Quote:
Originally Posted by lady_express_44
WOW . . . you’ve compared the “idiotic” actions of a person who supposedly micro-waved their pet (not true story, BTW), to the desperate actions of about 13,000 NON-US PwMS who are not currently protected by the “deemed” necessary TOUCH protocol?
I could banter every one of your points, Gazelle, but if you don’t "get" mine by now, you aren’t likely to. 
Cherie |
Oh. Ok. But no. I actually was disputing your premise: holding a manufacturer accountable for anything that could potentially go wrong with their product due to not using it as it was intended or deemed unsafe to do is ok.
But you'd rather turn it into me supposedly making an invalid comparison, which I didn't.
And I do get your points.
BTW:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...ome&position=0
see also:
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Protokowicz, Md.App.Ct., 619 A.2d 100 (1993)
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a