codhead

Those are GREAT!

Received a D-18 directly from Martin on Thu. The box showed up with this big bite taken out of the side. My comment to the driver was "Nice hole! Pteryodactyl?" After opening the box to make sure the case was undamaged, the UPS driver said "They didn't put enough packing material inside the box". I could only hope for a large foot to appear, and stomp this ignoramus as he walked back to his truck.

I'd have to say that it's pretty hard to determine just what kind of a deal this was, as the cosmetic condition of these speakers is not really known. I have a hard time reaching a conclusion from a stock photo, and a description that says "These items may have some cosmetic imperfections". That being said, I'd probably find myself in the "What are these people thinking??" crowd. After all, one would have to wonder why a pair of Heresy II's were returned to the factory in the first place.

remarkably uncommon!

Retired doctor blows 14 million in Vegas, sues claiming meds made him do it ... http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/22casinosuit.html

Stupid lawsuits... http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_collection.asp?wacky=0 There's some good ones here... "A Little Too Much Booty Meredith Berkman, seeking $50 million, filed one of the first anti-fat lawsuits against the manufacturer of a snack food named Pirate's Booty. It looks like eating too much Pirate's Booty had added too much booty to Ms. Berkman's booty. In December, 2001, the Good Housekeeping Institute tested Pirate's Booty, which is basically flavored puffed rice, and found that it contained 147 calories and 8.5 grams of fat, while its label said it contained only 120 calories and 2.5 grams of fat. The manufacturer, Robert's American Gourmet Foods (a subsidiary of Keystone Foods), blamed the problem on a change in its manufacturing process and immediately recalled the product from store shelves. Nearly four months after the recall, Berkman filed a $50 million class-action lawsuit against Robert's Foods, claiming "emotional distress" and "weight gain...mental anguish, outrage and indignation." The complaint claims to represent all consumers who ruined their diets and had to spend more time at the gym because they ate mislabeled Pirate's Booty."

"lol, it's "Shih-Tsu" Oh, Shih-T! Now I've gotta go re-take "Lap Dogs 101".

Hey, why'd I get censored... There really is a dog called a $hit-Tsu!

"Well, come on, now. I like to read these things neutrally and without too much reaction. Vegetarians would just "puke and gag" before they ate meat. That's the way they are. So, we shouldn't sneak meat in their foods. If it's there, we tell them. What if you liked a particular brand of jerky so much, and then you learned it was made of dog? I would be a little freaked for the long-term... maybe." ***** Well, this assumes that McDonalds was required to tell them. At the time, I don't believe this was the case. After being pressured to make healthier fries, they decided to change the frying medium. After they tasted the results, they decided against it. But because they once said they'd go with something healthier, people were "injured"? What a crock (wasn't that the McDonalds founder's name?). As to your jerky argument, sure I'd be upset if I had been snacking on Shit-Tsu. But that would actually be against the law (dog meat does not happen to be USDA approved for human consumption). ***** Hey, I just thought of one to pad your retirement fund. I read an article where a news organization did a DNA analysis on hamburger from several supermarket chains. Almost all of it contained some percentage of pork (almost 10% on the high end). All you've gotta do is to analyze the hamburger from a store where people shop whose beliefs prohibit eating pork. Seems like eternity at Fire Lake [6] would be worth some serious "emotional pain and suffering". []

"In Chicago, another woman said she was shocked when a neighbor told her that McDonald's said on its website that wheat was an ingrediant in its french fries. The woman and her two children both suffer from celiac disease. McDonald's acknowledged that a flavoring agent in the cooking oil used to make fries is derived from wheat and dairy ingredients, which are off-limits to those with food allergies. The wheat and dairy disclosure was a consequence of a new labeling rule by the Food and Drug Administration that went into effect in January. People with allergies have been trying to find out more information, enough so that the lawsuit brought by Pakenas' Chicago firm is apt to find plenty of interested candidates who are allergic to wheat to qualify for class-action in Illinois." ***** Looks like it took less than a month for the lawsuits to start. ***** "It's not the first time McDonald's forthrightness has been called into question concerning what's in its famous fries. The company paid $10 million in 2002 to settle a lawsuit by vegetarian groups after it was disclosed that its fries were cooked in beef-flavored oil despite the company's insistence in 1990 that it was abandoning beef tallow for pure vegetable oil. Last February, it paid $8.5 million to settle a suit by a nonprofit advocacy group accusing the company of misleading consumers by announcing plans in September 2002 to change its cooking oil but then delaying the switch indefinitely within months. Reluctant to change the taste of a top-selling item, McDonald's has continued to maintain for the past three years that testing continues." ***** Simply insane! *****

I bought a DVD (concert) that was copy protected. A few minutes with Google cured that. Can't stop them from adding this stuff, but I'll do what it takes to make a backup. I purchased the DVD after finding a track someone ripped and posted on the internet. Go figure.

Wonder if he's gonna get into trouble using "Eclipse" in the audio world. I've got Eclipse speakers in my truck. Think they're owned by Fujitsu.

Never heard of it. Okay.... What's the full, un-biased synopsis? I don't believe it was a simple as "drunk dude drives off hillside and rakes in millions from Ford." I still remember a quote from an article at the time. Since he was considered to be "a beloved sports figure", they settled - out of fear that a jury would take pity on him, and award record damages. I don't know this to be the case, but if I were to think like a lawyer, I'd probably key in on the fact that this guy was driving a short wheelbase SUV with a high center of gravity. Not that his choice of vehicle would have kept him from driving off a hillside while drunk, but a Sedan de Ville might have simply slid down the hill like a 5000 pound toboggan. I'd have a hard time buying that argument as a juror, as I have zero sympathy for a drunk that drives his car off the road. If the accident was caused by a design defect that resulted in the catastrophic failure of a steering component, I'd side with the plaintiff in a hot second - regardless of his state of sobriety. Don't discount the pity factor. If you were going to sue a physician in a cerebral-palsy case, wouldn't you prefer a client with a live child over a dead one? A certain unsuccessful vice presidential candidate used to specialize in this very litigation. He was highly successful, but seldom did he represent a family whose child had passed away. Having a tiny victim to parade before the jury is a powerful courtroom tool.

What's the difference between a smart midget, and a female athlete? The smart midget is a cunning runt!

"lookit all the Songs Paige ripped off from blues artists ....." The Stones are pretty good at that too.

"The Crashworthiness Factor" Remember this ... After racing Willie Shoemaker's life would take a tragic turn when he broke his neck, and became a quadriplegic in 1991, when the Ford Bronco he was driving veered off a freeway in suburban Los Angeles, tumbled down an embankment and rolled. He had been drinking after playing golf and police said his blood-alcohol level was twice the legal limit. He sued Ford Motor Co. and won a multimillion-dollar settlement.

Man, Jeff. You're still up? I'm lucky - I don't have to work tomorrow today. I think that no matter how much we debate cases like the iPod, it's still a crap shoot when it goes to trial. No such thing as a slam dunk, even when you sure think it should be. I'm still recovering from that eminent domain decision. If that's not the raison d etre of a legal system gone horribly awry, nothing is.

I'll have to re-read it, but I thought it was another employee that told the guy what the tire size was. I dunno. I would think a guy that worked in a tire shop for a while might have a clue as to what size tires went on what vehicles. Would also think he might notice a smaller diameter tire was kind on difficult to get on a larger rim. And I'd really think he'd notice that the bead was not seated properly as he was filling it with air (i.e. the rim was riding up on the sidewall at this point). I guess this begs the question as to just how "foolproof" a manufacturer has to make a product. One would think that if a person of average intelligence could safely follow directions, that would suffice. Or do the instructions have to apply to a moron? How about an imbecile? Or a dolt? There are enough variables here to make your head swim. []

Johnny ignored the "Beware of Dog" sign, jumped over the neighbor's fence, and kicked the Rottweiler in the face. The Rottweiler bit Johnny. The law says "All reasonable efforts should be taken to construct a secure fence around Rottweilers". The plaintiff's lawyer says "The neighbor is wealthy, so he should have built an 8 foot fence instead of a 4 foot fence." The paid "expert" says an 8 foot fence would have kept Johnny out of the neighbor's yard. Johnny's family is poor, and he needs an expensive operation to fix his chewed-up face. Johnny lives in a depressed area. Johnny wins his lawsuit.

Well, we know that the tire had dangerous propensities if it was installed on the wrong rim. Kind of like saying that a gun has dangerous propensities if it is discharged while pointing at someone (why can't I write that without thinking about a guy named Dick?). [] As far as jury instructions are concerned, I'd have to know exactly what was said and how it was said. I really do believe that these instructions can be used to hedge a decision (but we would hope that this would be caught at the appellate level). Of course, it's hard to determine inflection from a transcript. I'd also like to know the demographics of this trial. Ever hear of venue shopping? Not that this was the case here, but there certainly are areas of the country known for sympathetic juries. When a decision seems to belie common sense, one has to wonder about all of the influences that came into play.

That's an interesting document. The problem with these cases seems to be the weight given to technicalities over common sense. I think this is why folks look unfavorably upon many court decisions. Someone ignored warnings (complete with illustrations) and was injured. The case ends up being decided on engineering technicalities - which were only applicable had someone chosen to ignore said warnings and proper safety procedures. Once again, this looks llike another "deep pockets" case. The little guy is injured after doing something stupid. The employer (shallow pockets here) did not provide the proper safety equipment. But those greedy corporations. Ah, yes! There's the cash cow. Does anyone really think that if the facts of this case were laid out for 100 people to decide (no jury "instructions" - just the facts) that most rationally thinking people would say that the employee caused his own injuries?

"On to the next fight! The greatest guitarist of all-time!" You already rolled over on your pick... "They could definitely smoke out a lead better than Paige..." Better hope you never tangle with Judge Judy! []

Hey, I'm not trying to take away from the famous rockers (or blues players). I've got my favorites there too. You just don't see many artists that can pretty much reinvent guitar playing, and make it sound like a whole new instrument. Guess it's all in how you define "great".

Moon, Glad you liked that. I just ordered all 4 CD's from his website. IMO if you are the "greatest" you can play someone else's licks. I'd like to see ANY of the big name guitarists copy this guy. Somehow, I don't think the other way around would be much of a problem.

Why not just pick an out of the way spot, and try sanding through the black paint? If it comes off, you're good to go. If it does not, touch it up and rethink your options. If you're lucky and they used cheap black paint (like the stuff Klipsch put on my Chorus I's) it'll come right off.