On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 20:34:36 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>Warning: Some of the recipes in this book may contain nuts.
>
><sigh>
>
>-sw

Well, you wouldn't want to waste your money on it if you couldn't eat
them...

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:51:40 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 22:59:16 -0400, Kajikit wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 20:34:36 -0500, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Warning: Some of the recipes in this book may contain nuts.
>>>
>>><sigh>
>>>
>>>-sw
>>
>> Well, you wouldn't want to waste your money on it if you couldn't eat
>> them...
>
> Or maybe, at some point or another, before they are taken to the
> hospital or puking their brains out might they say to themselves,
> "Hey. That recipes had peanuts in it. I just bought peanuts. I
> just put those peanuts into this dish. And now I'm eating
> Peanuts. I'm allergic to peanuts."
>
> At what point does in the above scenario does it dawn on people
> that they're doing something stupid? At what point do we make
> people responsible for their actions? Or are smart people
> supposed to babysit dumb people for the rest of their lives?
>
> -sw

well, what's the real harm in over-warning? most people are amused; some
are annoyed. but i don't think stupid people 'automatically' deserve what
they get. (that one in particular is way overkill, though.)

i'd rather complain about burglar-proof child safety caps.

your pal,
blake

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:28:34 -0400, blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:51:40 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> At what point in the above scenario does it dawn on people
>>> that they're doing something stupid? At what point do we make
>>> people responsible for their actions? Or are smart people
>>> supposed to babysit dumb people for the rest of their lives?
>>
>> well, what's the real harm in over-warning? most people are amused; some
>> are annoyed. but i don't think stupid people 'automatically' deserve
>> what
>> they get. (that one in particular is way overkill, though.)
>
> Should we stage a contest to see who can come up with the a
> product containing the most warnings based on today's standards as
> we've seen them?
>
> Random product: Potato chip.
>
> Choking hazard for children under 10 years of age.
> Product contains small pieces not suitable for children under 5.
> Bag is a suffocation hazard.
> This bag is not a toy.
> Product contains chemicals know to the State of California to
> cause cancer (contains acrylamides).
> Not a low sodium product.
> Not a low-fat product.
> Do not use in excess of the recommended serving size.
> Please consult with your doctor before any change in diet.
> Product may contains sharp edges which may damage gums.
> This product has not been tested for salmonella (real recalls)
> May cause unexpected anal discharge (that *was* a real warning)
>
> Are any of those warnings really unrealistic the way the new
> "Dumbass Warning System" is heading? I'm sure there's a dozen
> more. Anybody else want to add to it?
>
> -sw

>
How about "buying this product may make you want to immediately contact an
attorney"

Jill

On 8/10/2010 3:09 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:28:34 -0400, blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:51:40 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>
>>>> At what point in the above scenario does it dawn on people
>>>> that they're doing something stupid? At what point do we make
>>>> people responsible for their actions? Or are smart people
>>>> supposed to babysit dumb people for the rest of their lives?
>>>
>>> well, what's the real harm in over-warning? most people are amused; some
>>> are annoyed. but i don't think stupid people 'automatically' deserve
>>> what
>>> they get. (that one in particular is way overkill, though.)
>>
>> Should we stage a contest to see who can come up with the a
>> product containing the most warnings based on today's standards as
>> we've seen them?
>>
>> Random product: Potato chip.
>>
>> Choking hazard for children under 10 years of age.
>> Product contains small pieces not suitable for children under 5.
>> Bag is a suffocation hazard.
>> This bag is not a toy.
>> Product contains chemicals know to the State of California to
>> cause cancer (contains acrylamides).
>> Not a low sodium product.
>> Not a low-fat product.
>> Do not use in excess of the recommended serving size.
>> Please consult with your doctor before any change in diet.
>> Product may contains sharp edges which may damage gums.
>> This product has not been tested for salmonella (real recalls)
>> May cause unexpected anal discharge (that *was* a real warning)
>>
>> Are any of those warnings really unrealistic the way the new
>> "Dumbass Warning System" is heading? I'm sure there's a dozen
>> more. Anybody else want to add to it?
>>
>> -sw
>
>>
> How about "buying this product may make you want to immediately contact
> an attorney"

I'm not sure that we should count the "known by the State of California
to cause cancer" warning--EVERYTHING is "known by the State of
California to cause cancer".

I'm cool with food allergy warnings for nuts and dairy and such (have a friend who will meet his maker if he eats dairy). I think , as some have illustrated, it can go way too far.

I especially like Squertz's post.

I once bought a Batman costume for my son at Halloween time a fews years back and the warning said "wearing cape does not allow user to fly." Shit, it didn't even allow Batman to fly. I wonder if the Superman costume allows for flight.

On Aug 10, 5:49*am, "J. Clarke" > wrote:
> On 8/10/2010 3:09 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:28:34 -0400, blake murphy wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:51:40 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
> >>>> At what point in the above scenario does it dawn on people
> >>>> that they're doing something stupid? At what point do we make
> >>>> people responsible for their actions? Or are smart people
> >>>> supposed to babysit dumb people for the rest of their lives?
>
> >>> well, what's the real harm in over-warning? most people are amused; some
> >>> are annoyed. but i don't think stupid people 'automatically' deserve
> >>> what
> >>> they get. (that one in particular is way overkill, though.)
>
> >> Should we stage a contest to see who can come up with the a
> >> product containing the most warnings based on today's standards as
> >> we've seen them?
>
> >> Random product: Potato chip.
>
> >> Choking hazard for children under 10 years of age.
> >> Product contains small pieces not suitable for children under 5.
> >> Bag is a suffocation hazard.
> >> This bag is not a toy.
> >> Product contains chemicals know to the State of California to
> >> cause cancer (contains acrylamides).
> >> Not a low sodium product.
> >> Not a low-fat product.
> >> Do not use in excess of the recommended serving size.
> >> Please consult with your doctor before any change in diet.
> >> Product may contains sharp edges which may damage gums.
> >> This product has not been tested for salmonella (real recalls)
> >> May cause unexpected anal discharge (that *was* a real warning)
>
> >> Are any of those warnings really unrealistic the way the new
> >> "Dumbass Warning System" is heading? I'm sure there's a dozen
> >> more. Anybody else want to add to it?
>
> >> -sw
>
> > How about "buying this product may make you want to immediately contact
> > an attorney"
>
> I'm not sure that we should count the "known by the State of California
> to cause cancer" warning--EVERYTHING is "known by the State of
> California to cause cancer".

I think California causes cancer.

J. Clarke wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that we should count the "known by the State of California
> to cause cancer" warning--EVERYTHING is "known by the State of
> California to cause cancer".

The Prop 65 warning was nice when shopping for ceramic dishes. Very
many import brands of ceramic dishes use lead based paint.