A while back while I was waiting in the Miami airport, there were two young ladies in the seats behind me who were discussing diets.
Well, maybe it was the Ft. Lauderdale airport.
But probably the Miami airport.
Anyway, while I was in a FLORIDA airport, these two girls were discussing diets...
Anonymous Girl 1: I want to try that liquid diet, but you have to go to a doctor to get it.
Anonymous Girl 2: You don't need a doctor! That's just Slim-Fast!
Anonymous Girl 1: No it's not. I tried Slim-Fast and it doesn't work.
Anonymous Girl 2: Really? My friend lost 20 pounds on the Slim-Fast diet!
Anonymous Girl 1: Nope. Didn't work for me. I drank it with my breakfast and drank it with my lunch for a week just like they said and nothing happened.
Anonymous Girl 2: You idiot! You're not supposed to drink it WITH your meal... you're supposed to drink it INSTEAD of a meal.
Anonymous Girl 1: Huh?!? What kind of stupid plan is that?
This was yet another example of people using a product wrong, then blaming said product when it doesn't work properly... all because they failed to read the instructions. With a can of Slim-Fast, it's not really a big deal. But you can't say the same for other things. Like filling out your ballot when voting in Florida, for instance.
Anyway, this morning I was dumping my usual load of spam from my email inbox and ran across something a little different. It was spam from a law firm encouraging you to hire them if you had suffered damages from misunderstanding the instructions that came a product you purchased. So I guess this means that the dumbass who didn't read the instructions on her can of Slim-Fast can call them up and sue for a couple million dollars or something? Emotional distress and all that?
If this kind of stupid crap actually works, it makes me wonder exactly how far companies will go to avoid lawsuits in the future. Will we soon have ten-page instruction booklets included with a bar of soap so that soap companies won't be sued for a million dollars when some idiot gets suds in their eyes? I mean, we've already got jars of peanuts that say "WARNING! THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS PEANUTS!" — how much worse can it get?
I don't think I want to know the answer to that.
I weep for the future.
BLOGOGRAPHY FLASHBACK ENTRY: Barbie.
BLOGDATE: July 12, 2005
In which Dave gets the crap scared out of him when he discovers the horrors of child beauty pageants, and decides to see what celebrity he looks like when manipulated in Photoshop to become a dead hooker baby.
Click here to go back in time...
I love comments! However, all comments are moderated, and won't appear until approved. Are you an abusive troll with nothing to contribute? Don't bother. Selling something? Don't bother. Spam linking? Don't bother.
Your flashback was one of the many postings i missed whilst in the midst of the move into the new flat. I’m rather glad I did not see it until now. I’m a few months older, now and more able to deal with HORRIBLE DEAD HOOKER BABIES! GAH!
I might have to sue you, now, for lack of instructions as to what to do with my brains when they ooze out of my head when looking at those pictures!
As someone with a major peanut allergy I know all about the useless labelling. When they started it was quite useful to know when they’ve used peanuts instead of pine nuts in a jar of pesto for instance. But then they went bazerk with all the lawsuits and they now stick “this product may contain nuts” on everything from a plain chocolate bar to a loaf of bread. So now, if you take the warnings literally you cannot eat ANYTHING. So there goes another useful idea shot to ribbons by stupidity.
I have to say that I did the “all popcorn diet” for about a week, and I lost about 5 pounds!
So, you know, that’s an option.
It makes me wish that I wanted to lose weight, because I love me the popcorn!
I’m having no problem viewing or linking in Bloglines.
I really wish Darwinism was more severe. Some people are just too stupid to live.