Titanic: Why No Headlights?
Bloody Viking
Tell me if this sounds like a stupid thing to do: You are driving on a
dark road with no street lights, and both headlights are burnt out. You
are doing 100 MPH on a cloudy night with only your car's running lights.
Suddenly, 50 feet away you see the Sinclair Dinosaur, so you swerve and
slam on the brakes only to sideswipe the dinosaur. Stupid, eh?
Now, the Titanic had no radars or satellite mapping as neither were
invented yet. That's fine. Why didn't they use oversize limelights as
headlights? After all, they were driving in a place where there was heavy
traffic - of icebergs. Icebergs are notorious for not having running
lights like other ships. Icebergs are nothing but randomly moving islands
of ice.
Even in those days, they had limelights used in Broadway for theatre.
Since they didn't have radar, it would be logical to any driver that if
you're going to drive on a dark road to use headlights to see where you're
going. Why not a ship? Here you have this ship driving along at 25 MPH on
a starless cloudy night in a place where there's these pesky icebergs.
Wouldn't it make sense if you installed oversize limelights on both sides
of the ship's nose so the lookouts would have light to reflect off the
berg blocking the road?
As it turned out, by the time the lookouts saw the berg with light
reflected from the ship's med-lights, it was too late. They slammed it in
Reverse and swerved to the left. Result? They sideswipe the berg and
gashed the right side of the ship. (Of course, below the water line, IAW
Murphy's Law.)
Then, there's the "ice cube tray" (ironic, eh?) design. They forgot to
make the ceilings of the rooms watertight. When they sideswiped the berg,
the rooms up front flooded first. Once the water got to the ceilings, it
spilled to the next room in back, like the ice cube tray. Result?
Progressive flooding of ALL the rooms. Well, ship manufacturers learned
that one. Modern warships are designed with the ceilings watertight too,
to help avoid a Titanic situation.
Then, the bit with the lifeboats. They obviously never thought they would
have an argument with an iceberg and lose. Good thing for the transvestite
that Crocodile Dundee wasn't in the lifeboat! ("It's a guy, dressed like a
sheila!")
With all these flaws, you'd think that the Titanic was made in Detroit
like the Ford Pinto. Too bad they didn't have the lawyers then like we do
now. The lawyers would have an absolute field day with a Titanic type
disaster today. About the only one who wouldn't get sued would be the
iceberg manufacturer! The iceberg worked flawlessly!
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
"A man's car is his battleship"
1621370 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
furplay
Well, from watching the movie last week, it was apparent that there were two
main items that Titanic was lacking:
1. lifeboats
2. padded railings
*TWUNG!!* *PWIIIIIIIiIiiIING!* *PDANG!* *DOONK!*
jcwa...@uiuc.edu
In article <34A8B6D8...@KILL-SPAMMERS.novia.net>,
fur...@KILL-SPAMMERS.novia.net wrote:
You forgot:
3. Acting
4. The ability to tell a story in an appropriate amount of time[1]
Oh, wait, you were talking about the ship.
[1] And don't start with me about attention span/movie length/that kind of
stuff. I think the perfect movie length is 150 minutes. I loved The
English Patient. But Titanic was drawn out beyond drawn out, perhaps to
justify spending $200 million.
Madeleine Page
furplay wrote:
: Well, from watching the movie last week, it was apparent that there were two
: main items that Titanic was lacking:
: 1. lifeboats
: 2. padded railings
: *TWUNG!!* *PWIIIIIIIiIiiIING!* *PDANG!* *DOONK!*
Deeply as it pains me to lose such finely honed wit and so eloquent a
writing style, duty requires that I point out that this is utterly
irrelevant to alt.folklore.urban.
Followups have been set.
Madeleine "farewell, furplay: you're another Gibbon" Page
Dave and Sue Whitfield
And lets not forget Inferior metal, that when it got cold it got brittle!
that is why it could not survive the frigid waters.. When it hit it
shattered...
furplay wrote in message <34A8B6D8...@KILL-SPAMMERS.novia.net>...
Lon Stowell
In article <68a0m8$279$1...@hirame.wwa.com>, Bloody Viking <nos...@wwa.com> wrote:
>Now, the Titanic had no radars or satellite mapping as neither were
>invented yet. That's fine.
Thank you for that charitable thought.
Now, the next time you go to a movie, could you be persuaded not
to bore the hell out of all these crossposted newsgroups, including
those WHICH HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with your clever little
witlessism?
Dave/Kristin Hall
Dave and Sue Whitfield (SueN...@COMTEN.COM) wrote:
:
: And lets not forget Inferior metal, that when it got cold it got brittle!
: that is why it could not survive the frigid waters.. When it hit it
: shattered...
True, but hardly the fault of the builders (unlike the lack of lifeboats).
The excessive sulfates in the metal by today's standards was perfectly
normal then. Further, the fact that high sulfate steels can be brittle
when cold was completely unknown in the day. Given the state of science
and industry at the time, the steel was goood.
--
David Hall | Kristin Hall
Propulsion Performance Office | The ultimate job:
Naval Air Warfare Ctr, Weapons Div | Brand New Mom
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Look, you two post funny posts, but, Jesus Christ, have some
self respect. This had to be one of the sickest posts I've
read on alt.tasteless!" -Damon Chetson
Jim Mady
Bloody Viking wrote:
> <snip>
> Now, the Titanic had no radars or satellite mapping as neither were
> invented yet. That's fine. Why didn't they use oversize limelights as
> headlights?
Because, as we all know, all ships (and submarines) have
headlights....their just on the head.
Jim
--
Jim "Mayday" Mady
http://www.floatplan.com
"The world's still a toy if you just stay a boy, and that's why Jimmy
dreams. - J. Buffett
Chuck Maurer
On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 16:10:52 -0500, Jim Mady <may...@floatplan.com> wrote:
>Bloody Viking wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> Now, the Titanic had no radars or satellite mapping as neither were
>> invented yet. That's fine. Why didn't they use oversize limelights as
>> headlights?
>
It takes such a long time to alter the course of a ship that size. By the time
something appeared in the light, there is nothing you can do about it. It would
be like driving a car down a country road at night at 60 mph using only a
flashlight to illuminate the road.
Bloody Viking
Chuck Maurer (cma...@dhc.net) wrote:
: It takes such a long time to alter the course of a ship that size. By the time
: something appeared in the light, there is nothing you can do about it. It would
: be like driving a car down a country road at night at 60 mph using only a
: flashlight to illuminate the road.
I know that, which is why I mentioned really good headlights. At the time,
they did have suitably directional lighting, which was used in Broadway
plays. Alas, the Titanic sank, and all the discussions about it won't
raise it. Now, it takes a lot of effort to make the ship turn, imagine how
much effort the iceberg would need. Does anyone know how much damage the
iceberg suffered when the ship crashed into it?
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
"A man's car is his battleship"
1643696 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
William Hamblen
On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 23:33:55 GMT, cma...@dhc.net (Chuck Maurer)
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 16:10:52 -0500, Jim Mady <may...@floatplan.com> wrote:
>
>>Bloody Viking wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>> Now, the Titanic had no radars or satellite mapping as neither were
>>> invented yet. That's fine. Why didn't they use oversize limelights as
>>> headlights?
>>
>
>It takes such a long time to alter the course of a ship that size. By the time
>something appeared in the light, there is nothing you can do about it. It would
>be like driving a car down a country road at night at 60 mph using only a
>flashlight to illuminate the road.
>
Besides, searchlights screw up your night vision and you actually see
less. They did have arc lights in 1912. Warships routinely carried
them. I don't know whether or how many the Titanic had.
David Lesher
nos...@wwa.com (Bloody Viking) writes:
>Chuck Maurer (cma...@dhc.net) wrote:
>: It takes such a long time to alter the course of a ship that size.
>I know that, which is why I mentioned really good headlights.
Lights capable of keeping good beamwidth/intensity over the
say 2-3 MILES needed?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Frosty
David Lesher wrote:
>
> nos...@wwa.com (Bloody Viking) writes:
>
> >: It takes such a long time to alter the course of a ship that size.
>
> >I know that, which is why I mentioned really good headlights.
>
> Lights capable of keeping good beamwidth/intensity over the
> say 2-3 MILES needed?
What the hell...a fuckin' stupid thread for a.t. but YES! Ever heard of
contrast? 'Bergs reflect and the cold, dark ocean doesn't. Easy to pick
out great big floating chunks of ice from the horizon with the
candlepower available in those days.
A bit late, but hope all denizens get their squicking quota in during
'98. Also hope that Wes et al keep the faith and don't leave the rest of
us lazy bastards to keep off the marauding clueless hoards by ourselves.
After sitting on a beach drinking piss and listening to the cricket for
the last few days I can't work out if I'm hungover, drunk or genuinely
sick. maybe now I'm home and can clean up I'll find out. Sorry about
your dog, Hank.
--
Frosty
"Go hard or go home..." - Xaviera Hollander
dogglebe
>>I know that, which is why I mentioned really good headlights.
>Lights capable of keeping good beamwidth/intensity over the
>say 2-3 MILES needed?
Which, of course, would blind you in the fog. And blind anyone else
who happens to sail across your path (unless you also have low beams).
Phil
Robert Gonzalez
dogglebe (dogg...@pipeline.com) wrote:
:
: >>I know that, which is why I mentioned really good headlights.
Properly trained lookouts can see all the way to the horizon in the dark,
lights only get in the way
Lyle Rooff
William Hamblen wrote in message <34b04d6e...@news.nashville.com>...
Warships only used them at critical times in battle or for night rescue
operations. Too short a life for the carbon rods to run them all night long.
BTW, analysis of scraps of steel brought up from the Titanic show that it
was of such poor quality that any self-respecting shipyard now wouldn't even
allow it in their scrap pile. Had the material been up to spec, the damage
would have been far less, and the ship might have survived.
How'd we get so far off-topic, anyhow??? :-)
John Dean
If I was at sea in fog in the path of an ocean liner traveling at 30+
k.p.h. I'd be GRATEFUL to be blinded by the lights while it was still 2-3
miles away
dogglebe <dogg...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<68igv7$m...@camel20.mindspring.com>...
GrapeApe
>Which, of course, would blind you in the fog. And blind anyone else
>who happens to sail across your path (unless you also have low beams).
Which in turn raises a point about Jim Camerons retelling of the Titanic story.
I have only seen the previews, but with Camerons usually sparkly and handsomely
clean story telling visuals, I haven't seen much fog, at least in the trailer.
Wasn't fog one of the excuses the crew used for not seeing the iceburg? Does
Camerons film include the fog?
QarnoS
"Lyle Rooff" <lro...@bmi.net> was quite brave when they trasmitted the
following message:
>BTW, analysis of scraps of steel brought up from the Titanic show that it
>was of such poor quality that any self-respecting shipyard now wouldn't even
>allow it in their scrap pile. Had the material been up to spec, the damage
>would have been far less, and the ship might have survived.
The material was "up to spec". In 1912, steel manufactoring procedures
weren't as sophisticated as they are today. But back then, that
"inferior" steel was the best they could do. It's like someone from
2159 saying "can you believe they actually used electricity back
then?".
>How'd we get so far off-topic, anyhow??? :-)
Something about headlights, I think.
DISCLAIMER:
The above statements were all IMHO
And now, a word from me:
VISIT MY SITE AT: http://www.geocities.com/~qarnos
(please)
Lyle Rooff
QarnoS wrote in message <34ad8...@lynx.ozramp.net.au>...
>"Lyle Rooff" <lro...@bmi.net> was quite brave when they trasmitted the
>following message:
>
>>BTW, analysis of scraps of steel brought up from the Titanic show that it
>>was of such poor quality that any self-respecting shipyard now wouldn't
even
>>allow it in their scrap pile. Had the material been up to spec, the damage
>>would have been far less, and the ship might have survived.
>
>The material was "up to spec". In 1912, steel manufactoring procedures
>weren't as sophisticated as they are today. But back then, that
>"inferior" steel was the best they could do
Actually, the problem was that the steel was of inferior quality by 1912
standards. One of the suppliers shipped them some stuff that was under-spec
for that time, and they used it. I wasn't comparing it with modern
technology, just with what they thought they were getting and using.
Natasha
I know that the Titanic was judged safe
by it's builders when it went to sea....
As a citizen of the country which built the
Titanic I'd just like to point out that it was
working fine when it left the docks. It
was management who crashed it....
QarnoS wrote:
> "Lyle Rooff" <lro...@bmi.net> was quite brave when they trasmitted the
> following message:
>
> >BTW, analysis of scraps of steel brought up from the Titanic show that it
> >was of such poor quality that any self-respecting shipyard now wouldn't even
> >allow it in their scrap pile. Had the material been up to spec, the damage
> >would have been far less, and the ship might have survived.
>
> The material was "up to spec". In 1912, steel manufactoring procedures
> weren't as sophisticated as they are today. But back then, that
Kevin R.
Random Thought
Wasn't Harland & Wolffe (The ship yards that built the Titanic) recently
rewarded a large contract to build several offshore drilling ships for an
American oil company? Sorry to post this here, it belongs in some business
group, but since you are from the same country, I thought you might know.
Natasha wrote in message <34AE7A2D...@y2klinks.com>...
Terry Smith
> From: wb8...@netcom.com (David Lesher)
> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 01:27:49 GMT
> Lights capable of keeping good beamwidth/intensity over the
> say 2-3 MILES needed?
That's about ten times as powerful as a car headlight. A searchlight that
can't reach 16,000 feet should be called a `torch'.
Terry
--
Two free credit cards and no `Social Security' Number = Bliss, `Dear
Friend.'.
Bloody Viking
David Lesher (wb8...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Lights capable of keeping good beamwidth/intensity over the
: say 2-3 MILES needed?
Actually, it wasn't THAT difficult as you temd to make it sound. The
lighting from the portholes made it possible to sight bergs as the ship
drove by them, enough for the passengers on the fantail to notice them in
their splendour.
They definitely had the wattage onboard. Nowadays, they use limelight
"searchlights" on the backs of pickup trucks for the grand openings of
stores. They are pretty directional, you can see the "spot" on the clouds
3,000 feet up. It was definitely possible to install headlights much like
an oversize car on that ship.
It's understandable that the idea is wierd. The "searchlights" used for
the grand openings of stores have what looks like cutting torches to heat
an object white hot, like a limelight that was available in 1911. Becuse
they had coal onboard, they could make coal-gas to run the torches needed
to keep the limestone in the headlights white hot.
They had the technology. My question was why didn't they use it knowing
they were going to drive that ship where there was traffic that didn't use
running lights. (icebergs) There is no excuse.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
"A man's car is his battleship"
1651180 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
Bloody Viking
Robert Gonzalez (1go...@cyberenet.net) wrote:
: Properly trained lookouts can see all the way to the horizon in the dark,
: lights only get in the way
Good point, but when the lookout told the OOD about the berg, the OOD
ignored the warning becuse HE didn't see it! The lookout is NOT the one
doing the driving here. If the ship had the headlights, the lookout would
have told the OOD, and the OOD would have seen the berg in the road becuse
of the lights. This bit with the headlights is obvious if you drive at
night and you're stupid enough to turn them off while "underway". The
manufacturer was stupid for not installing headlights AND the officer of
the deck was stupid for ignoring the lookout. The result is the ship
crashed into a berg.
Bloody Viking
Natasha (anti...@y2klinks.com) wrote:
: I know that the Titanic was judged safe
: by it's builders when it went to sea....
But so was the Ford Pinto. Or Chernobyl.
: As a citizen of the country which built the
: Titanic I'd just like to point out that it was
: working fine when it left the docks. It
: was management who crashed it....
So, where's the warranty on it? Had you owned the company that
manufactured that ship, would you put a warranty on it like a car or for
that matter, a fishing boat? Your bit sounds like Microsoft with the
software.
"It worked fine when we shipped it to the customers!"
Sure, the Titanic will work fine off the showroom floor. But the customer
who took delivery on it was going to use it in a place with berg traffic.
Was there a disclaimer in the end user agreement? Was it suitable for the
climate the customer was going to use it in? Good thing that the
manufacturer doesn't have a modern Titanic to get lawsuits over. If I were
a lawyer, I'd love an accident like this. Talk about product liability
here.
Michael Cogan
Bloody Viking
wrote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------?
Good thing that the
> manufacturer doesn't have a modern Titanic to get lawsuits over. If I were
> a lawyer, I'd love an accident like this. Talk about product liability
> here.
>
> --
> CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
> "A man's car is his battleship"
>
> 1651180 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
This brings us back to topic. Remember the boiled cunt lady who made a
pretty
penny because she was stupid enough to spill coffee on herself while
driving?
The ambulance-chasers in U.K. would be liable for court costs if they
did not
win the case. There is so much less frivolous litigation where the
defendant
will pay a ransom to call the attacker off.
Michael Cogan
Michael Cogan wrote:
>
> Bloody Viking
> wrote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------?
> Good thing that the
> > manufacturer doesn't have a modern Titanic to get lawsuits over. If I were
> > a lawyer, I'd love an accident like this. Talk about product liability
> > here.
> >
> > --
> > CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
> > "A man's car is his battleship"
> >
> > 1651180 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
> This brings us back to topic. Remember the boiled cunt lady who made a
> pretty
> penny because she was stupid enough to spill coffee on herself while
> driving?
> The ambulance-chasers in U.K. would be liable for court costs if they
> did not
> win the case.
Merkins are plagued by the threat of having to pay a king's ransom to
call off attackers in frivolous cases that have no merit.
Robert Gonzalez
Bloody Viking (nos...@wwa.com) wrote:
:
:
: : Properly trained lookouts can see all the way to the horizon in the dark,
: : lights only get in the way
:
: Good point, but when the lookout told the OOD about the berg, the OOD
: ignored the warning becuse HE didn't see it! The lookout is NOT the one
: doing the driving here. If the ship had the headlights, the lookout would
: have told the OOD, and the OOD would have seen the berg in the road becuse
: of the lights. This bit with the headlights is obvious if you drive at
: night and you're stupid enough to turn them off while "underway". The
: manufacturer was stupid for not installing headlights AND the officer of
: the deck was stupid for ignoring the lookout. The result is the ship
: crashed into a berg.
You said it was a good point and then you proceed to ignore it.
Talk to an experienced Captain, maybe he (or she) can explain it to you.
:
: --
Niall
On 4 Jan 1998 07:17:58 GMT, nos...@wwa.com (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>They had the technology. My question was why didn't they use it knowing
>they were going to drive that ship where there was traffic that didn't use
>running lights. (icebergs) There is no excuse.
Because it doesn't work, for a number of reasons, which if you were a
sailor you would appreciate.
Notice that ships *still* don't have "headlights" despite the fact
that todays technology would make it easy.
Niall
(Drascombe Coaster - Tangram)
Nick Spalding
Niall wrote:
>
> Because it doesn't work, for a number of reasons, which if you were a
> sailor you would appreciate.
> Notice that ships *still* don't have "headlights" despite the fact
> that todays technology would make it easy.
>
> Niall
> (Drascombe Coaster - Tangram)
The do have the modern equivalent - radar. Perhaps not on your little
ship however.
--
Nick Spalding
Colin Dooley
Bloody Viking wrote:
> The manufacturer was stupid for not installing headlights AND the
> officer of the deck was stupid for ignoring the lookout. The result
> is the ship crashed into a berg.
>
Does nobody but me see the humour of it sinking on the
*maiden voyage*?
They spend two years calling it "The Unsinkable". Mans
great achievement - engineering conquers the elements etc.
What were God/Murphy *supposed* to do 'fer cryin' out loud?
Let's face it, collision was unavoidable, headlights or not.
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
Niall
On Sun, 04 Jan 1998 14:56:05 GMT, spal...@iol.ie (Nick Spalding)
wrote:
Radar? Last year was the first year we had *electricity*!
There was a program on UK TV recently about the US Iceberg Patrol in
which it was explained that icebergs are difficult to detect with
radar even when specifically optimised for the purpose, which is why
they have to spot them visually (during daylight).
Radar in general and marine radar in particular is not the magic "see
in the dark" device that the public think it is. The displays take a
lot of interpretation to identify what you are looking at; even the
coastline can appear to have quite different shapes compared with
reality.
The effect of "sea clutter" particulary in anything but a flat calm is
such that even small boats with purpose designed radar reflectors can
be invisible on a big ship radar.
The major user of radar, air traffic control, uses active transponders
on the 'planes to get round the limitations, e.g. to provide height
information which the raw radar system does badly.
Niall
Cambias
In article <68nkue$d...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Cogan
<m..cogan@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Michael Cogan wrote:
> >
> > Bloody Viking
> >
wrote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> This brings us back to topic. Remember the boiled cunt lady who made a
> > pretty
> > penny because she was stupid enough to spill coffee on herself while
> > driving?
> > The ambulance-chasers in U.K. would be liable for court costs if they
> > did not
> > win the case.
>
> Merkins are plagued by the threat of having to pay a king's ransom to
> call off attackers in frivolous cases that have no merit.
Of course, if she had been wearing a merkin, her **** wouldn't have gotten
boiled in the first place and McDonald's wouldn't have been sued. WEAR
YOUR MERKIN AT ALL TIMES TO PREVENT CUNT BOILING!!!!!
Cambias
(how often do you get to use the expression "boiled cunt" in everyday
conversation?)
"I'll just kill Santa and get all his toys."
Phil Gustafson
nia...@ndirect.co.uk (Niall) blesses us with:
>
>There was a program on UK TV recently about the US Iceberg Patrol in
>which it was explained that icebergs are difficult to detect with
>radar even when specifically optimised for the purpose, which is why
>they have to spot them visually (during daylight).
>
visibility? If they're going to all that trouble, why don't they just
blow the icebergs up?
EMWTK.
Ph.
--
Phil Gustafson Remember, they also serve who only crawl back
ph...@panix.com beneath their damp rock. -- Dan Hoey
Niall
On 4 Jan 1998 14:15:08 -0500, ph...@panix.com (Phil Gustafson) wrote:
>nia...@ndirect.co.uk (Niall) blesses us with:
>>
>>There was a program on UK TV recently about the US Iceberg Patrol in
>>which it was explained that icebergs are difficult to detect with
>>radar even when specifically optimised for the purpose, which is why
>>they have to spot them visually (during daylight).
>>
>I'm confused. Just who is going around optimizing icebergs for radar
>visibility?
Ok, ok, you knew what I meant...
>If they're going to all that trouble, why don't they just
>blow the icebergs up?
They tried that, and found that it required unrealistically large
quantities of explosives, and all they got was more, smaller icebergs
which were just as dangerous to shipping. they also tried painting
icebergs black to encourage them to melt.
I wouldn't be surprised if they dropped radar reflectors on bergs at
some stage, they seemed to have tried everything possibly including
small nuclear devices.
Currently their policy is to fly around spotting and charting bergs.
Quite satisfying watching big science setting out to eliminate a
natural phenomenon by throwing technology and resources at it and
getting their asses kicked by natural forces.
Niall
FrogPrinc9
Bob Ward informed alt.folklore.urban.denizens:
>It doesn't sound all that difficult to drop a solar-powered GPS
>receiver and a beacon on icebergs if they really want to keep track of
>them... they do it with whales and moose, etc already...
>
Please, let me just once ask the obvious question? I will then return to lurk
mode until (and if) I have something worthwhile to say, honest!
What on earth do the whales and moose(s) (meese)(s) do on the iceberg?
John "and the flying squirrel you rode in on" Brown
Dan Hartung
Bloody Viking <nos...@wwa.com> wrote in article
<68hbvt$11e$1...@hirame.wwa.com>...
> plays. Alas, the Titanic sank, and all the discussions about it won't
> raise it. Now, it takes a lot of effort to make the ship turn, imagine
how
> much effort the iceberg would need. Does anyone know how much damage the
> iceberg suffered when the ship crashed into it?
Well, we do know that there weren't enough bergs for all the penguins.[1]
[1] How should I know why they were in the Arctic?
Raymond P. Scheel
Bob Ward wrote:
> It doesn't sound all that difficult to drop a solar-powered GPS
> receiver and a beacon on icebergs if they really want to keep track of
> them... they do it with whales and moose, etc already...
I think the holdup with this one is that icebergs tend to "roll
over" in the water a lot, as there is no set 'top' or 'bottom' of
a berg. The big ones also break up into smaller, but still
dangerous bergs.... I guess they could always use some sort of
projectile to anchor a long tether into the ice with a GPS bouy on
the far end... but they would still have to check on it nearly
every day.
Ray Scheel
--
No spam please, I had enough for lunch.
For on topic replies and non-commercial correspondence only,
hack out the "NO_SPAM" from my return address to reply.
The opinions herein are strictly my own and in no way reflect
those of the Windham School District or TDCJ-ID.
David Lesher
>: As a citizen of the country which built the
>: Titanic I'd just like to point out that it was
>: working fine when it left the docks. It
>: was management who crashed it....
>So, where's the warranty on it? Had you owned the company that
>manufactured that ship, would you put a warranty on it like a car or for
>that matter, a fishing boat?
Are you DAFT? It was British....
"We warrant it WILL break, seep oil and leave you in a world of
trouble...just like all our motorcars. Further, all Lucas
Electricals are warrented to work only in the daylight hours when
it's not damp..."
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
John H. Treble
Maybe they all used medicated shampoo......huh, what? No headlights?
What?
Oh geesh...I thought you said no head lice!
Never mind.....
John
Phil Edwards
wb8...@netcom.com (David Lesher) wrote:
>"We warrant it WILL break, seep oil and leave you in a world of
>trouble...just like all our motorcars. Further, all Lucas
>Electricals are warrented to work only in the daylight hours when
>it's not damp..."
Things got a bit quiet over Christmas, so I added a number of new
names to my watchlist. This Lesher person appears to have slipped in
somehow. Which makes me wonder, what's the sound effect for removal
from watchlist without subsequent killfiling?
Phil "apart from 'Grrrrr', that is" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards amroth(at)zetnet.co.uk
"The song also tells of fried fish and johnny cakes, which
I think speaks for itself. I hope this helps." - D.M. Procida
James Walley
Colin Dooley <co...@medit3d.com> wrote in article
<34AF9B...@medit3d.com>...
> They spend two years calling it "The Unsinkable".
A bit less mythology and more facts, please. The label came about from an
article in "The Shipbuilder" magazine claiming that the design of
watertight compartments made it "_practically_ unsinkable." Neither
Harland & Wolff nor the White Star Line even once claimed it to be
"unsinkable", and that was certainly not a "selling point" for the ship,
however much mythmakers after the fact tried to make it so. In fact, the
design of the ship did make it far more likely to withstand any of the most
normal forms of mishaps at sea...however, sideswiping an iceberg for 300
feet would pretty much fall under the category of "freak accident."
David Lesher
The Enemy Within <not.av...@thank.you.muchly> writes:
>> Are you DAFT? It was British....
>Which is why, poor metal aside, it still had class and style, that touch
>of breeding and distinction that put it a shade above any of the garish,
>naff, tasteless american constructions of the time......
And almost incidentally, it sank.....
Roberta Hatch
In article <34B294...@thank.you.muchly> into.the.@abyss.thank.you writes:
>David Lesher wrote:
>> Are you DAFT? It was British....
>Which is why, poor metal aside, it still had class and style, that touch
>of breeding and distinction that put it a shade above any of the garish,
>naff, tasteless american constructions of the time......
That "touch of breeding and distinction" should read,
"touch of inbreeding and distinction".
Bobbi
---
Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent)
Timothy A. McDaniel
In article <68njg1$d...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Cogan <m..cogan@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Remember the boiled cunt lady who made a pretty penny because she was
>stupid enough to spill coffee on herself while driving?
Oddly enough, I can't find references to the case at the two major
Urban Legend archives, http://www.snopes.com and
http://www.urbanlegends.com. (I think this a great oversight, but I'm
not the maintainers.) You could try Deja News in alt.folklore.urban,
I suspect, for more info. If I recall correctly, Ian York wrote a
good and well-researched article on this (as he does on most topics).
I'm afraid you have been misinformed about the circumstances.
In brief: [1]
- She was a passenger.
- The car was parked.
- The hot coffee gave her 3rd-degree burns. She had to have several
operations.
- The coffee was considerably hotter even than other fast-food
restaurants in the area.
- Before suing, she asked McDonald's to just pay her medical costs,
$50,000.
[1] Unintentional, but I'll leave it.
Tim "if your product gives me 3rd-degree burns on my wabbly bits when
I'm attempting to use it properly, I'd consider suing, too" McDaniel
--
Reply to tm...@crl.com; if that fail, tm...@austin.ibm.com
is work account. tm...@tmcd.austin.tx.us ... is wrong tool. Never use this.
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, tm...@crl.crl.com (Timothy A. McDaniel) said:
[McDonalds Coffee Lady]
>Tim "if your product gives me 3rd-degree burns on my wabbly bits when
>I'm attempting to use it properly, I'd consider suing, too" McDaniel
Sorry, but what part of "us[ing] it properly" involves pouring coffee on your
wobbly bits?
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com) I don't buy from spammers.
"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a
battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day."
- Calvin discovers Usenet
Richard Brandt
'CupCaked' wrote:
> Remember, the word "posh" came from P.O.S.H stamped on passengers'
> tickets and meant "port out, starboard home", the shadiest cabins
> onboard a steamer bound for hot, humid India. That's how the upper
> crust rich-bitches traveled and that's how the term was coined.
Ummm....err....
Richard "Cruise Line and Sinker" Brandt
--
========== http://members.xoom.com/rsbrandt =========
"Facts are like bricks. You can make a building out of
them, or you can break a window." -- Charles Schnee
The Enemy Within
David Lesher wrote:
>
> Are you DAFT? It was British....
Which is why, poor metal aside, it still had class and style, that touch
of breeding and distinction that put it a shade above any of the garish,
naff, tasteless american constructions of the time......
--
Americunii, stercorem pro cerebro habes
Obesa cantavit
Frosty
Niall wrote:
>
> Notice that ships *still* don't have "headlights" despite the fact
> that todays technology would make it easy.
>
headlights I've seen were on the "Aurora Australis", the Australian
Antarctic research vessel. Two were on the monkey deck (or is it
bridge?) above the bridge, and the most powerful was on the bow,
constantly sweeping left and right when we got into berg territory. Even
with the latest radar technology, it seems that you just can't take
chances with those big icecubes.
Looking from a blacked-out bridge they worked extremely well, even in
driving snow. In fog, they were still useful, but with a shorter range.
In these conditions the ship was always slowed down.
--
Frosty
"Go hard or go home..." - Xaviera Hollander
The Enemy Within
David Lesher wrote:
>>a shade above any of the garish,
> >naff, tasteless american constructions of the time......
>
>
Indeed. Notice how it took an Englishman to get the thread back onto
topic of tastelessness, though......
And more of us can read latin....[snicker...]
-- ===================================
Stuart Portner
Ah, Lucas: Prince of Darkness
"If Lucas made bombs, wars wouldn't start"
"The British drink warm beer because Lucas makes refrigerators"
and finally,
"God save MG- the queen can take care of herself"
--
-=Stu=-
To E-mail a reply, please use the E-mail link at my website.
Visit my non-commercial website: "All About Wheelchairs" at:
http://www.seflin.org/wheels
David Lesher <wb8...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<wb8fozEM...@netcom.com>...
,<snip> "We warrant it WILL break, seep oil and leave you in a world of
> trouble...just like all our motorcars. Further, all Lucas
> Electricals are warrented to work only in the daylight hours when
> it's not damp..."
>
John Varela
George Byrd
Speaking of "Re: Titanic: Why No Headlights?"
in <alt.folklore.urban> on Mon, 05 Jan 1998 22:22:40 -0700,
<Richard Brandt <rsbr...@cris.com>> said:
>'CupCaked' wrote:
[ p*sh ]
>Ummm....err....
>Richard "Cruise Line and Sinker" Brandt
It flopped right into the boat. Nobody even had any lines out.
George "there's more 'n 'bergs in these waters"
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc.
Opinions above are NOT legal advice.
"Any fool can make a rule and every fool will mind it."
<<< H. D. Thoreau, _Journal_, 2/3/1860 >>
Robert Gonzalez
Timothy A. McDaniel (tm...@crl.crl.com) wrote:
: In article <68njg1$d...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
: Michael Cogan <m..cogan@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: >Remember the boiled cunt lady who made a pretty penny because she was
: >stupid enough to spill coffee on herself while driving?
:
: Oddly enough, I can't find references to the case at the two major
: Urban Legend archives, http://www.snopes.com and
: http://www.urbanlegends.com. (I think this a great oversight, but I'm
: not the maintainers.) You could try Deja News in alt.folklore.urban,
: I suspect, for more info. If I recall correctly, Ian York wrote a
: good and well-researched article on this (as he does on most topics).
:
: I'm afraid you have been misinformed about the circumstances.
: In brief: [1]
:
: - She was a passenger.
: - The car was parked.
I seem to remember the media reporting this differently.
: - The hot coffee gave her 3rd-degree burns. She had to have several
: operations.
: - The coffee was considerably hotter even than other fast-food
: restaurants in the area.
: - Before suing, she asked McDonald's to just pay her medical costs,
: $50,000.
:
: [1] Unintentional, but I'll leave it.
:
: Tim "if your product gives me 3rd-degree burns on my wabbly bits when
: I'm attempting to use it properly, I'd consider suing, too" McDaniel
: --
Sorry, putting a hot cup of coffee (reguardless of HOW hot), between your
legs while wearing shorts is NOT using it Properly.
Even small children know better.
: Reply to tm...@crl.com; if that fail, tm...@austin.ibm.com
Gary Pollard
It wouldn't be in Urban Legends because it's not an Urban Legend.
She was awarded a major settlement, most of which came from "punitive"
damages.
She was a passenger, sitting in a car. She spilled the drink on her lap.
Apart from the heat of the liquid, what made the burns third degree burns
was that she was wearing not shorts but those skin tight elasticated pants.
They held the burning liquid against her skin. If she had got up and whipped
em off she would have been less severely burned.
At one burn seminar I went to they told me that many people after operations
suffer third degree burns from something no hotter than a hot water bottle.
The reason is that they are numb around the area that was operated on, and
they hold the hot-water there too long. it's not only how hot the source is,
it's how long you are in contact with it.
Even if the court had every right to order MacDonald's to pay personal
damages, the real cash cow for suing major organisations comes from
"punitive damages". That's what the shyster lawyers dream about.
I believe a great many frivolous law suits could be prevented if the money
from punitive damages (intended to punish the organisation, not to
compensate the bringer of the case) were NOT given to those bringing the
case but to charity.
Gary
Robert Gonzalez <1go...@cyberenet.net> wrote in message
<34b20...@news.cyberenet.net>...
Ray Depew
'CupCaked' (SPUDS...@nac.net) wrote:
[...]
: Remember, the word "posh" came from
[...]
Hello? Anybody know any songs about ... never mind. I just noticed
that 'CupCaked' crossposted to alt.test and misc.legal. All of AFU
doesn't have enough free clues to help her out.
R
R
Timothy A. McDaniel
In article <68t240$9s...@news.asiaonline.net>,
Gary Pollard <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>It wouldn't be in Urban Legends because it's not an Urban Legend.
A story and details being passed from person to person, mutating as it
goes, without immediate reference to the source of the story, and
providing a moral ("plaintiffs are stupid and juries are robbers" is
what I think the commonly-intended moral is) -- that fits my profile
of an Urban Legend.
The previous author said that he had read a different account in the
media (specifically, that the car was not parked). However, the media
are major vectors of ULs. If wishes were bullets, some major
alt.folklore.urban Hats would be on death row for the 1st-degree
murders of Paul Harvey and Ann Landers. (I'd argue justifiable
homicide, if not commendable homicide ...) Some otherwise-reputable
papers published the "South African vacuum death story". (Cleaning
woman in hospital unplugs equipment to plug in her vacuum.
Authorities only discover this habit after investigating a string of
unexplained deaths of people on life support. No such case was found
in South Africa, the purported source. I found a similar notion in a
People magazine parody of the 80's.)
>Apart from the heat of the liquid, what made the burns third degree
>burns was that she was wearing not shorts but those skin tight
>elasticated pants. They held the burning liquid against her skin. If
>she had got up and whipped em off she would have been less severely
>burned.
>
>At one burn seminar I went to
In trying to do a Deja News search, I found an article indicating that
she was wearing sweat pants (but also good at trapping hot fluids). I
recall the lady being in her 70's as well, so "skin tight pants" seems
unlikely to me. I'll stay agnostic on the exact detail, but I would
think it would be hard at the best of times to "whip off" "skin tight
pants", not to mention while getting third-degree burns while in the
front seat of a car (which, from personal erotic experience, I can
attest are generally cramped and ill-suited to anything except one
person per seat sitting normally, at least for many modern cars).
--
Tim McDaniel. Reply to tm...@crl.com; if that fail, tm...@austin.ibm.com
Phil Edwards
The Enemy Within <not.av...@thank.you.muchly> wrote:
>David Lesher wrote:
>>>a shade above any of the garish,
>> >naff, tasteless american constructions of the time......
>>
>> And almost incidentally, it sank.....
>>
>
>Indeed. Notice how it took an Englishman to get the thread back onto
>topic of tastelessness, though......
>And more of us can read latin....[snicker...]
>
>-- ===================================
>Americunii, stercorem pro cerebro habes
Americane, stercum in loco cerebri habes.
Phil "100 times. Now." Edwards
fletcher
In article <68trqt$c...@crl.crl.com>,
tm...@crl.crl.com (Timothy A. McDaniel) wrote:
>In article <68t240$9s...@news.asiaonline.net>,
>Gary Pollard <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>>It wouldn't be in Urban Legends because it's not an Urban Legend.
>
>A story and details being passed from person to person, mutating as it
>goes, without immediate reference to the source of the story, and
>providing a moral ("plaintiffs are stupid and juries are robbers" is
>what I think the commonly-intended moral is) -- that fits my profile
>of an Urban Legend.
etc, etc.
With all due respect to afu Hats and others, crossposting threatens to
swamp the lifeboats over here at <mumble-mumble) ocean-liners.titanic. I
have trimmed the headers accordingly and request you do so as well.
Roger Douglas
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998 18:48:41 +0800, "Gary Pollard"
<gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>It wouldn't be in Urban Legends because it's not an Urban Legend.
>
>She was awarded a major settlement, most of which came from "punitive"
>damages.
>
[further good stuff deleted]
I just wanted to note that there is some good stuff on the Web about
the "Spilled Coffee" case.
There's a detailed account of the MacDonald's coffee case at
http://www.hardinglaw.com/hh23.html
and further comment at
http://www.quellerfisher.com/liebeck.html
Another article comments on the misreporting and misrepresentation of
the case:
http://home.inreach.com/krantz/mcds.htm
The two most interesting points for me (not having paid much attention
to the case previously) are
1. that the plaintiff's damages WERE reduced due to contributory
negligence.
2. the factor that seems to have most influenced the jury was
MacDonalds' admission that they deliberately kept their coffee at a
dangerously high temperature -- much too hot to drink, in fact --
despite having already paid compensation to hundreds of victims of
scalding.
Followups trimmed (since this is no longer related to the Titanic)
--R.
Rick Kaumeier
Timothy A. McDaniel wrote:
>
> In trying to do a Deja News search, I found an article indicating that
> she was wearing sweat pants (but also good at trapping hot fluids). I
> recall the lady being in her 70's as well, so "skin tight pants" seems
> unlikely to me.
Ahhh, I can see you've never spent much time in St. Petersburg,
Florida. <g>
Rick
Edward Rice
In article <68a0m8$279$1...@hirame.wwa.com>,
nos...@wwa.com (Bloody Viking) wrote:
> Tell me if this sounds like a stupid thing to do: You are driving on a
> dark road with no street lights, and both headlights are burnt out. You
> are doing 100 MPH on a cloudy night with only your car's running lights.
> Suddenly, 50 feet away you see the Sinclair Dinosaur, so you swerve and
> slam on the brakes only to sideswipe the dinosaur. Stupid, eh?
>
> Now, the Titanic had no radars or satellite mapping as neither were
> invented yet. That's fine. Why didn't they use oversize limelights as
> headlights? After all, they were driving in a place where there was
heavy
> traffic - of icebergs. Icebergs are notorious for not having running
> lights like other ships. Icebergs are nothing but randomly moving
islands
> of ice.
Ahem. Let's say that a good limelight, in good, clear weather, would give
them a quarter of a mile of illumination. Heck, a half mile -- 2,500 feet,
let's say. From the spotting of a berg to the identification of the berg
as such, ten seconds? Another ten to communicate the information to the
bridge. An instant order to reduce speed, plus another ten seconds for the
bridge to determine whether a turn to starboard or larboard was safe, and
of the two, which one to take. Another ten to turn the rudder. What's
that, now... forty seconds used up and nothing at all yet accomplished. In
forty seconds, a ship steaming at 25 MPH would cover 1,500 feet. So, we
now have an ocean liner that might take a couple of miles or more to stop,
trying to slow down while making a turn, in less than 1,000 feet. That's
if everything worked perfectly. If each of those 10-second periods was 17
seconds, or the illumination into the weatherish weather was less than
optimal, then the ship would hit the berg and nothing at all could be done.
Anyway, not a major win. Given that the state of the art of illumination
is far advanced today, why don't ships use headlights /today/?
Gary Pollard
There is one web site, written by a couple of lawyers, defending the claims
made in the case, and the rights of lawyers to go after the big money. I
can't remember the URL, but they did say she was wearing sweat pants. They
also said very specifically that the pants held the coffee next to her skin.
And, I forgot to mention, she was not driving. She was a 79 year old lady
from Albuquerque.
The car was not parked. It was driven by her grandson who jerked the car
forward and then brought it to a halt so she could put the milk in her
coffee. The claim was that it was spilled after he'd stopped the car.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was
reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in
the spill. That much I find quite acceptable.
The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals
about two days of McDonalds coffee sales. And, as I said, this is where the
greed of lawyers and would-be "victims" comes in.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or
three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds
conduct reckless, callous and willful.
I still disagree with the judge. Even if other restaurants make their coffee
less hot. Maybe my iron doesn't need to get quite so hot to iron my clothes,
but I don't think I'd sue the makers if I burned myself with it.
Gary
Andy Walton
:I believe a great many frivolous law suits could be prevented if the money
:from punitive damages (intended to punish the organisation, not to
:compensate the bringer of the case) were NOT given to those bringing the
:case but to charity.
In Georgia, 75% of punitive damages go to the state treasury. I haven't
seen any studies on its effect on volume of lawsuits, but the single
largest punitive award to date -- in the suit over "saddlebag" gas tanks
on GMC trucks -- was in Georgia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-day suspension of student for disrupting high school lip sync
contest with chain saw and boa constrictor did not violate his
constitutional rights.
-- summary, Smith v. Severn and North Boone, 96-1563, 7th Cir. 11-13-97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
Gregory C. Read
I would think that if only 75% goes somewhere else, it will only
encourage the lawyers to go for even more so that the 25% is worth
their effort.
--
Greg
xxxg...@voicenet.com
(REMOVE 'xxx' before sending)
Andy Walton <att...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<atticus-0701...@user-38lcabg.dialup.mindspring.com>...
> In article <68t240$9s...@news.asiaonline.net>, "Gary Pollard"
> <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>
> :I believe a great many frivolous law suits could be prevented if
the money
> :from punitive damages (intended to punish the organisation, not to
> :compensate the bringer of the case) were NOT given to those
bringing the
> :case but to charity.
>
> In Georgia, 75% of punitive damages go to the state treasury. I
haven't
> seen any studies on its effect on volume of lawsuits, but the single
> largest punitive award to date -- in the suit over "saddlebag" gas
tanks
> on GMC trucks -- was in Georgia.
snip>
Michael J. Falcon-Gates
In article <atticus-0701...@user-38lcabg.dialup.mindspring.com>,
att...@mindspring.com says...
>
>In article <68t240$9s...@news.asiaonline.net>, "Gary Pollard"
><gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>
> :I believe a great many frivolous law suits could be prevented if the
money
> :from punitive damages (intended to punish the organisation, not to
> :compensate the bringer of the case) were NOT given to those bringing
the
> :case but to charity.
>
>In Georgia, 75% of punitive damages go to the state treasury. I haven't
>seen any studies on its effect on volume of lawsuits, but the single
>largest punitive award to date -- in the suit over "saddlebag" gas tanks
>on GMC trucks -- was in Georgia.
The Wall Street Journal has published several articles stating that
Georgia is the worst state in the Union to get sued in, if you're a big
corporation. I believe the "scratched BMW" case was tried in Georgia, too.
(Some guy bought a BMW; it turned out that sometime during shipping, the
paint had gotten scratched, and somebody had painted over the scratch.
They didn't tell him about it when they sold him the car, so he sued and
got a gajillion-dollar award.)
-m
--
Not Microsoft's BMW, etc.
Jeff Henkels
Michael J. Falcon-Gates <a-mi...@microsoft.com> wrote in article
<690i4g$v...@news.microsoft.com>...
> I believe the "scratched BMW" case was tried in Georgia, too.
> (Some guy bought a BMW; it turned out that sometime during shipping, the
> paint had gotten scratched, and somebody had painted over the scratch.
> They didn't tell him about it when they sold him the car, so he sued and
> got a gajillion-dollar award.)
You misspelled "Alabama"...
Lon Stowell
>> (Some guy bought a BMW; it turned out that sometime during shipping, the
>> paint had gotten scratched, and somebody had painted over the scratch.
>> They didn't tell him about it when they sold him the car, so he sued and
>> got a gajillion-dollar award.)
>
>You misspelled "Alabama"...
Eeeuuuugggghhhhh. Is this one of those "nuisance lawsuit"
type awards? Some poor guy has a scratched beemer and the
jury in Georgia awards him the state of Alabama?
The Enemy Within
Ah but this is because American law allows you to claim whatever damages
you can think of. Under (sensible ;) ) english law , you can only claim
either specific damages (e.g. he broke my window and it cost me £50 plus
one phone call)ie you have specific costs to claim, or unliquidated
damages (My feelings were hurt and I missed the TV program) , where the
damage is not quatifiable in money and the judge and jury assess it. You
can't say, in english law, "he hurt my feelings so I claim £1,000,000".
This prevents you suing someone frivolously as you can in the USA, and
you have to have suffered *REAL* damages to make it worthwhile going to
court.
Gregory C. Read wrote:
>
> I would think that if only 75% goes somewhere else, it will only
> encourage the lawyers to go for even more so that the 25% is worth
> their effort.
> --
> Greg
> xxxg...@voicenet.com
> (REMOVE 'xxx' before sending)
>
> Andy Walton <att...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
> <atticus-0701...@user-38lcabg.dialup.mindspring.com>...
> > In article <68t240$9s...@news.asiaonline.net>, "Gary Pollard"
> > <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > :I believe a great many frivolous law suits could be prevented if
> the money
> > :from punitive damages (intended to punish the organisation, not to
> > :compensate the bringer of the case) were NOT given to those
> bringing the
> > :case but to charity.
> >
> > In Georgia, 75% of punitive damages go to the state treasury. I
> haven't
> > seen any studies on its effect on volume of lawsuits, but the single
> > largest punitive award to date -- in the suit over "saddlebag" gas
> tanks
> > on GMC trucks -- was in Georgia.
> snip>
--
Americunii, stercorem pro cerebro habes
Obesa cantavit
Richard Glueck
Getting back to the question at hand, headlights were added to the German
liners "Imperator" and "Vaterland" as a selling feature, immediatly after
the "Titanic" did the big gurgle. There is no know record of the
headlights ever being used for the purpose of scanning for icebergs,
head-lice, fog banks, fishing schooners, or any meaningful obstruction.
Later.
David Marc Nieporent
In <690i4g$v...@news.microsoft.com>,
Michael J. Falcon-Gates <a-mi...@microsoft.com> claimed:
>att...@mindspring.com says...
>>In Georgia, 75% of punitive damages go to the state treasury. I haven't
>>seen any studies on its effect on volume of lawsuits, but the single
>>largest punitive award to date -- in the suit over "saddlebag" gas tanks
>>on GMC trucks -- was in Georgia.
>The Wall Street Journal has published several articles stating that
>Georgia is the worst state in the Union to get sued in, if you're a big
>corporation. I believe the "scratched BMW" case was tried in Georgia, too.
>(Some guy bought a BMW; it turned out that sometime during shipping, the
>paint had gotten scratched, and somebody had painted over the scratch.
>They didn't tell him about it when they sold him the car, so he sued and
>got a gajillion-dollar award.)
Alabama, but all them confederate states are pretty much the same.
--
David M. Nieporent How about that! I looked something up!
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu These books behind me don't just make the
1L - St. John's School of Law office look good, they're filled with
useful legal tidbits just like that! - L Hutz
Philip Lees
>I would think that if only 75% goes somewhere else, it will only
>encourage the lawyers to go for even more so that the 25% is worth
>their effort.
>--
>snip>
I read an interesting suggestion by Edward de Bono[1]. He proposed
that, whenever a court awarded an amount in damages less than that
claimed by the plaintiff, the difference should come out of the
lawyer's share first. This would discourage lawyers to claim
unreasonably huge sums, since they might then end up with no fee at
all.
Of course, since the lawmakers are mostly lawyers themselves, such a
measure is unlikely ever to find its way on to the statute books.
Philip "I don't really hate lawyers, just the legal profession" Lees
[1] I'm sure you all know who he is - inventor of the term "lateral
thinking", among other things.
--
Perform dentistry on my e-mail address to reply.
garrry
In article <68njg1$d...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Cogan <m..cogan@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Remember the boiled cunt lady who made a pretty penny because she was
>stupid enough to spill coffee on herself while driving?
I'm afraid you have been misinformed about the circumstances.
In brief: [1]
- She was a passenger.
- The car was parked.
- The hot coffee gave her 3rd-degree burns. She had to have several
operations.
- The coffee was considerably hotter even than other fast-food
restaurants in the area.
- Before suing, she asked McDonald's to just pay her medical costs,
$50,000.
You might want to add that McDonald's had settled hundreds of claims for serious burns from their coffee, and had considered reducing the temperature because of the safety problem but decided it might cut back on sales. T hey did reduce it the day after the verdict. Also, although the jury award was large, the judge reduced it to about $80,000, and she accepted less in settlement. The system worked the way it is supposed to (although I think McD got off way too lightly).
Joe Thompson
> She was a passenger, sitting in a car. She spilled the drink on her lap.
> Apart from the heat of the liquid, what made the burns third degree burns
> was that she was wearing not shorts but those skin tight elasticated pants.
> They held the burning liquid against her skin. If she had got up and whipped
> em off she would have been less severely burned.
>
> At one burn seminar I went to they told me that many people after operations
> suffer third degree burns from something no hotter than a hot water bottle.
> The reason is that they are numb around the area that was operated on, and
> they hold the hot-water there too long. it's not only how hot the source is,
> it's how long you are in contact with it.
Waitaminnit. I seen to remember some sort of burn guide from the Boy Scout
handbook passed down to me by my father that went like this:
First degree: Redness, swelling.
Second degree: Blisters and/or boils. Destruction of top layer of skin.
Third degree: Charring, peeling, trauma to flesh.
So this woman's flesh whash charred by hot coffee? Or have I got my burns
mixed up? -- Joe
--
Joe Thompson | Finger for Geek | Tech support is a fine
Charlottesville, VA | Code and PGP key | art which, once mastered,
Freelance PC service | | ensures loss of sanity.
Technical Writing | http://driver-8.rlc.net/
By sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to the address above you agree to
a proofreading fee of $1000 per message.
Loel Larzelere
John Varela wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Jan 1998 20:31:54, The Enemy Within <not.av...@thank.you.muchly>
> wrote:
>
> > David Lesher wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Are you DAFT? It was British....
> >
> > Which is why, poor metal aside, it still had class and style,
> And also explains why it had no headlights.
>
You know why the British prefer tepid beer? Lucas refrigeration ...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
No, it wouldn't be fair to call the three branches
of government the Three Stooges form of government.
Curly would be offended.
----------------------------------------------------------
Often Imitated ... Never Duplicated ... lo...@iwaynet.net
http://www.iwaynet.net/~loel/
Apply for a home mortgage today!!
http://www.loanweb.com/home/allmort.html
Gotta Love a Ponycar? 1977 Mustang II For Sale!!
http://www.iwaynet.net/~loel/mustang.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ulo Melton
Loel Larzelere wrote:
>You know why the British prefer tepid beer? Lucas refrigeration ...
Congratulations! You're the millionth person to post this "joke" to
a.f.u! Phil, what do we have for our lucky contestant?
Ulo "besides a date with a sewergator" Melton
Timothy A. McDaniel
In article <kensey-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>,
Joe Thompson <ken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Second degree: Blisters and/or boils. Destruction of top layer of skin.
> Third degree: Charring, peeling, trauma to flesh.
>So this woman's flesh whash charred by hot coffee? Or have I got my burns
>mixed up? -- Joe
Not necessarily "charing", but destruction of tissue to some depth, I
believe. Yes, she did have such major burns (185 +/- 5 degree F
coffee on wabbly bits, thighs, etc.) and much medical treatment,
including debridement of the genital. No, no, that's not what it
means -- get your mind out of the gutter! Use of friction to remove
flesh, yes, but in this case it's sandpaper and the like to remove
dead and decaying flesh.
Tim "Oh, what a charing cross I bear" McDaniel.
--
Roberta Hatch
>>You know why the British prefer tepid beer? Lucas refrigeration ...
>Congratulations! You're the millionth person to post this "joke" to
>a.f.u! Phil, what do we have for our lucky contestant?
Congratulations! You're the millionth person to crosspost
this crap to where it does not belong. Your prize is the 'HindRick
Clue Maneuver.'
,;;;;. .------------. iIIi ///;;;;;;
/ _] | Seig heil! | \__| | - - |
G <o) ;------------' |-| | | |
| h / ,,,,,, | | | h |
| (___| / / | | | \ ### /
| ) C (@)(@) .--------. | |==) (==-\
\____/ \ _> / Ahgahhh!| \ \ / . |
' / \\ | .__| /----------' | o | |
/ \ \\ .| / | _-.___.' |
/ \ \\ / ^ |\ | (_____|__.'
/ \ \\_/ \ \\ | o |
--- ' __./ /UUU ,/\ \\ |===(x)===|
/ .;|____| / \ \\ |HHH|+|HHH|
(( | ;; ____\_ _____/ \ \\\ |HHH|+|HHH|
\ ;()) | //\ |~~~UUU~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| |HHHHHHHHH|
\ | | || '. !______Clue_Desk______! |HHH| |HHH|
| | | | || . |^| |^| |HHH| |HHH|
| ) ) | )) . |^| |^| ( | | )
| | | | || . |^| |^| | | | |
| | | | || . |^| |^| | | | |
| | |__ | |__--, : |^| |^| |_| |_|
l____) ' l______]' : |^| |^| (__| |__)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bobbi
---
Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent)
Phil Edwards
The Enemy Within <not.av...@thank.you.muchly> wrote:
>Loel Larzelere wrote:
>>
>> You know why the British prefer tepid beer? Lucas refrigeration ...
>
>Nice one.
Ye gods.
>I,m english and even I think that's funny.
Perhaps you can explain it to me some time. I've never seen such a
thing as "Lucas refrigeration", British draught beer isn't
refrigerated in any way at all and it isn't tepid. Apart from that,
the line's a veritable laff riot.
Phil "quick, somebody mention _Young Frankenstein_" Edwards
Phil Edwards
melt...@u.washington.edu (Ulo Melton) wrote:
>Loel Larzelere wrote:
>
>>You know why the British prefer tepid beer? Lucas refrigeration ...
>
>Congratulations! You're the millionth person to post this "joke" to
>a.f.u! Phil, what do we have for our lucky contestant?
>
>Ulo "besides a date with a sewergator" Melton
Oh, I don't know, I think I'll just treat Loel here to a pint or seven
of non-tepid, non-refrigerated ale & then let him inspect a non-Lucas
refrigeration system. Close to.
Phil "very close to" Edwards
Ryan Paige
Dr. Charles William Dimmick wrote:
>
> On Sun, 04 Jan 1998 22:14:09 GMT, bob...@gte.net (Bob Ward) wrote:
>
> >It doesn't sound all that difficult to drop a solar-powered GPS
> >receiver and a beacon on icebergs if they really want to keep track of
> >them... they do it with whales and moose, etc already...
>
> But if you drop a GPS receiver and a beacon on a moose, won't it hurt
> the moose?
>
> Charles Wm. "your moose is sat-on" Dimmick
I thought he meant that they put moose on icebergs to keep track of
them.
The Enemy Within
Loel Larzelere wrote:
>
> You know why the British prefer tepid beer? Lucas refrigeration ...
Nice one. I,m english and even I think that's funny. ;) Still doesn't
explain why the Spruce Goose only flew 100 yards. Or what colour Moose
turds are......
Dr. Charles William Dimmick
Jeff Henkels
Lon Stowell <lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com> wrote in article
<691dt1$2...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com>...
> Jeff Henkels <je...@crusoe.com---> wrote:
>
> >You misspelled "Alabama"...
>
> Eeeuuuugggghhhhh. Is this one of those "nuisance lawsuit"
> type awards? Some poor guy has a scratched beemer and the
> jury in Georgia awards him the state of Alabama?
Sure. All us Georgians know that Alabama has only nuisance
value (insert forbidden emoticon here)
Niall
>> On Sun, 04 Jan 1998 22:14:09 GMT, bob...@gte.net (Bob Ward) wrote:
>>
>> >It doesn't sound all that difficult to drop a solar-powered GPS
>> >receiver and a beacon on icebergs if they really want to keep track of
>> >them... they do it with whales and moose, etc already...
The problem with this is that bergs periodically turn over and/or
break up.
Niall
Paul Tomblin
Well, that's the beauty of dropping a moose on it - if the berg turns over the
moose just "log rolls" so that she stays on top. And if the berg breaks up,
the moose has to have a baby.
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com) I don't buy from spammers.
"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a
battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day."
- Calvin discovers Usenet
Mike Holmans
Phil Edwards <amr...@zetnet.co.uk.NOJUNK> felt like saying:
>The Enemy Within <not.av...@thank.you.muchly> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You know why the British prefer tepid beer? Lucas refrigeration ...
>>
>
>Ye gods.
>
>>I,m english and even I think that's funny.
>
>thing as "Lucas refrigeration", British draught beer isn't
>refrigerated in any way at all and it isn't tepid. Apart from that,
>the line's a veritable laff riot.
>
>Phil "quick, somebody mention _Young Frankenstein_" Edwards
OK, then. Last night _Young Frankenstein_ was on C4. We watched it.
Um.
Er.
Dum-de-dum.
It's no good. I still don't understand the Lucas refrigeration line.
Maybe it means something to Brooklyn Dodgers fans.
Mike "room temperature" Holmans
El Sig has been getting heated. Signora has turned on the fan. That
explains it
The exciting AFU FAQ, and many other things, may be found at
http://www.urbanlegends.com
Bloody Viking
Frosty (fro...@the.snowman.spam.this.you.bastards) wrote:
: That's a pretty sweeping statement there mate. Three of the biggest
: headlights I've seen were on the "Aurora Australis", the Australian
: Antarctic research vessel. Two were on the monkey deck (or is it
: bridge?) above the bridge, and the most powerful was on the bow,
: constantly sweeping left and right when we got into berg territory. Even
: with the latest radar technology, it seems that you just can't take
: chances with those big icecubes.
: Looking from a blacked-out bridge they worked extremely well, even in
: driving snow. In fog, they were still useful, but with a shorter range.
: In these conditions the ship was always slowed down.
It would have worked just fine, as I originally described when I made the
posting that started this thread. Some warships had search lights in the
time period the Titanic was made. The whole Titanic fiasco just strikes me
as so stupidly preventable. Of course, I was looking at the issue from an
automotive perspective, but I tend to be dyslexic with automotiveness and
maritimeness. :)
The Titanic thing strikes me as a case of stupidity. Why would you drive
in a place with heavy berg traffic without headlights knowing that bergs
don't have running lights of any kind?
Figures that the Aussies would think of something as obvious as
headlights. :)
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
"A man's car is his battleship"
1651180 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
go...@cyberenet.net
In article <34b78c6b...@news-feed.ndirect.co.uk>,
nia...@ndirect.co.uk (Niall) wrote:
>
>
> >> On Sun, 04 Jan 1998 22:14:09 GMT, bob...@gte.net (Bob Ward) wrote:
> >>
> >> >It doesn't sound all that difficult to drop a solar-powered GPS
> >> >receiver and a beacon on icebergs if they really want to keep track of
> >> >them... they do it with whales and moose, etc already...
>
> The problem with this is that bergs periodically turn over and/or
> break up.
>
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
QarnoS
nos...@wwa.com (Bloody Viking) was quite brave when they trasmitted
the following message:
>The Titanic thing strikes me as a case of stupidity. Why would you drive
>in a place with heavy berg traffic without headlights knowing that bergs
>don't have running lights of any kind?
Why would you drive at all if you knew there were 'bergs?
DISCLAIMER:
The above statements were all IMHO
And now, a word from me:
VISIT MY SITE AT: http://www.geocities.com/~qarnos
(please)
Joe Thompson
In article <34b6cd3c...@news.snet.net>, cdim...@snet.net (Dr. Charles
William Dimmick) wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 1998 22:14:09 GMT, bob...@gte.net (Bob Ward) wrote:
>
>
> >It doesn't sound all that difficult to drop a solar-powered GPS
> >receiver and a beacon on icebergs if they really want to keep track of
> >them... they do it with whales and moose, etc already...
>
> But if you drop a GPS receiver and a beacon on a moose, won't it hurt
> the moose?
I don't know. I've heard first-hand accounts (plural!) of collisions
between cars and moose. The moose bounded away, the car (in all cases) lay
broken, bleeding, and finally dead.
Two fellows' insurance companies declared their cars totaled, the other one
didn't bother to report and sold the wreckage for scrap (for more than he
had paid for it). -- Joe
Ian Mac Lure
Lon Stowell (lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com) wrote:
: >Michael J. Falcon-Gates <a-mi...@microsoft.com> wrote in article
: >> I believe the "scratched BMW" case was tried in Georgia, too.
: >> paint had gotten scratched, and somebody had painted over the scratch.
: >> They didn't tell him about it when they sold him the car, so he sued and
: >> got a gajillion-dollar award.)
: Jeff Henkels <je...@crusoe.com---> wrote:
: >You misspelled "Alabama"...
: Eeeuuuugggghhhhh. Is this one of those "nuisance lawsuit"
: type awards? Some poor guy has a scratched beemer and the
: jury in Georgia awards him the state of Alabama?
Well jeeeeeez, its not like he got anything thats actually worth
anything. Alabama and $0.50 will get you a cup of coffee. :)
--
*******************************************************************
***** Ian B MacLure ***** Sunnyvale, CA ***** Engineer/Archer *****
* No Times Like The Maritimes *************************************
*******************************************************************
* Opinions Expressed Here Are Mine. That's Mine , Mine, MINE ******
*******************************************************************
Jeff Henkels
Joe Thompson <ken...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<kensey-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
> I don't know. I've heard first-hand accounts (plural!) of collisions
> between cars and moose. The moose bounded away, the car (in all cases)
lay
> broken, bleeding, and finally dead.
>
> Two fellows' insurance companies declared their cars totaled, the other
one
> didn't bother to report and sold the wreckage for scrap (for more than he
> had paid for it). -- Joe
There was a Volvo print ad in the 80s (Lasnerian) stating that 1 in 3
auto accidents in Sweden involved a moose, thereby implying that Volvos
are capable of surviving moose impacts and thus safer than other cars...
Maggie Newman
Jeff Henkels <je...@crusoe.com---> wrote:
>>
>There was a Volvo print ad in the 80s (Lasnerian) stating that 1 in 3
>auto accidents in Sweden involved a moose, thereby implying that Volvos
>are capable of surviving moose impacts and thus safer than other cars...
So you'd really be out of luck unless your moose could clear a sedan.
Maggie "I didn't say that" Newman
Duggan
>There was a Volvo print ad in the 80s (Lasnerian) stating that 1 in 3
>auto accidents in Sweden involved a moose, thereby implying that Volvos
>are capable of surviving moose impacts and thus safer than other cars...
(and more on-topic for this group) is the infamous "Moose Test" which
that Mercedes-Benz car failed named after meese for this very
propensity of cars to attract meese? (Oh, and for those who nit-pick,
yes I know the plural of moose is moose.)
Maybe I'm wrong...
Dr...@innocent.com Sean C. Duggan
UIN : 5662668
"Flames Gladly accepted for tyop's and speling error's"
"eschew obsfucation"
Dave/Kristin Hall
Gary Pollard (gpol...@asiaonline.net) wrote:
: There is one web site, written by a couple of lawyers, defending the claims
: made in the case, and the rights of lawyers to go after the big money. I
: can't remember the URL, but they did say she was wearing sweat pants. They
: also said very specifically that the pants held the coffee next to her skin.
: And, I forgot to mention, she was not driving. She was a 79 year old lady
: from Albuquerque.
BTW, I've been to the McDonald's in question. 'Tis on Gibson Blvd in
southern Albuquerque about 1/2" West of the main gate to Kirtland AFB.
In some ways it's amusing, in some ways it's sad, but the drive through
lane is now (or at least, was the last time I saw it) practically
wallpapered in "Caution, HOT Coffee" signs.
--
David Hall | Kristin Hall
Propulsion Performance Office | The ultimate job:
Naval Air Warfare Ctr, Weapons Div | Brand New Mom
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Look, you two post funny posts, but, Jesus Christ, have some
self respect. This had to be one of the sickest posts I've
read on alt.tasteless!" -Damon Chetson
Dave/Kristin Hall
Dave/Kristin Hall (theh...@ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
: BTW, I've been to the McDonald's in question. 'Tis on Gibson Blvd in
Sorry to follow up my own post, but that should be 1/2 mile, not 1/2 inch :).
Steve Caskey
Loel Larzelere <lo...@iwaynet.net> writes:
>You know why the British prefer tepid beer? Lucas refrigeration ...
Do you know another joke? Only, this one's all worn out.
> Gotta Love a Ponycar? 1977 Mustang II For Sale!!
Hey, why do Merkins like big overengined cars? 'Cos they can't fit
their great fat spandexed arses into anything smaller. Har har har.
Gee, these cheap shots are real easy. Must be why some people like them
so much.
Steve "Contains Wit Substitute" Caskey
--
Just another mindless public servant at the Ministry of Education
"Did you know that a uniform attracts women like flies?"
"I wondered why all your women looked like flies."
* See the alt.folklore.urban FAQ and archive at http://www.urbanlegends.com
mitcho
Steve Caskey wrote:
> > Gotta Love a Ponycar? 1977 Mustang II For Sale!!
>
> Hey, why do Merkins like big overengined cars? 'Cos they can't fit
> their great fat spandexed arses into anything smaller. Har har har.
Well, joke's on Loel. A 1977 Mustang II (ie, dressed up Pinto, one of
Iacocca's bright ideas) is about as similar to a ponycar as it is to a
ham sandwich. Must have a *huge* engine, though, maybe even over 2.0
liters.
Mitcho
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitcho von Ziegehügelrattemitte mit...@netcom.com
Ziegehügel, California http://www.employees.org/~ozyman