"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 4/10/10 6:33 PM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 10, 5:11 pm, wrote:
On 10/04/2010 3:56 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 4:47 pm, wrote:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...D9ETMVA02.html

So now what, will this become a safety standard of the industry
that
props should have guards?

A guy jumped in the water behind a boat with a running motor. The
driver of the boat puts the boat in reverse, and hits the guy with
the
prop.

The boat manufacturer has to pay.

That's so screwed up it's almost unbelievable. Almost.

Hmm... so a simple device, known to prevent such accidents is
intentionally
not used, someone is maimed, but the boat manufacturer has no
liability? I
guess a jury disagreed. I guess that's communism run amok.

Does not mater. The husband basically ran this wench over:

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/...d-boat-propell...

Not sure if it is the same case as the dallas link is broken. But
what
a darwin move. Even if it had a guard, you are so darwinian stupid
to
do this as a captain or as a swimmer.

100% captians fault. And judge should just say so and let OMC sue
the
**** out of him for recovery costs. Take their home even and even go
for the plaintifs lawyer for taking such a stupid case.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

"The jury found Brunswick 66 percent liable for the injury, with
Brochtrup and the boat's driver responsible for the rest. Because the
driver was not part of the lawsuit, he will not have to pay. "

So the pilot was at fault by 33 % but seeing he's not in the suit, be
doesnt' have to pay.

uh-huh...


How much do you think the owners/operators of the mine that killed 29
this week should have to pay in damages to the families of the dead?




How much should the mine workers union pay the families for not
protecting the workers?



I believe it was a non-union mine.

--
Nom=de=Plume


They should have stopped the mine from working then.

They?? Who's they? Do you understand the concept of non-union? No. Are you
an idiot? Yes.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:58:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's true, but the only other choice would be to move somewhere else, as
it's pretty much a single-industry area

True but if the carbon tax people get their way, these people are
going to be moving anyway.


?? Carbon tax people? Do they live in Malfoy Manner?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:01:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No I am saying that is a big drag and it will be more than noticed. It
will seriously affect fuel mileage and performance. There is a very
good reason why props are the way they are, particularly the trailing
edge of the blade, where this swimmer hit. Even a very blunt work boat
prop has a sharp trailing edge. Otherwise it cavitates. This guy is
bragging about holes in the prop that make it cavitate more. This
isn't a prop, it is a bubble machine.


See thunder's post.

I saw Thunder's post and he is guessing too.
Somebody show me a side by side test with a regular cheap aluminum
prop (not even some special high performance SS) and I will be
convinced.
My bet, at least a 10% decrease in performance on a barge like mine
and probably more like 25% a performance boat. There is no accident
props are made like they are. This is a century old technology and
they improve them every year, basically by doing the opposite of what
this guy is doing. (thinner blades, sharper edges) That is why people
spend the money for stainless steel. It is hard enough to hold that
edge. Guys spend $50-100 bucks to get them cleaned up when they get
tiny dings in them.

I am not even convinced that if you actually hit someone in the water
it would make that much difference. It is a lot easier to knock the
arm out of the way, from the side, in free air. Would you try it? None
of this would affect going straight into the prop.


But, you're not guessing... no way. You have the FACTS. Sure.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:18:07 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Drinking coffee does not require any
concentration


What???
It certainly ties up one hand and you have to be careful not to spill
it. Evasive maneuvers are virtually impossible with a hot cup of
coffee in your hand.
The other one is fooling with a GPS or that computer that replaced the
radio.


Mr. MaGoo uses his feet.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Better than you who probably uses their belly.

I think you're going to have to explain how someone uses a belly to "hold" a
cup of coffee. I could see trying to balance a cup of coffee that way, but
even my stomach muscles aren't developed enough to hold the cup. Perhaps you
can get Arnold to hold it that way? Try again Mr. MaGoo!

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 4/11/10 7:47 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
m...
On 4/10/10 6:33 PM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 10, 5:11 pm, wrote:
On 10/04/2010 3:56 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 4:47 pm, wrote:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...D9ETMVA02.html

So now what, will this become a safety standard of the industry
that
props should have guards?

A guy jumped in the water behind a boat with a running motor. The
driver of the boat puts the boat in reverse, and hits the guy with
the
prop.

The boat manufacturer has to pay.

That's so screwed up it's almost unbelievable. Almost.

Hmm... so a simple device, known to prevent such accidents is
intentionally
not used, someone is maimed, but the boat manufacturer has no
liability? I
guess a jury disagreed. I guess that's communism run amok.

Does not mater. The husband basically ran this wench over:

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/...d-boat-propell...

Not sure if it is the same case as the dallas link is broken. But
what
a darwin move. Even if it had a guard, you are so darwinian stupid
to
do this as a captain or as a swimmer.

100% captians fault. And judge should just say so and let OMC sue
the
**** out of him for recovery costs. Take their home even and even go
for the plaintifs lawyer for taking such a stupid case.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

"The jury found Brunswick 66 percent liable for the injury, with
Brochtrup and the boat's driver responsible for the rest. Because the
driver was not part of the lawsuit, he will not have to pay. "

So the pilot was at fault by 33 % but seeing he's not in the suit, be
doesnt' have to pay.

uh-huh...


How much do you think the owners/operators of the mine that killed 29
this week should have to pay in damages to the families of the dead?




How much should the mine workers union pay the families for not
protecting the workers?



I believe it was a non-union mine.

--
Nom=de=Plume


They should have stopped the mine from working then.

They?? Who's they? Do you understand the concept of non-union? No. Are you
an idiot? Yes.



I contemplated that response of Bilious Bill's for a minute or so, and
then burst into laughter. It ranks among the most moronic posts ever
made here.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Larry wrote:


Amazing. Two morons and a big settlement. I hope they can appeal it.
It's worse than the lady who spilled coffee on her lap and sued
because
it was hot.

Yeah, well there is hot, and then there is what McDonald's was selling.
Eight days in hospital, with skin grafts, hot.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

When you are 70 years old, and a coffee drinker, you should have learned
coffee is hot. And not be so stupid as to take off the protective lid
and place the cup in your crotch as your son drives over the curb
leaving McD's. And the $24million was reduced to about 1.4 million.
After medical and legal costs, I bet she had enough to buy a senior
coffee at McD's.

We're all eternally grateful that you're not in the legal profession, a
judge, or qualified to sit on a jury.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Unlike you, I am qualified to sit on a jury, and have a couple times.

Unlike me? There's no bar for an attorney to sit on a jury. Feel free to
prove otherwise.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 4/11/10 7:52 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
...

wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Larry wrote:


Amazing. Two morons and a big settlement. I hope they can appeal it.
It's worse than the lady who spilled coffee on her lap and sued
because
it was hot.

Yeah, well there is hot, and then there is what McDonald's was selling.
Eight days in hospital, with skin grafts, hot.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

When you are 70 years old, and a coffee drinker, you should have learned
coffee is hot. And not be so stupid as to take off the protective lid
and place the cup in your crotch as your son drives over the curb
leaving McD's. And the $24million was reduced to about 1.4 million.
After medical and legal costs, I bet she had enough to buy a senior
coffee at McD's.

We're all eternally grateful that you're not in the legal profession, a
judge, or qualified to sit on a jury.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Unlike you, I am qualified to sit on a jury, and have a couple times.

Unlike me? There's no bar for an attorney to sit on a jury. Feel free to
prove otherwise.



What Bilious is saying here is that if you put a mirror in front of his
mouth, he might be able to fog it...and thus qualify for jury duty.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 4/11/10 7:47 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
m...
On 4/10/10 6:33 PM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 10, 5:11 pm, wrote:
On 10/04/2010 3:56 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 4:47 pm, wrote:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...D9ETMVA02.html

So now what, will this become a safety standard of the industry
that
props should have guards?

A guy jumped in the water behind a boat with a running motor.
The
driver of the boat puts the boat in reverse, and hits the guy
with
the
prop.

The boat manufacturer has to pay.

That's so screwed up it's almost unbelievable. Almost.

Hmm... so a simple device, known to prevent such accidents is
intentionally
not used, someone is maimed, but the boat manufacturer has no
liability? I
guess a jury disagreed. I guess that's communism run amok.

Does not mater. The husband basically ran this wench over:

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/...d-boat-propell...

Not sure if it is the same case as the dallas link is broken. But
what
a darwin move. Even if it had a guard, you are so darwinian stupid
to
do this as a captain or as a swimmer.

100% captians fault. And judge should just say so and let OMC sue
the
**** out of him for recovery costs. Take their home even and even
go
for the plaintifs lawyer for taking such a stupid case.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

"The jury found Brunswick 66 percent liable for the injury, with
Brochtrup and the boat's driver responsible for the rest. Because
the
driver was not part of the lawsuit, he will not have to pay. "

So the pilot was at fault by 33 % but seeing he's not in the suit,
be
doesnt' have to pay.

uh-huh...


How much do you think the owners/operators of the mine that killed 29
this week should have to pay in damages to the families of the dead?




How much should the mine workers union pay the families for not
protecting the workers?



I believe it was a non-union mine.

--
Nom=de=Plume


They should have stopped the mine from working then.

They?? Who's they? Do you understand the concept of non-union? No. Are
you
an idiot? Yes.



I contemplated that response of Bilious Bill's for a minute or so, and
then burst into laughter. It ranks among the most moronic posts ever made
here.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym


It's always "they" - it's never "I" when it comes to these bozos. "They" are
out to get me. "They" are evil. "They" should do something.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 10/04/2010 7:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2010 4:10 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:47:53 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...D9ETMVA02.html


So now what, will this become a safety standard of the industry that
props should have guards?

The blame is partly with the insurance industry. They have frequently
taken the short sighted view that it is cheaper to settle some of
these claims than it is to fight them. That's probably true for any
one case but the long term effect is to set expensive precedents.

Yep. But also begets higher rates and more profit.

Mystifies me how they could lose this case. Even dumb as nails jury can't
be this stupid.

Brunswick shoul counter sue the driver and the swimer. Make their lives
hell.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


And now, straight from Rush/Beck's sitcom, we have nucknuck who doesn't like
the jury system.

I think competance has something to do with it. Minimum reading skills,
college or university...

Would not want to be a innocent defendant facing a jury that could only
think of fried chicken and your skin color (either way).

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 4/11/10 7:52 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
...

wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Larry wrote:


Amazing. Two morons and a big settlement. I hope they can appeal
it.
It's worse than the lady who spilled coffee on her lap and sued
because
it was hot.

Yeah, well there is hot, and then there is what McDonald's was
selling.
Eight days in hospital, with skin grafts, hot.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

When you are 70 years old, and a coffee drinker, you should have
learned
coffee is hot. And not be so stupid as to take off the protective lid
and place the cup in your crotch as your son drives over the curb
leaving McD's. And the $24million was reduced to about 1.4 million.
After medical and legal costs, I bet she had enough to buy a senior
coffee at McD's.

We're all eternally grateful that you're not in the legal profession, a
judge, or qualified to sit on a jury.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Unlike you, I am qualified to sit on a jury, and have a couple times.

Unlike me? There's no bar for an attorney to sit on a jury. Feel free to
prove otherwise.



What Bilious is saying here is that if you put a mirror in front of his
mouth, he might be able to fog it...and thus qualify for jury duty.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym


I suspect that if he were called for jury duty and the case involved
anything during the voir dire about his ability to be objective, say because
the defendent was a minority, he would get booted.

--
Nom=de=Plume