Thread: What do they take us for? Geez!

I'm sitting here eating lunch and reading the back of a "cold and hot compress"; The thing you freeze or heat up to put on injuries. Anyhow, I notice this line: "Though non-toxic, this product is not intended to be eaten."

WTF!? I should make a poll on this: Who here would eat a cold-pack? Mmm-mmm jelly goodness.

Slogans:

"Relieve sore muscles and hunger pangs at the same time!"
"You'll feel better! ... And it tastes good too!"
"Now in new strawberry goo flavour."

But the sad part is, they take the public for idiots because; fact: The public are idiots. The reason so much stuff has these moronic warnings is because people do moronic things with products.

In another thread C_Coder suggests stupid people should be made to wear signs. I suggest that anyone who puts their dog in the microwave to warm it up and then sues the manufacturer for not warning them, needs to be shot. Stop them from peeing in the gene pool.

Amen, brotha...

Kinda the same reason they put warning labels on hairdryers - "Do not use while sleeping"

Talking about stupid signs on packaging, you can buy a packet of peanuts and find the warning "May contain nuts"!!!!!!
Now thats crazy. Surley it should just say "Contains nuts", but no, to cover their asses they only say it may contain nuts, just in case someone finds out what they really put in there.

LMAO

Well I dont know if it is intended for older people, but for kids who may want to eat it, but they wont even be able to read the thing.

It just may be for legal purposes, in case you do eat it and get sick, they can say it was printed on the package not to consume the contents.

check this out

Ever look at the ingredients for a Slim Jim? Along with various chemical sounding stuff, beek/pork products, etc, is "mechanically separated chicken". What is there in the process that the FDA makes them add "mechanically separated"? The cows get a bolt through the head, eviscerated and quartered, that's ok, but the chickens are "mechanically separated" - that has to be included.
I get this vision of chickens, wings and legs tied to 4 corners of the rack while while the crank is wound until...well, until the notice becomes mandatory.

and....lots of microwave type meals state-CONTENTS MAY BE HOT WHEN HEATED................


Really?

>>The really sad part is she won. Had I been the judge she'd be wearing one of those signs.

Had I been the judge I would have pummeled her to death with the mallet thingy. I dont care how damn old she was. They could throw the body in my basement with the other old woman who nuked her dog. I'd pour hot coffee on the the both of them.

I think large cartons of arsenic should be placed at ever street corner with the label: "Warning! Poison! May contain Arsenic. Please consume." Then sit back and wait while humanities worst are 'naturally selected'.

>>It just may be for legal purposes

Yes, it is. But thats only because people are so stupid and then they do something so idiotic that even they cant believe it; So they turn around and blame/sue (same thing) somebody else so that they can look better. Its the next closest thing to stealing if you ask me, only worse.

I just get so worked up over this I get such a headache. Its a good thing I have my cold compress. That way, as I sit here typing, I can slurp down the non-toxic smelly goop and nibble on the plastic while I wait for dinner.

>>The really sad part is she won. Had I been the judge she'd be wearing one of those signs.

>>Had I been the judge I would have pummeled her to death with the mallet thingy. I dont care how damn old she was. They could throw the body in my basement with the other old woman who nuked her dog. I'd pour hot coffee on the the both of them.

What about the judge/jury that gives out that decision? I mean, ho dumb does the judge have to be?

Originally posted by Dual-Catfish
How about the woman who sued McDonalds because she spilled the coffee on herself and got 3rd degree burns? She complained that there was no warning label saying the god-damned thing being hot! I mean, cmon, it's coffee, i'd at least expect mine to be hot.

The really sad part is she won. Had I been the judge she'd be wearing one of those signs.

That's crap. I'm glad she won. The lid was faulty;
it wasn't placed on tight. How would you like it
if some dork, 15 year old McDonald's employee put
150+ degree liquid in a cup and didn't fasten the
lid on tight? Then that liquid spilled on you
and caused scars? It was McD's fault; not the
woman's.

She didn't sue because it was hot, she sued because
the idiot kid didn't know how to work a lid.
I rapped.

Also, it's "Jeez." Not "Geez." "Jesus." Not "Gesus."

Yeah, because everybody who spills something on
themselves is an idiot, right? Nice try...

She didn't spill it while driving, she was parked
and it spilled. Whether it was the lid or not*,
she still deserved to be paid, Coffee is suppose
to be hot, yes. But it isn't suppose to be so hot
that it causes 3rd degree burns when it touches
the skin. That's way too hot. Here are the actual
facts:

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

Oh, you'll notice that the coffee was between 180
and 190 degrees farenheit. Remember when I said
150+ degrees? Yeah, I was right about that.

*About the lid. I think I got this case confused
with that episode of Seinfeld. You know, where
Kramer spilled coffee on himself because the
lid was faulty...