Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    responsibility for your own life and happiness?
    

         "Mommy!  Mommy!  I wanna say bad things about people in NOTES, but
    they won't let me!"

    yeah Greg, that's what I got out of the base note also...
    
    "I want to have the freedom to call Blacks and Jewish people and
    women and gays and Asians and etc etc, all the negative things
    that I think about them, and they won't let me!"
    
    
    sigh

           re .2 and .3

           You guys are kidding, right?????




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


       <<< Note 1208.3 by WMOIS::REINKE_B "all I need is the air...." >>>

    yeah Greg, that's what I got out of the base note also...
    
    "I want to have the freedom to call Blacks and Jewish people and
    women and gays and Asians and etc etc, all the negative things
    that I think about them, and they won't let me!"
    
    
    sigh

Re: .4

I wish they were...

		Steve (who is cleaning up the mess in DIGITAL)

    
    As the author of the base note, I'd really appreciate it if people
    would refrain from making up false accusations and innuendos unless you
    feel that it would be beneficial to this discussion.
    
    One persons insult is another persons opinion.
    
    Please allow me to express mine, if you wish me to express yours
    without being censored. 
    
    I find nothing in my note (this one or any previous ones) that was
    intended to do anything but express an opinion or generate discussion.
     
    Please read the note for what it was intended. And stop whining.
    
    
    
    
    

    That was not whining, but it was how, given 'the mess in Digital' your
    note came over.

	An interesting spin has already been put on the
	base note by several respondees.  This is exactly
	the behaviour that the base noter is concerned
	about, I believe.

	The important issue, here, seems to be:

	"Does the most hypersensitive individual or group
	  get to set the  limits on any discussion ?"

	If I am so *DREADFULLY* sensitive about, say, my height,
	am I then able to have notes set hidden, and generally
	conduct a reign of terror against anyone using the
	terms:

	1) Short
	2) Height
	3) Tall
	4) Taller
	5) Tallest
	6) Altitude

	and anything that may be construed BY ME to be offensive ?!

	My contention is that this is eyewash.  Most people don't
	harbor any ill will to folks with the "differences" that
	some are up in arms about.  However, many people are becoming
	increasingly upset at having their attitudes dictated by
	the thought police.

	Such is the origin of the "PC" controversy centering on the
	nation's college campuses.

	Steve H

	As regards this discussion, I had a conversation with
	one of the noters who is quite upset with some of the
	reactions to the announcement in Digital Notes (and
	elsewhere ) of the Gay/Bi/Lesbian promotion back East.

	I believe the noter has some genuine concerns about
	treatment of G/L/B Digits, but is apparently so close
	to the issue that they have lost some perspective.

	There have been some awful things said and done to 
	G/L/B folks at Digital -- and this should not be tolerated.

	However, to squash dissenting opinions with the "Power of
	Personnel" because some other party actually made a
	threat is to fail to discriminate between:

	 "I don't approve of your behaviour," 
	  and a physical threat of violence.

	The two are not equivalent, and if they are deemed so by
	the strident few, then all comments must be limited to:

	"The sun is up."
	"I am here."
	"That requires 10 volts."
	
	and other purely empirical statements.

	Steve H (who wishes no one ill, but hopes we can resume open
		    discussion)

    
    
    I did somewhat want to address things more along the lines of people
    who have a car wreck because they were drunk, and sue the bartender,
    or the lady who backed her car into the light pole at Village Inn and
    sued Village Inn for having the light pole there....
    or the little girl who sued Cracker Jacks because she didn't get a
    toy and couldn't deal with the stress!
    
    Everytime we ask someone else to resolve our problems for us, we are
    inviting Big Brother in.  Is this where we really want to be??
    

Re: .8

I think you're missing the point.  Action taken against notes isn't done on
the basis of what individuals might decide they are sensitive about, but based
on corporate policy, which specifies certain forms of "expression" which are
prohibited in Digital's corporate documents, including notes conferences.  Read
policy 6.54 carefully (VTX ORANGEBOOK will get you there.)

I do agree that there's a lot of whining going on.  A lot of it seems to be,
as Bonnie suggests, from those who are finding out that they are NOT allowed
to attack individuals and certain classes of people in notesfiles.  It comes
as a rather rude shock to some that what you may be able to say in your own
home is not permitted to be said in a file on Digital's corporate-owned network.

But I also agree, that in the world in general, there is a tendency for people
to stop taking responsibility for their own actions and look for someone with
"deep pockets" to bail them out from their own stupidity.  I have seen some
signs of hope, though, in two recent cases.  One gentleman claimed that using
baking soda as an antacid caused his stomach to rupture; he sued Arm and Hammer
and lost.  Another guy sued a landowner when he injured himself tobogganing on
land without permission.  He lost.  Maybe some sense is returning to the world
after all.

					Steve

    
    
    Steve,
    I don't think that anyone in Digital notes is upset or whining because 
    they cannot call people names or harrass fellow employees in notes.
    
    No one here is stupid. Everyone knows what is policy and what is not.
    
    *I* think that what is upsetting is that you can take ANYTHING that
    ANYONE says and twist it into a personal attack or take it personally
    and invoke the "harrassment" rule. 
    As I said in a previous reply, I can walk through any notes conference
    on this network (aside of course from those that are members only)
    and pull out MANY MANY notes that are direct attacks on *me* and my
    beliefs. 
    
    It seems that one of the potential problems that exists is in
    always assuming that if someone *feels* insulted that they *WERE*
    insulted. This could result in total lack of dialog between people of
    differing opinions and nothing would EVER be resolved. 
    
    Is that what we want? 
    
    But Steve, I didn't really want to drag any particular note into this
    discussion. The point that .8 (??) Steve Hall, made is that this
    reaction can be found in most any conference.
    
    
    Anyways, on law suits, do you think that it would be MORE fair to set 
    some $$$$ amount on alimony? I mean, does it matter if you were married
    to Johnny Carson or Joe Blow. Should you be entitled to 3 bazillion
    dollars in clothing allowance because that is what you've grown
    accustomed to?? 
    
    Or how bout suing the fire department because you finished 106th on the
    fitness test but want the job anyways??
    
    Has anyone sued a tobaco company because they got lung cancer? Or sue
    Jim Beam because they got a hangover?? I KNOW that folks have tried (?)
    to sue gun manufacturers because of incidents involving guns.

    As a matter of fact there is a guy here in NJ that is suing a tobacco
    company because his wife died from lung cancer!!!! We as a nation have
    definitely become sue happy and then everyone crys because our
    insurance rates continue to rise! How about the guy in NYC that got
    drunk, passed out on the tracks and lost an arm? He was awarded some
    outlandish sum of money. It was either 4 million or 9 million. We had
    better stop and take a look at what we are doing. Our children have to
    grow up into the society that we have created.
    
    Trudy 

    There are benefits to the system however.  Granted and I admit, the 
    country is becoming sue happy.  If it can make a buck for me SUE!
    
    But, take the example of the man who lost his arm on a railroad track.
    
    What if it had been a kid who fell off a bike and injured themselves...
    enough to be unconscious when the train came?  I feel personally that
    althought the circumstances invovled on how the guy got there make the 
    accident his fault, the benefit of making the Railroad aware that a 
    situation can arise, that IS a safety hazard are justifiable.  Beleive
    me I like the idea that the Railroad is going to be looking a bit more 
    closly at the tracks when they are running down the line.  
    
    The tobacco trial... well we ALL know that the tobacco industry will 
    win.  They supplied ample warnings on the cigarette backs, and didn't
    not use force on the woman to make her smoke.  She was either fully
    aware of the risk or an idiot.  BUT, the benefit is that a message goes
    out again... Tobacco can kill!  It's a hazard, not only to the
    individual using it, but anyone in the area around them.  The thing
    that bothers me about tobacco is it has been PROVEN to be DEADLY but is 
    still readily available.  That KIDS can go to a cigarette machine and 
    purchase a package readily enough.  (sooner or later that will come up
    in a law suit I'm sure... and then more restrictions will be placed on 
    where cigarette machins are set up at as well as more stringent fines 
    for sale to minors.)
    
    The point, I'm making is that although some of these law suits border
    on what I would call the ridiculous sometimes, there are benefits from 
    them that people don't bother to realize.  
    
    Skip

    When is vigilantism O.K. if we as a society are going to take care
    of it ourselves? or as an individual is going to care of it
    his/herself?
    
    What about the media?  Generally speaking our media operates under
    a system that allows free speech however the reporting of truths and value
     is assumed to be the responsibility of that media.
     What about when this goes wrong?  When should the government step
    in. or as basenote implies the gov. shoudln't at all?  (Slander)
    
    Maybe some rules that protect rights or priviledges should and
    do have an impact in order to protect our freedoms of all.  
    
    Are you willing to assume that all persons in our society are responsible,
    and will do the right thing?
                                
    Aren't you humble enough to bring in a "referee"; perhaps one of
    the best solutions to deciding issues present in divorce cases rather
    than battling with lawyers and spending  much too much money.
    
    True, responsibility lies within each person for their existence
    or pursuits, but without some kind of intervention, who determines
    whose existence or pursuit is more important or valid?  Be careful!
    
    In the same token, lack of individual responsibility should result
    in that person's pursuits being taken over.  In other words, take
    care of yourself but should you fail to take that responsibility,
    an intervention will then take place.   
    
    I'm not quite sure if "survival of the fittest" is what I want my
    country to accept.

	The "Well, X *IS* a hazard" argument is a slippery slope
	down which few of us hope to go.  If this continues
	to be pursued to its limit, we can expect the following:

	1) No meat sales.  < Cholesterol IS a hazard ! >
	2) No automobile capable of more than 3 mph. < Higher speeds
							can KILL ! >
	3) No knives in the home. < Sharp objects can cause INJURY ! >
	4) No power tools.  < Powerful motors can maim ! >
	5) No more hiking or other strenuous activities. < People have been
				injured, even killed,  while in the outdoors>


	I know that current liability laws ( joint and several liability )
	is responsible for the almost complete destruction of the
	American aircraft industry.  In case you haven't noticed,
	Cessna, Piper and Beech have all but ceased production of
	smaller aircraft.   Even as we speak, the new designs for
	civil aircraft are coming from France, Germany, Switzerland,
	Japan, and (yes) the former USSR.

	The designs currently being built by American manufacturers are
	30 to 50 years old.  Any change incurs $ millions in federal
	regulatory overhead, plus untold $ millions in potential 
	liability, as:

	Shyster: "So, after 50 years of producing the Belchfire 500,
	          you decided to put a new engine in !"

	Defendant: "But the engine was a better, safer, more reliable
			engine !"

	Shyster: "Then why did our client manage to fly his Belchfire
		       into the mountainside, upside down, at night,
		       with this engine powering the plane ?!"

	Defendant: "?"

	Verdict = $22 million awarded to client's estate because engine
			was powering airplane that crashed.

	Here's another (non-fictional) airplane example.  A company
	began building a modernized version of a 1935 biplane.  It
	had an updated engine, lights, and so forth.

	One owner collided with another plane while landing at a
	small airport.

	The owner's estate sued the manufacturer because "it was
	a defective design....visibility was poor, and he couldn't
	see the other plane."   This suit destroyed the manufacturer.

	So, the world loses a manufacturer of finely-crafted aircraft,
	50 or so people lose their jobs, and lawyers get rich because:

		The guy didn't fly it right !

	'Nuff said.

	Steve H

    Nuff said?
    
    Funny you've pursed them to their ends but....
    
    Because of law suits and other Legilative activites, companies have
    been ordered to produce safety features on their wares.  
    
    Yes, Cholesterol kills, but something as simple as regular exercise and 
    certain drugs can control the cholesterol count.  (Nothing like that
    for the gases a vapors released by cigarette smoke except to stop
    breathing.  (funny thing, I'm a smoker... although very consciencous
    about when and where I smoke.)
    
    The automobile is a good one, I've watched posted speed limits change
    because situations and hazards change in some areas.  BUT the speed
    limits didn't change until AFTER someone had a serious accident and
    brought it to court.  
    
    Knives are sharp and can cut.. if you leave the knife on the floor and 
    a child picks it up and hurts themself, who's responsible?  
    
    You can extapolate those arguments in a thousand degrees and areas, but 
    face it.....
    
    Power tools would not have the safty covers that are on them now if
    someone hadn't cut off a finger at one point and sued.
    
    The biplane IS a hazardous design for aircraft, regardless how
    effiecent the motor is.  Visability is limited and dangerous.  It has 
    it's advantages, and uses, but it has it's draw backs as well, since I 
    don't know that much about it, I'll have to pass on too many comments
    other then if they proved it was a hazard due to limited visability, 
    then I'm glad they aren't flying it.  I'd hate to be the one in the 
    accident.
    
    Rather then run down the list, the examples you've sited are all well
    and good, but you're going to extremes with them, and the point I'm
    making is that although changing things for the better is wonderful, 
    most companys, manufactorers, cities, and such are quiet happy to leave 
    things the way they are because it comes down to $$$$$$$$$ until it
    becomes profitable to them to avoid the law suits for damages incured 
    weather they are directly or indirectly responsible, they are not going 
    to change things.
    
    A GOOD example of this is the driver air bag now being installed in
    cars.  As the public became aware of these devices, and a couple of law
    suits with two car manufactures shook things up, the air bag was not 
    incorporated into the design of a car.  Car manufaturers knew the
    benefits of the air bag as far back as the 50's.  Yet they were not 
    installed until recently because 1) a woman who died in an accident
    head on with another car had a husband who not only sued the drunk
    driver who caused the accident but made a case in court against the 
    car manufacturer with the aid of several doctors and engineering
    experts that the death of the woman would have been prevented IF an 
    air bag had been installed in the car.  THis wasn't a well publicized 
    case, however, the auto manufacturers took note of it, and decided that 
    if push came to shove with the issue, they could end up getting sued
    for not having it installed in the auto.  Instead of waiting for it to 
    become a law, (like seatbelts had to) they decided tht the lesson
    learned FROM the seatbelt issue was worth bring out the air bag NOW
    instead of waiting.  
    
    Yes, cholesterol IS a hazard!  and because of the possibilities of a
    law suit eventually catching up with them, meat packing plants have
    started trimming the excess fat off, which is wear most of the
    Cholesterol resides in beef products.  They stopped "fattening" cows
    and a LOT of them are starting to stop the use of steroids in beef to 
    produce larger cows.  
    
    
    Realistically, the biggest incentive for a company or anyone to change
    things is because they fear the lose of money.  Not because it would be 
    of benefit to the betterment of mankind, and not because big bro is
    watching or not watching.  It's becasue there's a buck to be made or
    the lose of a buck to be made that controls it.  And law suits usually 
    are where the bucks are taken away from folks.  
    
    Skip

	RE: .17

	You are missing some major pieces of the puzzle:

	1) The costs involved in attempting to create a perfectly
	   safe world,

	2) The driving force behind much of the litigation in
	   our society:  lawyers ( Ralph Nader and the American
				Trial Lawyers Association )

	As the costs issue goes, the 3 mph automobile would be
	extraordinarily safe, but commerce in this country would
	come to a stop.   The biplane is not being made, but
	a bunch of factory workers lost their jobs, investors lost
	their shirts, some number of airplane mechanics, fuel
	producers, hangar manufacturers, etc., lost much
	potential revenue as the Great Lakes Aircraft Corporation
	folded.

	Keep in mind that it was never proved that the airplane 
	was "defective".  The airplane was a design proven since
	1935.  In fact, it was the only airplane in existence
	that had never had an FAA airworthiness directive issued
	against it ! 

		It was operated IMPROPERLY.

	However, as we both know, improper use of a tool does not
	exempt the manufacturer from liability for damage incurred
	during this use.  If I am strong enough to pick up a 
	power mower to try to trim my beard, and subsequently lop
	my fool nose off, I could probably win a suit that contended
	that the mower should've been made in such a fashion that
	it could be bound to the ground.

	The other sad note is the incredible amount of money that has
	been spent by the American Trial Lawyers Association and its
	front groups to try and deflect any attempts at tort reform.

	See "The American Spectator", September 1990 issue for the
	story of Ralph Nader and the ATLA's frequently unethical
	behaviour in the trial lawyers' best interest.

	But, Skip, if folks with your view of the world continue
	getting their way, we can expect more and more manufacturing
	to move overseas where rationality still holds some sway in
	the legal system.

	Hope you're in love with Toyota, Airbus, Pilatus, etc.,
	because GM, Cessna and Beech are going the way of the great
	auk.

	Regards,

	Steve H

This sounds like a real can of worms, but isn't all this basically two things
with a gray area in between.

1) Common Sense

Common sense for example, while driving a car you have an accident and get hurt
because you drove to fast around a corner and slid off the road into the ditch.
As a result you hit a pole which caused you some major pain.

2) Liability

In the same scenario above, the steering wheel came off and resulted in the
accident.


Two is obvious, but in one, do you sue the car maker, tire maker, roads
department (for putting the pole there)?

I think there is a fine line between common sense and liability, even the air
bag scenario, what should the car maker be responsible, I purchased the car
knowing full well it had none. I also assume the risks in driving a car on a
public road knowing, my self or some other idiot can cause an accident to
happen.

If we all had more common sense, a lot of the suing that goes on would be
laughed at and tossed out of the courts.  I think big brother has to take some
of the blame for what is happening, by ignoring common sense and allowing
lawyers to reek havoc upon an unsuspecting crowd.

Mind you, this is only my opinion..........


John

    re.17
    
    this reply appears exaggerated.  
    
    Flexability and context are ingredients that should be involved
    in any policy or law.
    
    RE.17
    How do you propose citizens should address problems with improper
    services or manufacturing other than by the system we have now.
                          
    As for American consumers purchasing "overseas goods", the dollar
    goes to lowest bid.  And the 'ole American tradition - Capitalism
    and Competition;  by your dollar going somewhere else, forces the
    competitor to rethink his/her campaign.                      
    
    And if it weren't for Enviornmental Laws or campaigns, those person's
    jobs wouldn't be around cause the reason for its existense wouldn't
    be around.  Change and evolution are a process of life and society.
     What looses is replaced, hopefully with positive progress.
                    

    Steve,
    
    Again, it all comes down to dollars and sense.
    
    They're going that way becasue of the $$$$$$$  That's where it can be 
    made safer.
    
    AS for the costs, it again comes down to the all mighty $$$$$
    
    Manufacturers aren't going overseas because of people with my views,
    They're going overseas because it's CHEAPER there.  
    
    I don't claim my views are the right ones. Far from it, some of what 
    I'm saying isn't necesaarily how I feel about things.  
    
    For example, in my opinion if the guy who passed out on the tracks was
    drunk, then he got what he deserved.  BUT the fact remains that on the 
    train that ran him over and severed his arm, is an Engineer who WAS NOT
    WATCHING THE TRACK!  It could have been just as easy for a kid to be 
    laying there.  Hell when I was a kid I used to take my old 24" bike and 
    ride along the tracks all the time because I could get from my house to 
    the downtown area in half the time.  One time a dog came out after me,
    I could hav very easily have fallen from the bike (I was 7 mind you)
    and hit my head on the track.  What would the reaction have been then 
    when the papers got hold of it and wrote up that a 7 year old boy on 
    a bike had fallen from the bike along the railroad tracks and had his 
    arm severed by a train???? Granted I shouldn't have been riding on
    those tracks.  BUT, the engineer SHOULD have been watching the track.
    That's required by law, and it's required by law because insidents like 
    that have happened and cost the railroads money.  
    
    I don't agree that law suits are the RIGHT way to go, I'm all for the 
    idea of firing the lawyers and letting the world run without em.  I've
    never had a good experience with one yet.  BUT, if that's what it takes
    to change the way things are done.  And if you're foolish enough to try
    and through your back out lifting a lawn mower to shave your beard,
    then maybe the provisions to keep the lawn mower bound to the ground
    should be made.  However, that won't happen until you DO trim your
    beard and bring up charges against the manufacturer.  
    
    Here's another example.  When I was a kid, you went to the store and
    bought a toy.  It was a simple little metal toy with real neat little
    metal wheels that snapped on and off, it came in a fancy looking
    package with the name of the toy and bright colored pictures all over
    it.  Today, you go buy the toy, and it comes in the same box, but it
    has this little message printed in one corner "Not recomend for
    children under 3"  Why?  Because when I was a kid some other kid under
    three tried to swollow one of those little wheels and died.  Who's
    responsible?  The parents are... because they didn't have enough
    presence of mind to realize that the child could but the wheel in his
    mouth and choak on it.  BUT, they bring a law suit agains the toy
    manufacturer.  And WIN a million dollars.  Pretty soon the same
    incident happens again and it costs the manufaturer another million
    dollars, (we'll skip the fact that they also have all the legal costs
    and expensess to pay as well).  Eventually it becomes evident that this
    toy is being given to children who don't know enough NOT to put the
    parts in their mouth.  So, as a result, and in order to prevent further 
    law suits, the manufacturer has started printing that nifty little
    warning on the package.  It isn't much, just a couple dollars, but they 
    didn't do it when I was a kid, because they were selling enough toys to 
    justify NOT changing the packaging to include that one single warning.
    A cost that would have cost them, the expense of stopping the line for 
    installation of the press and procedure, hiring the additional people
    to handle this new phase, designing the warning, and having it embossed 
    on the backage, say back then it would have cost $100,000.00  BUT they 
    were bringing in $1,000,000.00 a day off that toy.  Until it became
    evident that they were losing enough profits, they didn't bother with 
    the warning.  They fought the legal system which tried to impose making 
    them place the warning on the package and used legal tricks to delay
    having to do it, until the time came when it was more of a profit that 
    he warning would be cheaper then keeping the things the way they are...
    
    parent:  You mean if little baby puts a wheel in his mouth and choaks
    on it I can sue the manufacturer for a million dollars?
    
    Salesman: Yes that's right.
    
    parent:  I'll take three.
    
    parent (to spouse): now keep a close eye on Junior when he plays with
    this and remember what you learned in first aid class about he himmlick 
    manuver.  
    
    Manufacturer: Gads every parent in town is trying to force feed the
    wheel on our doohicky to there kid, guess maybe I should print the
    warning on those packages before I end up with 5 million screaming
    parents in court with me trying to get a million dollars each.
    
    
    A bit extreme but you get the idea.  
    
    AS for a perfectly safe world... that's impossible, you and I both know
    it.  BUT, regardless of what I personally think of the system.  The way
    it's set up, is the way it works.  ANd it's set up to work on Dollars
    and Cents.  
    
    As I said in my first reply, I don't approve but there are some
    benefits that come out of the court actions.  Improvements that SHOULD
    be made but aren't, until it becomes cost effective.
    
    SKip

    The reply about commen sense.
    
    You made some excellent points.  Commen sense is something the world
    NEEDS a lot more of.  But by using it, you wouldn't have been going to
    fast around that corner in the first place.
    
    Face it, people the powers that be, are based on the system of the
    dollar.  When was the last time you heard of ANYONE with an annual
    income of say $20,000.00 a year making it to congress, the senate, the
    presidency?  Not in MY lifetime.  Oh I admit their are a few mayors and 
    governers out there who made that much elected into office in SMALL
    towns.  But look at their salaries, and make some comparrisons.
    
    I'm not knocking nor advocating the system.  I've no answers for a
    better one.  But the way it works now, you either work with Big Brother
    and hope for the best.  Or give it all up and become a hermit.  That
    doesn't mean I'm satisfyed or dissatisfyed with any of it.  It just
    means that I don't particularly like everything in it.  There ARE some 
    benefits in the things that happen in a law suit.  There are also some 
    disadvantages in it.  (For example the riasing cost of medical care
    today because of the increasing number of malpractice suits agains
    doctors which cause the insuarance companies to raise the rates for 
    malpractice insurance which cause the doctors to increase there rates
    to cover the cost.... sooner or later that whole system is going to
    come crumbling down because a larger and larger number of people are
    going to stop going to doctors for no other reason then they just can't
    afford it.
    
    SKip

    Sigh - in today's paper is a story about a woman in Maine who hit
    a moose with her car.  The moose apparently "fell" on the roof of
    her car (a Subaru coupe, probably an XT) and the roof collapsed.
    She is suing Subaru for lots of money, and so is her husband for
    "loss of comfort", etc.  What garbage.  I hope a judge throws
    it out and charges them costs.  But she'll probably win....
    
    			Steve

    
    	Re .22 -
    
    	> Commen sense...
    
    	SKip - learn to spell. 

    	Joe "ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI"

    Joe,
    
    I'd love to learn to spell.  And I appreciate you going to all the
    trouble to make that comment.  
    
    What's that to do with the price of chickens?
    
    Now I'm going to explain something to you once and once only, as I'm 
    TIRED of going into details about WHY I can't spell or learn to spell.
    
    I had a tumor removed from my brain about 2 years ago(?) it was a
    realitively simple operation with little serious side effect from it.  
    
    However, it DID have a few minor side effects.  One of them is the
    process by which the brain retrieves certain types of information from 
    my brain.  Such as spelling and symbol recognition recall.  That is 
    I can study and learn to spell and the information all gets filed away 
    rather nicely in this little area of my brain.  Only it doesn't come
    back out when I need it.  So that leaves me the option of using a 
    dictionary to check each individual word I write, a spell check program 
    which isn't available on VMS or realizing that for the most part I do
    okay and it doesn't effect all the words I use, just certain ones.  
    I realize you are unaware of this fact about me as are many people who 
    read my notes and such.  It's not something I try to bring up in casual
    conversation.  However it's a handicap that I've learned to deal with
    on my own terms and in my own way.  Which is, there's nothing I can do
    about it, so accept it and don't worry about it.  
    
    Now getting back to the subject at hand.  
    
    From what I know about the size and weight of a Moose, the woman must
    have been hauling faily fast to cause it to go up in the air and land
    on her car roof.  What will come out of it is a determination as to if 
    the structural soundness of the cars roof is up to standards or not.
    If not, then she'll most likely win the case.  However, if it meets the 
    requirements, she'll most likely lose the case.  If more then this rare 
    incident happens with the cars roof not giving adiquate support someone 
    will redesign the roof, and start up with the fact that the cars roof 
    is stronger then other roofs of cars.  
    
    Then again, perhaps the advertising exect will get a hold of the info,
    slip the woman a few bills and suddenly start advertsing about how well
    the roof held up after a full grown moose fell on it.
    
    Advertising tends to do things like that sometimes.
    
    ;-)
    Skip

    A few comments stimulated by this string.
    
    1) Reaching age 18 or 21 or whatever does not guarantee a measure of
    maturity, regardless of voting and drinking laws.  We should adjust our
    expectations appropriately.
    
    2) Assuming responsibility for one's actions is not automatic, nor is
    it reasonable to assume that everyone shares that behavioral standard. 
    I'm no longer surprised that some number of people would prefer to be
    parasites than contributors, I don't like it, but I'm not surprised.
    
    3) While product liability suits for incidents caused by operator error
    seem irrational, it is the final product of the legal system that must
    be judged, not the claims presented to it.  In other words, people
    should be free to pay their lawyers to sue, but only rarely should they
    collect.  If we are dissatisfied with the judicial outcomes, that is
    what we need to study.
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

    
    	SKip,
    
    	Oh, gee I'm sorry - I didnt realize...
    
    	Joe

    Joe,
    
    Not a problem, I've gotten used to folks jumping on me about spelling.
    
    And it isn't always readily a problem.  Some days I do just fine with 
    no errors, other times......
    
    Anyhow, like I said, I realized you didn't know.  It's not like I type
    all my notes with that explaination first or anything.
    
    Skip
    

    It's good to see that firstly Skip is very tolerant and could've
    made Joe feel worse than he probably already felt but chose to
    politely point out why he made the spelling mistakes. Secondly
    that Joe had the b@lls to apologise.
    
    Anyway, back to the topic, it seems ludicrous to me that this 
    woman is suing the car manufacturer. She would get laughed at
    if she tried it here in the UK. I heard that a person in the
    states got stuck in a lift and sued the lift company....for
    millions. Seems like you can't do anything stateside for the
    risk of getting sued.
    
    
    Jerome.
    

>    Anyway, back to the topic, it seems ludicrous to me that this 
>    woman is suing the car manufacturer. She would get laughed at
>    if she tried it here in the UK. I heard that a person in the
>    states got stuck in a lift and sued the lift company....for
>    millions. Seems like you can't do anything stateside for the
>    risk of getting sued.
    
    

	Exactly..... you can't do anything here without the risk
	of getting sued, and in virtually every other country, suits
	like the "moose attack" and the elevator problem would
	be dismissed.

	Some previous writers were on to something:  They called it
	"common sense", but what they are describing is really
	objective law.

	Our tort system does not operate on objective law, real damages,
	actual costs to the injured, and so forth.

	"Pain and suffering", "Loss of affection" and so forth all
	cost corporations millions of dollars.....across the US:  billions.
	These are all subjective, and hence, should be outside the
	purview of the courts.

	Nobody believes that a truly defective device (say a hair dryer
	built with the "hot" lead attached to the metal case)  that
	results in injury should not be scrutinized closely by the
	courts.  However, a properly made hair dryer that is taken into
	the shower by an idiot should not be the target of a suit.

	After all, if Subaru loses the "moose attack" suit, then what
	happens if a boulder falls on another Subaru ?  Is it reasonable
	to assume that Subaru roofs should withstand every blow up
	to a direct nuclear strike ?

	Would anybody be able to afford the Subaru that could withstand 
	a direct boulder inmpact ?

	Steve H    

    AS I recall several years ago an initiative was proposed by the
    insurance companies to eliminate the problems of "side issue suing" (I 
    can't remember the exact term for the initiative, but what it amounted
    to was if Joe it John in an auto accident cause John to wrape his car
    around a telephone pole, John could ONLY sue Joe for the injury and
    damages, he could NOT sue the telephone company for placing the pole
    there.... as I recall it was shot down rather quickly when it was voted
    on, people felt that in such situations, Joe would most likely not have
    enough money to cover the expenses of the suit and therefore John would
    win the case, but end up with nothing in the long run because Joe would
    file chapter 13... therefore the idea of being able to go "after the
    money" appieled to the general population at hand.  I was living in
    California when the initiative was proposed, maybe it was a state wide 
    vote?).  
    
    The point I am making is that at that time, the initiative was placed 
    for a ballet vote, it lost.
    
    Skip

    I've always thought that democracy could bring out the worst instincts
    in some people.  Skip's story confirms it.  I don't think the "people"
    should be asked about issues like this.  What are we paying judges and
    administrators of legal systems for anyway?
    
    Dick

    re: .25
    
>    dictionary to check each individual word I write, a spell check program 
>    which isn't available on VMS
    
    Just FYI - there is a spelling checker available on VMS - DECspell.
    It can even be invoked from within VAX Notes.