warning stupidity - Page 3

heretic(666) · May 27th, 2011, 07:22 AM

[QUOTE=iufrenchman;930825]Bag of airline peanuts: "Caution: May Contain Peanuts"

No joke. UK lawyers took ages to come up with this as the only foolproof method for preventing some motherfucking american shyster lawyer from suing them on the grounds that just because they are called peanuts does not mean they contain peanuts and their client with a nut allergy cant be expected to know the contents of every brand and confectionary name, The scenario would be that Mars does not contain any extraterrestrial matter, there are no babies in jelly babies, KitKat contains neither Kits nor Kats ad nauseam.
And there would be the aforementioned motherfucking american shyster lawyer happy to take the case to court. And in the worst case scenario; ie a court in Florida Louisiana or Texas. the Uk company might find themselves found guilty by a dozen dumb rednecks who then award 5 million to the cretin who ate the nuts.

heretic(666) · June 27th, 2011, 03:17 PM

Styrofoam/polystyrene packing chips. I put a couple in my mouth, chew briefly then swallow. Offering the box around usually brings no takers. I sometimes tell them that the ones I ate were made of environmentally friendly cornstarch but it is more fun not to.

2cheap · June 28th, 2011, 02:35 AM

[QUOTE=heretic(666);1607292]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iufrenchman

Bag of airline peanuts: "Caution: May Contain Peanuts"

No joke. UK lawyers took ages to come up with this as the only foolproof method for preventing some motherfucking american shyster lawyer from suing them on the grounds that just because they are called peanuts does not mean they contain peanuts and their client with a nut allergy cant be expected to know the contents of every brand and confectionary name, The scenario would be that Mars does not contain any extraterrestrial matter, there are no babies in jelly babies, KitKat contains neither Kits nor Kats ad nauseam.
And there would be the aforementioned motherfucking american shyster lawyer happy to take the case to court. And in the worst case scenario; ie a court in Florida Louisiana or Texas. the Uk company might find themselves found guilty by a dozen dumb rednecks who then award 5 million to the cretin who ate the nuts.

Hey now!
Don't blame us colonials.
We didn't invent lawyers, we just made them better at what they do.

heretic(666) · August 4th, 2011, 06:06 PM

It is a little known fact that Smith and Wesson was british owned for a short time. The company was sold off for the usual financial reasons announced in the business sections. but I dont believe them. It was around the time when there was talk of the aforementioned motherfucking US shyster lawyers actually considering taking gun companies to court because their products were used in murders of a family member of their clients,
Can you imagine the uk legal department saying "well. what if we include a printed statement that pointing the gun at oneself or others may result in injury or fatality.........if the trigger is pulled.........if the gun is loaded.........if the safety catch is in the OFF position......and by pointing we mean the muzzle........and by muzzle we mean the front end with the hole in it............and if fired at a hard surface like steel or concrete the bullet may ricochet and cause injury or fatality.........and ricochet means bounce back possibly towards you.............and thinking of Florida Texas and Louisiana.........may not be used as a can opener, hairbrush,lock-pick,pool cue, back-scratcher,hammer, sink unblocker, fire poker............suppository, tampon.....**** it advise client to sell the company at any price ASAP

**TCO95** · August 5th, 2011, 06:25 PM

This gave me a good chuckle.
On a package of small tools "...screwdriver set not to be inserted into PENIS."

http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles/a94_w2.jpg

Lurk_D · August 6th, 2011, 05:44 AM

Warning on a Finnish/Swedish chainsaw:

Do not attempt to stop chain with hands or genitals.

heretic(666) · August 11th, 2011, 01:18 AM

I really should have started with this. Sometimes the truth is like a flashgun to the eyes; it becomes difficult to see anything for a long time afterwards. And sometimes it is so big and stupid it wont all fit in your head at once.
After the aforementioned motherfucking shyster lawyers we have the sheer dumb redneckedness of the jury in the south. The details keep falling out of my head for the reasons mentioned above, but the sums involved were half a million dollars and a quarter million dollars. The states were two out of the four worst on the wrong side of the Manson/Nixon line; Florida/Texas/Alabama/Louisiana.
The facts of the cases
Case one: a jury found for the complainant after she slipped on some milk and sued the fast food joint (1/4 or 1/2 million dollars was awarded to her by the jury)
Case two: a jury found for the complainant after she tripped over a kid and sued the store. (1/4 or 1/2 million dollars was awarded to her by the jury)
In the first case she had just thrown the offending milk over her boyfriend.
In the second case it was her own kid she tripped over.
Separated by an ocean and thousands of miles. these cases are brought up now when you study law in the UK so that law students will develop the instinct to sell their children into slavery rather than set foot in a US court.

**Pepper II** · August 11th, 2011, 02:24 AM

We're all no doubt familiar with the film 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show'. For the illumination of those who are not this is a story about a transvestite doctor frankenstein from outer space. Included in the credits at the end of the film is the usual legal disclaimer: "These characters are fictitious etc. etc...." Well, duh! This sort of utter nonsense, frivolous lawsuits, and some of the examples cited above, only to serve their own greed, are why lawyers are the bane of the universe and their profession will never be respected.

**tygrkhat40** · August 11th, 2011, 03:06 PM

It's the same as all these commercials that show outrageous stunts, there's always a disclaimer saying don't try this at home. And most (if not all) times you wouldn't try it anyway, even if you were so simple-minded that to you EVERYTHING on TV or the movies was true.

The best example of this to me was a commercial for deodorant (I think) with a guy jumping out of a plane--with no parachute--holding on to the back of a shopping cart. He executes a perfect low impact landing hanging on the cart at about 100 MPH between two speeding semis going the opposite direction from him and he is able to stretch his arms out full length to just brush his fingertips along the sides of the two trucks. And they had the nerve to put up a "do not try this at home" disclaimer.

**mrfixit** · September 24th, 2011, 10:45 PM

1. I think it should be explained in the brochure that the local store does not sell proper biscuits like custard cream or ginger nuts

2. It's lazy of the local shop keepers to close in the afternoons.I often needed to buy things during siesta time.This should banned.

3. On my holiday to Goa in India, I was disgusted to find that almost every restaurant served curry.I don't like spicy food at all.

August 11th, 2011, 02:24 AM	#28
Pepper II Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sunny South Florida Posts: 7,852 Thanks: 163,934 Thanked 119,241 Times in 7,641 Posts	We're all no doubt familiar with the film 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show'. For the illumination of those who are not this is a story about a transvestite doctor frankenstein from outer space. Included in the credits at the end of the film is the usual legal disclaimer: "These characters are fictitious etc. etc...." Well, duh! This sort of utter nonsense, frivolous lawsuits, and some of the examples cited above, only to serve their own greed, are why lawyers are the bane of the universe and their profession will never be respected. Last edited by Pepper II; August 11th, 2011 at 03:17 AM..

August 11th, 2011, 03:06 PM	#29
tygrkhat40 Long Suffering Bills Fan Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: The City of Good Neighbors Posts: 9,669 Thanks: 304,243 Thanked 152,528 Times in 9,629 Posts	It's the same as all these commercials that show outrageous stunts, there's always a disclaimer saying don't try this at home. And most (if not all) times you wouldn't try it anyway, even if you were so simple-minded that to you EVERYTHING on TV or the movies was true. The best example of this to me was a commercial for deodorant (I think) with a guy jumping out of a plane--with no parachute--holding on to the back of a shopping cart. He executes a perfect low impact landing hanging on the cart at about 100 MPH between two speeding semis going the opposite direction from him and he is able to stretch his arms out full length to just brush his fingertips along the sides of the two trucks. And they had the nerve to put up a "do not try this at home" disclaimer. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

September 24th, 2011, 10:45 PM	#30
mrfixit Vintage Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Elm Street Posts: 9,401 Thanks: 165,774 Thanked 114,812 Times in 9,416 Posts	stupid tourist complaintes 1. I think it should be explained in the brochure that the local store does not sell proper biscuits like custard cream or ginger nuts 2. It's lazy of the local shop keepers to close in the afternoons.I often needed to buy things during siesta time.This should banned. 3. On my holiday to Goa in India, I was disgusted to find that almost every restaurant served curry.I don't like spicy food at all. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Where's my Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

May 27th, 2011, 07:22 AM	#21
heretic(666) Blocked! Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,033 Thanks: 6,523 Thanked 4,461 Times in 918 Posts	[QUOTE=iufrenchman;930825]Bag of airline peanuts: "Caution: May Contain Peanuts" No joke. UK lawyers took ages to come up with this as the only foolproof method for preventing some motherfucking american shyster lawyer from suing them on the grounds that just because they are called peanuts does not mean they contain peanuts and their client with a nut allergy cant be expected to know the contents of every brand and confectionary name, The scenario would be that Mars does not contain any extraterrestrial matter, there are no babies in jelly babies, KitKat contains neither Kits nor Kats ad nauseam. And there would be the aforementioned motherfucking american shyster lawyer happy to take the case to court. And in the worst case scenario; ie a court in Florida Louisiana or Texas. the Uk company might find themselves found guilty by a dozen dumb rednecks who then award 5 million to the cretin who ate the nuts.

June 27th, 2011, 03:17 PM	#22
heretic(666) Blocked! Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,033 Thanks: 6,523 Thanked 4,461 Times in 918 Posts	Styrofoam/polystyrene packing chips. I put a couple in my mouth, chew briefly then swallow. Offering the box around usually brings no takers. I sometimes tell them that the ones I ate were made of environmentally friendly cornstarch but it is more fun not to.

August 4th, 2011, 06:06 PM	#24
heretic(666) Blocked! Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,033 Thanks: 6,523 Thanked 4,461 Times in 918 Posts	It is a little known fact that Smith and Wesson was british owned for a short time. The company was sold off for the usual financial reasons announced in the business sections. but I dont believe them. It was around the time when there was talk of the aforementioned motherfucking US shyster lawyers actually considering taking gun companies to court because their products were used in murders of a family member of their clients, Can you imagine the uk legal department saying "well. what if we include a printed statement that pointing the gun at oneself or others may result in injury or fatality.........if the trigger is pulled.........if the gun is loaded.........if the safety catch is in the OFF position......and by pointing we mean the muzzle........and by muzzle we mean the front end with the hole in it............and if fired at a hard surface like steel or concrete the bullet may ricochet and cause injury or fatality.........and ricochet means bounce back possibly towards you.............and thinking of Florida Texas and Louisiana.........may not be used as a can opener, hairbrush,lock-pick,pool cue, back-scratcher,hammer, sink unblocker, fire poker............suppository, tampon.....**** it advise client to sell the company at any price ASAP

August 5th, 2011, 06:25 PM	#25
TCO95 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: This member is not allowed in your country. Posts: 5,176 Thanks: 47,615 Thanked 64,803 Times in 5,130 Posts	This gave me a good chuckle. On a package of small tools "...screwdriver set not to be inserted into PENIS." http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles/a94_w2.jpg

August 6th, 2011, 05:44 AM	#26
Lurk_D Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 489 Thanks: 22 Thanked 3,914 Times in 467 Posts	Warning on a Finnish/Swedish chainsaw: Do not attempt to stop chain with hands or genitals.

August 11th, 2011, 01:18 AM	#27
heretic(666) Blocked! Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,033 Thanks: 6,523 Thanked 4,461 Times in 918 Posts	I really should have started with this. Sometimes the truth is like a flashgun to the eyes; it becomes difficult to see anything for a long time afterwards. And sometimes it is so big and stupid it wont all fit in your head at once. After the aforementioned motherfucking shyster lawyers we have the sheer dumb redneckedness of the jury in the south. The details keep falling out of my head for the reasons mentioned above, but the sums involved were half a million dollars and a quarter million dollars. The states were two out of the four worst on the wrong side of the Manson/Nixon line; Florida/Texas/Alabama/Louisiana. The facts of the cases Case one: a jury found for the complainant after she slipped on some milk and sued the fast food joint (1/4 or 1/2 million dollars was awarded to her by the jury) Case two: a jury found for the complainant after she tripped over a kid and sued the store. (1/4 or 1/2 million dollars was awarded to her by the jury) In the first case she had just thrown the offending milk over her boyfriend. In the second case it was her own kid she tripped over. Separated by an ocean and thousands of miles. these cases are brought up now when you study law in the UK so that law students will develop the instinct to sell their children into slavery rather than set foot in a US court.