, you failed to see. POST AWAY and quote me if you wish."

Actually there is no difference, you're pregnant or you're not; you're involved in the conversation or you're not. What you meant when you wrote that was that you wanted to interject a brief opinion statement without anyone rebutting it.

The two most prevelant posts (as it sounds from just this area there are many others, more then you care to recognize) and if I recall you were the one that almost lost the rest of us this forum based on your insults, bad comments, persistance, etc. especially the comments directed at Cliff.

You better recalculate your numbers because they are more then definately skewed. You really want me to spend a day and find more links? I can and I would be more then happy to take this weekend if necessary to point out both the good and the bad. However, as of late, I spend most of my time here in OT and have seen a couple of other members post regarding your a**anine behavior. They can assist if they wish.

Also, you may want to check with your doctor and surgen about having that "Lambodomy" that is long overdue on you performed. Because by the sounds of it and how you retaliate towards people, you more then likely would get your a** kicked at a social gathering, if not by me, potentially by somebody else (either on this forum or in general at any social meet). You apparently do not know where to draw the line but just persist on egging people on.
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum5/HTML/000064.html
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum5/HTML/000064-2.html

This may or may not be my last response to you, period. Figured I better make that point clear for you.

Ed,

You mentioned a clothes dryer and a lamp. These are appliance that are designed to be left unattended. To me, a toaster is not an appliance that is designed to be left unattended while in operation. If you left your iron on is Sunbeam liable? I don't think so. I would have to agree this law suit seems stupid unless there are other extraordinary circumstances involved.

quote Originally posted by JSocha: The two most prevelant posts (as it sounds from just this area there are many others, more then you care to recognize) and if I recall you were the one that almost lost the rest of us this forum based on your insults, bad comments, persistance, etc. especially the comments directed at Cliff. You better recalculate your numbers because they are more then definately skewed. You really want me to spend a day and find more links? I can and I would be more then happy to take this weekend if necessary to point out both the good and the bad. However, as of late, I spend most of my time here in OT and have seen a couple of other members post regarding your a**anine behavior. They can assist if they wish. Also, you may want to check with your doctor and surgen about having that "Lambodomy" that is long overdue on you performed. Because by the sounds of it and how you retaliate towards people, you more then likely would get your a** kicked at a social gathering, if not by me, potentially by somebody else (either on this forum or in general at any social meet). You apparently do not know where to draw the line but just persist on egging people on. https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum5/HTML/000064.html https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum5/HTML/000064-2.html This may or may not be my last response to you, period. Figured I better make that point clear for you.

I lived in N.D. while on an assignment at Grand Forks AFB for a few months, and in defense of the locals, I didn't find a lot of illiterate people up there. So I will infer you are not representative of your community. What in the hell is this sentence trying to illustrate?

"The two most prevelant posts (as it sounds from just this area there are many others, more then you care to recognize) and if I recall you were the one that almost lost the rest of us this forum based on your insults, bad comments, persistance, etc. especially the comments directed at Cliff."

Remove the parenthesis and words within and it reads;

"The two most prevelant posts and if I recall you were the one that almost lost the rest of us this forum based on your insults, bad comments, persistance, etc. especially the comments directed at Cliff."

You are aware that a sentence should be consistent without the contents of the parenthesis, aren't you? Now you're speaking for the rest of the forum again. The part that really disturbs me is that you're trying to revisit some dark days of this forum, and for that I think you're pretty desperate.

You then wrote;

"You better recalculate your numbers because they are more then definately skewed."

I would be glad to recalculate my numbers if I get more data; people writing in to inform me that they have a hate list, and whether I'm on it or not.

Then:

"You really want me to spend a day and find more links? I can and I would be more then happy to take this weekend if necessary to point out both the good and the bad."

No, do not take away from your school time! Actually, if you want to you may, but it won't be current data. If you want to find the history of people that were hostile to me/I was to them, then you can do it that way. But if you want current numbers you must appeal to the members now.

Here's the gem;

"Also, you may want to check with your doctor and surgen about having that "Lambodomy" that is long overdue on you performed."

You mean surgeon. If I had a surgeon I don't think he would perform a "Lambodomy." I think I would go to a veterinarian for that if I were a lamb in need of one, or if I had a pet lamb in need of one.

Then:

"Because by the sounds of it and how you retaliate towards people, you more then likely would get your a** kicked at a social gathering, if not by me, potentially by somebody else (either on this forum or in general at any social meet)."

Now you're inferring violence? Why is it that whenever a person gets intellectually frustrated they turn to violence? Besides, you don't know me, my speaking or fighting abilities. You don't know my size, not that it's the sole determiner of victory, or my stature. I could be 6'8", 300lbs, and solid for all you know. Steve knows otherwise! Face it; you're clueless and now you're frustrated so you turn to Neanderthal means to attempt a win, and the sad thing is that you're prompting others to join your pitiful march and no one is. If you want to turn this around, do some research about the original matter of this thread, support it with documents, and write your argument. If your argument is more convincing than others, or if it is the unanimous argument, then you win. You’ll excuse me if I don't keep the computer on while I wait.

quote Originally posted by EdsB52: "I saw on the news this morning where this lady dropped her pop tart in the toaster and left it while she drove her kids to school. When she got back, her house was on fire." Come on Steve, what could possibly be ommitted here?! Sounds Prima Facie to me. The many traffic tickets I fight have 100,000 times more detail than this.

I admit, it is hard to think of what may be missing here that would make this a more legitimate sounding lawsuit. The only thing I can think of was what I had posted before about the mother getting distracted and forgetting the Pop-Tart and I don't see that as being anyone's fault. I was thinking about "frivolous" lawsuits in general and writing about one in particular.

In the infamouse (spelling, since Mr. Grammer and/or the Proper English Police is here tearing apart everybody's posts, including mine) words of Beavis and Butthead, A**wipe!"

Since your an aircraft mechanic, you may want to repair the propeller on your beanie hat as it isn't spinning at full operating potential.

Grand Forks AFB, huh? Explains a majority of your rambling as I typically found most people (ie, BASERS) that I met from the GFAFB most illiterate, uneducated, agressive, argumentative (for no good reason or another) and/or neanderthalic (again, excuse my spelling Mr. English) just to name a few. The only logical conversation that they could carry on at any given time was about killing somebody or pulling "G's".

Come to think about it, they knew how to piss me off and/or rub me the wrong way as well. Must be par for the course in your training. Or were you just born an a**hole.

quote Originally posted by EdsB52: ... Let's inject a hypothetical. What if pop tart spontaneously combusted to the degree that even if she were home, she would be too scared to react appropriately. The element of her presence or absence is eliminated and now we're back to product liability. So if the Fire Marshall's report reads that the fire erupted immediately and catastrophically, who cares who's home? Her responsibility would be to remove all living subjects from the house, Homo sapiens first.

My personal experience with Pop Tarts would lead me to believe it unlikely one would spontaneously burst into flames with no previous warning.

Another plausible hypothesis might be that the auto pop up mechanism quit working years ago. She might have kept using a known defective product. I know this is possible because my mother-in-law did it for years.

Do I have enough facts to decide the case in a court of law? No. Do I have enough to have an opinion about whether or not this suit is frivolous? Yes. This opinion could change if more data is revealed. Everyone forms opinions without going through a full discovery of facts.

quote Originally posted by TRiAD: I am starting a petition. All who are sick of Ed's mouth (fingers?) and would like to plead with Cliff to finally rid our world of his BS, please post here... Oh and Ed, you didn't say "partially blind" or "toaster oven", you said "blind" and "toaster". A toster, is a toaster, is a toaster. You're obviously a kid trying to study some kind of law in junior college who thinks he's a supreme court justice. The stuff you're reading in those books is nice, but a bit of common sense and maturity go a long way. No one here thinks you're some 40 year old established attorney, so cut the crap. Good day.

(As found on Page 1 of this thread)

quote Originally posted by EdsB52: But if you want current numbers you must appeal to the members now.

I guess for right now, you better make that .071429%

As "generally" requested by Triad, does or would anyone else have or be willing to also share their overall opinion of Mr. Ed?

"...you're trying to revisit some dark days of the forum".

Well who was responsible for that????????

It was YOU.

It was because you come across as an arrogant, tactless, Mr. Smarty-pants know-it-all who thinks that by mere volume of words and persistence will finally get all to come around to his eloquently delivered but ultimately erroneous viewpoint.

Then you go off on personal attacks to those who DARE to see through your tactics and call you on them.

Then you make a call out for those that hate you to identify themselves. Well, I can't do that because I don't even come close to hating you just because I vehemently disagree with you. And the vast majority are going to be silent because they don't want to bring any more negativity to the forum than the negativity magnet that you already are. But if you really care that much to know, go re-read the referred to threads THAT YOU CAUSED AND BROUGHT ON YOURSELF.

Man, are you REALLY that incapable of "getting it"? Although that was a rhetorical question, the answer will follow in a LENGTHY minimum one and possibly multiple post.

NOTE: PLEASE BE AWARE, I AM STILL WORKING ON THIS AND WILL COMPLETE IT WHEN I HAVE MORE TIME. However, Mr. Ed wishes me not to because of some "dark days", to which I might add were in someways influenced (and still continue by him to this day) by him to this day.

Okay folks, here we have it. A compiled list to heighten Eds awareness regarding his attitude in a majority of "his" posts. Read them if you wish as I hope Ed will take the time and reread them himself to become reaquainted with his own posts, peoples responses to him and/or others ignoring that he is even there.

I have broken this list into BAD, GOOD, RUDE/IGNORE and MEMBERS JUDGEMENT CALL...for the members of this forum's perspective where they feel it should and/or would fall. The others I feel and where others might agree are self explanatory and pretty much self evident.

==========================
BAD
ANNOUNCEMENTS

Dated: 07-03-01 https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum5/HTML/000064.html

TECHNICAL DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS

GENERAL FIERO CHAT

Dated: 07-03-01 https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/008559.html https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/008562.html

THE MALL
O/T

==========================
GOOD
ANNOUNCEMENTS

Dated: 07-05-01 https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum5/HTML/000065.html

TECHNICAL DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS
GENERAL FIERO CHAT

Dated: 07-05-01 https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/008609.html

THE MALL
O/T

==========================
RUDE/IGNORE

ANNOUNCEMENTS
TECHNICAL DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS
GENERAL FIERO CHAT
THE MALL
O/T

TECHNICAL DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS

==========================
[b]MEMBERS JUDGEMENT CALL[b]

ANNOUNCEMENTS
TECHNICAL DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS
GENERAL FIERO CHAT
THE MALL
O/T

quote Originally posted by DRH: My personal experience with Pop Tarts would lead me to believe it unlikely one would spontaneously burst into flames with no previous warning.

When I set some alight, they smoked and burnt first.

quote Another plausible hypothesis might be that the auto pop up mechanism quit working years ago. She might have kept using a known defective product.

That was true in my case.

I wonder what happens if you put a Pop-Tart into an MRI machine?

Aus takes note to put one hell of a disclaimer in with any product he ships to the USA in future.

------------------

My Fiero | Fiero Accessories

Whew! Too many words in this thread.

Anyways.....I see no has tried to see if a pop-tart would burst into flames. So I decided to take that matter into my own hands.

And yes, they still will burst into flames. It takes a while though. And it ruins the toaster (My mom got mad about that). So I gotta get a new toaster now. But it made some pretty cool flames

But guess what?!? I didn't burn my house down, or hurt myself!! See, setting poptarts on fire can be done safely!!

No pics though My brother has been borrowing my camera.

------------------

Ed, I would like to take this time (since it was short the other day) to educate you in the "business" world regarding product liability, since you obviously do not have a clue, but talk "legalese" like you do.

Working for a 32+ year old company directly for 15+ years and indirectly prior to that (as it was family owned by my family so I grew up with it), I not only work the computer system and am in a Managerial position here, but also one of my duties is to handle, understand and make sure that both the companies General insurance as well as "Product Liability" insurance is up to par and that I understand both inside and out to know where we stand claim wise and legally.

I handle the claims that may arise at our company both internally but most importantantly, externally (ie, Product Liability claims) with our product which is nationally known and of course open to possible valid as well as "frivioulouse" law suits. BTW, I am interjecting some subthoughts here for clarification, ie "()".

The person who burned their house down and is seeking damages, not only does not have a pot to piss in because their house now has burned down to the ground, but also will not have a pot to piss in legally when it comes to and/or if it does go to court. If the judge doesn't throw the case out in the first hour of whether the case should proceed, I would be danged suprised. Most judges determine the merits of the case and if there is anything substantial for it to proceed in the preliminary hearings.

In the 15+ years I have been dealing with the Product's Liability, we have had many suits brought up against our company, our vendors, right down to FORD, CHEVY, DODGE, IZUZU, etc. Some are so ludicrist that you wonder what idiot they have hired for an attorney and if they are somehow related.

Lets go through a particular suit we had many years ago (generalized/briefened of course).

Customer purchased and had our product (a dump body and hydrualic, electric double acting hoist) mounted for his private landscaping business (ie, self employed) on a FORD one ton truck.

While dumping an extremly heavy and overloaded load of dirt, he had the box raised at a 50 degree dump angle (or at the top of the hoists stroke) which had dumped a majority of the load out right behind the box. Imagine a rather large dirt pile just under the tailgate that flips up wards (opposite of what a pickup tailgate does) and no more can come out.

There are three methods of getting the remaining dirt out of the dump body that most inteligent or common sensed people practice. 1) Drive forward so that more dirt can slide out of the opening with the body raised as it is to fill the lower part of a now created dirt pile; 2) drop the dump body via the hydrualic system to get a little more space so the dirt can slip by and pile onto the hill (relief); 3) a combination of both.

Customer decided through shear geniuss to opt for option "4". Yes option 4. But if you recall, I only said there were "3" methods. Well, what is "4"?

Customer decided, in order to get the remaining dirt out of the now raised dump body with a dirt pile at the back end restricting the flow of dirt still remaining in the dump body, to release the left retaining clasp and latch hinge of the gate (as the tail gates are removeable much like a pickups tail gate is and reversible. ie, open at the bottom, latched at top or flip down like a pickups tailgate depending on what latches they elect to release for the purpose needed).

The customer got both the left and right hand sides retaining clasp released, however, there was so much pressure against the actual latch holding the endgate shafts on the endgate that he took a pry bar, standing on an unstable pile of dirt, behind the tailgate on the left side that he pried the latch open only to have the tailgate from the pressure snap open, hit him in the leg (breaking the lower portion of his leg just above the ankle) and apparently from the force it threw him about an additional 20 feet more behind the truck. There was so much pressure on the tailgate, that it had actually bowed outward prior to the incident.

Got more dirt out of the dump body but not all of it and tried to sue our company, the dealership that sold and installed the body for him and FORD (who only supplied the truck to the dealership) for a defective tailgate on our dump body that did not function as it was intended to do.

That claim floated around in the legal system for over 5 years going nowhere where we though it just died before it suddently seen the light of day again.

The customer was up against several problems.
1) Our company, our distributor and FORD are paying premiums to an insurance company to protect us and/or compensate for Product Liability claims that may arise.

2) The Product Liability insurance companies have very qualified and high payed attorneys on their payrolls to wade through what is a valid claim to those that are simple "ambulance chaser" suits.

3) All companies involved in a Product Liability suit have that much more legal power and resources from their insurance carriers to protect them, as insurance companies certainly do not want to pay if they do not have to, especially if due care on the individuals part was being taken.

4) The end user of the product in many "frivilouse" cases is being mislead by many "ambulance chasing" attorneys that only want to line their greedy little pockets. Figure it out, what do they have to loose if they loose.

5) The judge if jury is waived, or the jury if one is involved will see the utter stupidiness of the situation and the lack of "common" sense the individual may seem to have based on the information that may be presented to them.

Going back to this particular claim, the customer in the first hearing and the judge after a day and a half (yes it did go to court and only lasted that long) the jury after less then a minute in the jury room had made their decision (Yes. Less then a minute. Jury went in and was right back out) ruled that we, our distributor and FORD were not liable for the ensuing accident as our product and under normal circumstances was and would have acted properly, however, due to the nature of the accident the customer should have exercised care and more importantly "common sense" to the use of the product.

His attorney appealed it and in 97 the appeal was denied on the basis it was "frivilouse".

I could go on and literally share with you and/or show you the claims, affidavidts, transcripts, letters back and fourth and where claims, similiar (not identical) to this one go. Circular file number 9...ie, the trash can.

Well, ya gotta at least give Ed credit for his tenacity. Ed, ever consider a career in talk radio? No offense meant, think you'd be good at it.

Wow, I never had a thread get this heated, except that one with my little buddy Johnny
Anyway, since Ed keeps talking legal stuff and facts, let me see if this makes sense to y'all:
In a court, the plantiff (sp?) presents their side of the facts. Then the defendant presents their side of the facts and the judge/jury make their decision based ON THE FACTS AT HAND. After I heard the limited information, I made up my mind about the plantiff in this case, as did most everyone else that has read this. No matter what she could say would change my mind- you never leave a toaster unattended. How can it be Kelloggs fault for the choice that she made?

quote Originally posted by AkursedX: Anyways.....I see no has tried to see if a pop-tart would burst into flames. So I decided to take that matter into my own hands. And yes, they still will burst into flames. It takes a while though...

DISCLAMER: Pennock's Fiero Forum or any members therin do not advocate or recommend placing pop-tarts into a toster with the sole intent of combustion. Pop-tarts should be used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions as printed on the package. _{No warranty expressed or implied. Dealter pays closing costs. Children under 17 are not 18 yet.}

------------------
Dillon
Black '87 SE V6

quote Originally posted by JSocha: In the infamouse (spelling, since Mr. Grammer and/or the Proper English Police is here tearing apart everybody's posts, including mine) words of Beavis and Butthead, [b]A**wipe!" Since your an aircraft mechanic, you may want to repair the propeller on your beanie hat as it isn't spinning at full operating potential. Grand Forks AFB, huh? Explains a majority of your rambling as I typically found most people (ie, BASERS) that I met from the GFAFB most illiterate, uneducated, agressive, argumentative (for no good reason or another) and/or neanderthalic (again, excuse my spelling Mr. English) just to name a few. The only logical conversation that they could carry on at any given time was about killing somebody or pulling "G's". Come to think about it, they knew how to piss me off and/or rub me the wrong way as well. Must be par for the course in your training. Or were you just born an a**hole.[/B]

Actually I don't tear apart "everybody's" posts based on grammar (not grammer), just your little illiterate ass! Hey, was "infamouse" a cartoon superhero? Maybe he was Mightymouse's silent partner?

"Explains a majority of your rambling as I typically found most people (ie, BASERS) that I met from the GFAFB most illiterate, uneducated, agressive, argumentative (for no good reason or another) and/or neanderthalic (again, excuse my spelling Mr. English) just to name a few."

Because I spent two or three months at Grand Forks AFB as a civilian I'm a baser? You're clueless. Actually I found the AFB folks and the locals quite hospitable and intelligent. Oh well, you always have to allow for recessive genetics.

"The only logical conversation that they could carry on at any given time was about killing somebody or pulling "G's"."

It was an AFB; they don't specialize in killing as they might at a Marine base. They had B-1's, so unless they had a fighter detachment, they wouldn't be pulling a lot of "G's." They must have pegged you as one of the few naive civilians and pulled your chain.

"Come to think about it, they knew how to piss me off and/or rub me the wrong way as well. Must be par for the course in your training. Or were you just born an a**hole."

You're so simple and easy to manipulate.