"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht
...

Do you mean "not necesarily" or "not necessary"? The former means
you disagree with my thesis while the latter means you're not
interested in talking about this anymore. Sorry, but this time I
can't follow your English.

We have a sayïmng he "A small hole does a large ship sink".

Like the Titanic, right?

Well I think that was not a small hole;-)

That is possible with language too.
I simply meant I'm not interested in several story's about sueïng
and and how things ended.
Sorry for writing a word wrong so it had a total different meaning.

I think I once said "English is a language that is hard to understand
but easy to misunderstand". The original author is believed to be
George Bernard Shaw.

The Urban legend: "Dryïng a cat in the microwave" The cat died and
the microwavefactory is sued because it was not in the
disclamer;-)

This was a joke Jerry, Urban Ledgends never happened.

How can anyone tell? By definition, urban legends are exactly the same
as rumors - completely believable yet impossible to either prove or
disprove. My wife just bought a bottle of some liquid from the DMSO,
Inc. company which her best friend swears is an outstanding spray or
wipe on topical pain killer, yet there are NO ingredients list
whatsoever and NO suggested uses cited. Moreover, the "instructions"
explicity say "do not apply to skin, eyes, or clothing, do not inhale
or swallow or use in any way not specifically mentioned on this label.
This product is strictly a solvent and should be used as such with no
express or implied warranty as to any fitness of purpose whatsoever."

Now, I am aware of a powerful drug call DMSO, which means
DiMethylsSulfOxide, and comes in 50ml bottes by physician prescription
only, and has the only function to attempt to relieve pain caused by
bladder IC (Interstitial Cystitis). DMSO is inserted into the bladder
by a temporary urinary catheter and is held in for as long as possible
until the burning gets too much for the patient to bear. Guess how I
know this?

Maybe by expierience?

So, the DMSO, Inc. company CLEARLY knows this and has probably put
distilled water in the bottle without even a flavor or aroma in the
hopes that sufferers of anything at all might shell out six bucks for
it, and yet the company attempts to indemnify itself from any legal
liabililty for use or misuse.


A better example is this one, in my baileywick [sp?]: Ford has been
sued to the tune of billions of dollars, most of which is still in
litigation, for Ford Explorer SUV roll-over accidents once it
became apparent it was somewhat unstable and even more so when
somebody figured out that its Firestone tires were more vulnerable
to handling problems than other brands. Plaintiffs sued on the
grounds that Ford and Firestone knew of the defective handling and
tendency to roll over yet dragged their feet for serveral years
before they even tried to fix it. Here's the most outrageous one
I'm aware of that I think is still winding its way on the way to
the Supreme Court:

Some Michigan woman traveling over 85 mph on rain and rainy snow on
a limited access highway has to brake hard and change lanes
violently to avoid hitting another vehicle. The Explorer rolls over
multiple times and lands in the median strip. She is kills but NOT
by the trauma of the rollover. She was not belted and was ejected
out the driver's door window and killed when the Explorer literally
rolled OVER her. Then, after the police investigated, it was found
she was driving on a license suspended for too many speeding
violations! Wait, it gets FAR worse!

Ford damn near beat the first round lawsuit by bringing in expert
witnesses and its own MVSS certification engineers and did a
computer simulation and ejection at that speed would have been
fatal even if the vehicle had NOT rolled on top of her, but if she
HAD been fully belted with the combined lap and shoulder belts, the
forces could be proven on a proving grounds crash simulator to be
LESS than fatal. So, the plaintiff's family's attorney said that
Ford should have made the window glass strong enough to keep her in
the car!

Now it really gets ludicrous because Ford them brought in expert
witnesses and proved that even if it were technically feasible to
put strong enough glass in the door - which it is NOT - the blunt
force trauma of whacking a piece of 1" or more thick glass would
have instantly killed the woman just from a cranial injury to the
brain.

And, the jury STILL returned a verdict of guilty for Ford and
awarded something over $150 million in ordinary and punitive
damages to the woman's estate! This was over 10 years ago, I know
that Ford appealed but lost and I think has managed to tie this up
in court ever since.

Now, Ford also has several HUNDRED lawsuits still pendind, a couple
of dozen of which are so-called class-action suits involving
multiple plaintiffs and multiple injuries and deaths. Sorry to dive
off the high board on the technical crash engineering stuff but it
is the only way to explain how truly egegious this is.

So, please clarify what your sentence meaning is and how you'd like
to proceed here, if you do at all. Thanks, Bouler.

Wow what one word can do;-(
Lets stop talking about these things Jerry, they are to complicated
for me and I'm not interested enough.

GRIN Be careful of what you wish for, Bouler, you may get it (that
is, you may imply or appear to imply that you are asking a question or
making a comment and someone like me will come along and write a major
paper on the subject).

I know by now, but I did not ask for it.
BTW the Ford story proves the insane forms of suïng.
The lady was driving very dangerous, so its simply her own fault and not
Fords, but still Ford has to pay a crazy lot of money.
Nobody in The Netherlands will sue a company for such an accident.

A small reply is enough, please don't snow me under againgrin
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)