Discussion in 'Trading' started by aphexcoil, Jan 23, 2003.
What? Grease is unhealthy? I didn't know that...
Partial commentary from a newsletter from last night:
Finally sanity ruled in the courts today. A US District Court judge tossed out a frivolous lawsuit against McDonald's that alleged that their food caused obesity in the children mentioned in the suit.
OH PLEASE - slam McDs for mediocre food quality and service, a snoozer of a menu, and a complete lack of strategic and tactical vision, but come on - who the heck doesn't know that choking down a couple of Big Macs every day will blimp you out??
Where was this judge when that woman actually won against Ronald and Company because she was stupid enough to be driving around with a hot cup of coffee between her legs? That case should have been thrown out too on the basis that it was a purely Darwinian event.
So in this recent case, yet another lawyer convinced a group of parents that it's not their fault that they allowed their kids to blow up into 4' 10" - 170 pounders. Nope, it's got to be McDonald's fault. Just because their kids were allowed to scarf down more calories than a battle field infantry group, it's not the parent's fault. Geez, what's next? Someone suing Ben & Jerry's because they ate a gallon of ice cream every day until they were as big as Shamu??
Of course, it shouldn't be a surprise that we have this sub-species of humanity finding people all too willing to blame someone else for their problems and/or hoping to get their share of the extortion money. There are more lawyers than doctors and the schools keep spitting out more every year. And the current court and tort system encourages lawyers to try to use the courts as a vehicle for extorting money. Check out the commercials on afternoon TV - "call Slime & Slime - we will get you money".
What's even worse than the low life lawyers who knowingly launch baseless lawsuits in hopes of being paid off to go away, are the people who are all too willing to either accept that someone else is to blame or just flat out willing to try to take a company or someone else for as much money as they can even though they know they're not entitled to it. If it's possible, they're even lower on the food chain than the lawyers.
Oh, you got burned by hot coffee between your legs? It's not because you're STUPID - it's because that coffee must have been too hot. Let's stick it to those bastards. By the way lady, if you also happen to accidentally stick a hot curling iron up your butt, give us a call - we'll make that Vidal Sassoon pay.
Oh, you slammed your (apparently empty) head in the door of your new SUV? An obvious design flaw - we can probably get a million dollars from Ford for that.
Oh, you got sick from drinking a bottle of Head and Shoulders? Don't worry, lots of people confuse it with a milkshake. Let's sue them and see how much money we can get. Remember, you pay nothing unless "we get you money".
In the old days, people like that would end up being eaten by an animal, drown in a horse trough, or otherwise exit this plane of existence and not degrade the collective gene pool. Unfortunately now, lawyers help them win settlements and they actually end up better positioned to breed and pass on their stupidity genes.
It's exactly cases like these that not only cost companies billions of dollars but end up forcing them to put those unbelievably ridiculous warning labels on things:
On a Sears hairdryer - "Do not use while sleeping" - hmmm, sleep walking maybe, but sleep hair styling?
On a packaged dessert - "Product will be hot after heating" - Oh my gosh, I burned myself after heating this thing, it must be defective
On a Rowenta iron - "Do not iron clothes on body" - yeah, and don't stick it between your legs and drive with it either
On a bottle of children's cough medicine - "Do not drive a car or operate machinery after taking this medication" - OK, where exactly do they let 5-10 year olds drive cars?
On Nytol Sleep Aid - "Warning: May cause drowsiness" - duh, that's why you're taking it, isn't it?
On Christmas lights - "For indoor or outdoor use only" - where else IS there?
On a can of peanuts - "Warning: contains nuts" - damn, I ate those peanuts but they didn't warn me that they were nuts and I had an allergic reaction!!
On a child's Superman costume - "Wearing this garment does not enable you to fly" - OK, who's the stupid parent that caused this warning label?
And the real kicker - on a chainsaw - "Do not attempt to stop chain with your hands or genitals" - Sorry, but the guy who was the reason for this warning label should just be taken out and shot (given the circumstances he'll probably welcome it) - he's way too stupid to be allowed to risk procreating.
There has to be a penalty for bringing lawsuits like this to court. I.e., if the lawsuit is deemed to be frivolous, the lawyer's license should be revoked. The risk-reward ratio for lawyers is ridiculously in their favor.
Ain't it the truth; I'm surprised they're still in business too. I predicted their fall three years ago. I should have shorted.
Drudgereport headline..........."millions and millions lost" www.drudgereport.com
Maybe we need a "three-strikes" rule for lawyers. Three firvolous suits and they're license is revoked.
Yeah, and while we're at it, we need to get all those skinny people out of the health clubs!
You sure about the risk being in their favor? Don't these types of cases take years of time and thousands of dollars of the lawyers' own money? Given that plus the fact that these types of cases are almost always taken on a contingency fee, means that it's not in the financial interest of lawyers to take on ridiculous cases because they'll have to eat all the costs with no reward if the cases are lost or thrown out. Seems to me that if a lawyer makes a career of taking on frivolous cases, he'll go broke over time.
Separate names with a comma.