It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

"Hot Coffee"

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:31 PM
a reply to: 12m8keall2c

Im not adamant lol. I see there is no point in arguing with a guy for three pages when he did not even watch the video.

Stating your opinion is good and all but to argue a " frivolous " (he he) point for three pages without even watching the video doesn't seem like denying ignorance to me.

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:37 PM
a reply to: alienjuggalo

your 'user error' is ASSuming that I haven't watched the video... which was stated and clarified a page or so back.

good day..


i apologize for that.... it wasn't meant nor intended to infer anything, just that i have a difficult time understanding how any given manufacturer could/should be held liable for HOW their consumers use, attempt to do with their products.

however.... in now way whatsoever does that apply to made known mechanical/physical defects which could potentially cause harm, along side with knowingly 'unsafe' design, manufacturing, etc.

fault is fault. if it's real, genuine and Absolutely unknown to the 'end-user/consaumer'. heck yeah.

but when people do stupid shyte and then come back to try and claim their 15M of fame...

teh hell with that..... is my main/core point purpose.

edit on 7/3/2014 by 12m8keall2c because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:02 PM
a reply to: 12m8keall2c

And there's the problem. In my case I was the one who went up the ladder. Is it my fault the ladder broke? I was lucky the medical professionals I was forced to see from my company all were in agreement, any one of the five could have said different and then the company would have used that expert and taken the matter to court using his testimony. But even when the doctors agree on my injuries and what caused them, I did not get my day in court. No public jury to put a figure on my injuries. Instead it was into closed room arbitration, where my own greedy lawyers scratch their own backs and the company scratched their own back by having the protection of a 'cap' on my injuries. No jury to decide on the figure, only a figure to protect the company.

The coffee is the emote of this case, the outcome has meant that whether a case is frivolous or genuine now has both camps lumped in the 'frivolous' in-tray before legal proceedings even start. I honestly hope a life changing event never happens to yourself or your loved ones because you'll find yourself at the base of Mt Everest in nothing but your undies to wear.

edit on 3-7-2014 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:57 AM
OK. So. I'm pretty sure we ALL agree that personal responsibility should trump frivolous lawsuits. Got it. Copy all.

But that's not the core topic of the post!

The core of this post is the loss of consumer civil liberties as a result of corporate greed. We can all argue till we're blue in the face over a million dollar settlement for lack of personal responsibility. But, the tables turn when corporate negligence and greed force consumers into mandatory arbitration to settle cases. The law should provide for both parties to settle differences in public and without fear of retribution or strong-arming.

That is the point of the video...not coffee!

@12m8keall2c - the argument techniques you use weak in that you brush off key components of the conversation. I believe you are using false reasoning to make your claims. While I enjoy the spirited nature of your approach, might I recommend you consider the following website, so you may reevaluate you approach?Otherwise, we are doomed to travel down a road of argument for the sheer sake of argument.


edit on 7-4-2014 by jrflipjr because: typo

edit on 7-4-2014 by jrflipjr because: typo

posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:51 AM
I'm reminded of the warning often seen on the back of dump trucks.."Not responsible for objects coming from road".
They put that on there so people will be duped into believing that the truck's owner or driver has no liability for damage caused by unsecured debris that falls off of a truck ...but that's just idiotic and a case can be made that they ARE responsible - and that's what courts are for.

posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 09:15 AM
a reply to: kosmicjack

It should be what the courts are for. Reality is that big business dollars and pressure get laws written to sway that (inevitable) court case to limit damages.
Honestly, regular folk like myself have no hope of true justice. The wheels of justice have been aquaplaning over us lousy plebs for the last 20-30 years and I don't think this company owned bus has even passed a road-worthy certificate.
edit on 15-7-2014 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in