Lynch your boss

[Seperates]

Intentionally obtuse are the regulators. In any field. Testicular cancer coverage for women makes about as much sense as flood insurance in Phoenix, or earthquake insurance on the east coast.

Actually in Arizona and Colorado you do need flood insurance because of flash floods that occur everynow and again. But despite horrible metaphors, you are completely right. Testicular cancer coverage for women makes no sense whatsoever.

[Sibirsky]

http://bhopal.bard.edu/resources/docume ... report.pdf

The safety failures were a factor.
But that study is pretty clear it was intentional sabotage.
The main safety factor that might have prevented the tragedy was the refrigeration unit.
But even if that had been in use a clever saboteur could have got around it by disabling the unit.

So let me get this straight. Your excuse for horrible lapses in safety and the primary safety features that would have prevented the tragedy not existing at all is to say some one could have sabotaged it anyway?

"Don't bother putting brakes on cars, some one could cut them anyway."
"Don't bother breakers on outlets, some one could disable them anyway."
"Don't bother putting sprinkler systems in buildings, some one could break them anyway."

Not my excuse, just mentioning the terrible events were caused by a man.
Let see I want to make something break at a place I work at odds say I am going to be able to break it regardless of what safety features are in place, short of armed guards(and even then the whole BS your way through what your doing there part). Safety features are not designed to prevent intentional human intervention, they are designed to prevent accidental events.

Say your car with out breaks scenario. Lets say there is a car with no breaks and a angry school bus driver drives it into a kindergarten, I doubt the breaks would have helped.
who do you focus the blame on. The manufacturer or the man who drove the bus into the kindergarten?

Of course the manufacturer. We sue, and win billions in punitive damages! Then retire on an island.

[Sibirsky]

Intentionally obtuse are the regulators. In any field. Testicular cancer coverage for women makes about as much sense as flood insurance in Phoenix, or earthquake insurance on the east coast.

Actually in Arizona and Colorado you do need flood insurance because of flash floods that occur everynow and again. But despite horrible metaphors, you are completely right. Testicular cancer coverage for women makes no sense whatsoever.

Forgive my massive fail at metaphors. I take the rest of your post as a compliment however. Thank you.

[Greed and Death]

http://bhopal.bard.edu/resources/docume ... report.pdf

The safety failures were a factor.
But that study is pretty clear it was intentional sabotage.
The main safety factor that might have prevented the tragedy was the refrigeration unit.
But even if that had been in use a clever saboteur could have got around it by disabling the unit.

So let me get this straight. Your excuse for horrible lapses in safety and the primary safety features that would have prevented the tragedy not existing at all is to say some one could have sabotaged it anyway?

"Don't bother putting brakes on cars, some one could cut them anyway."
"Don't bother breakers on outlets, some one could disable them anyway."
"Don't bother putting sprinkler systems in buildings, some one could break them anyway."

Not my excuse, just mentioning the terrible events were caused by a man.
Let see I want to make something break at a place I work at odds say I am going to be able to break it regardless of what safety features are in place, short of armed guards(and even then the whole BS your way through what your doing there part). Safety features are not designed to prevent intentional human intervention, they are designed to prevent accidental events.

Say your car with out breaks scenario. Lets say there is a car with no breaks and a angry school bus driver drives it into a kindergarten, I doubt the breaks would have helped.
who do you focus the blame on. The manufacturer or the man who drove the bus into the kindergarten?

Of course the manufacturer. We sue, and win billions in punitive damages! Then retire on an island.

I suppose the manufacturer has more to be sued for then a school bus driver.

[Sibirsky]

http://bhopal.bard.edu/resources/docume ... report.pdf

The safety failures were a factor.
But that study is pretty clear it was intentional sabotage.
The main safety factor that might have prevented the tragedy was the refrigeration unit.
But even if that had been in use a clever saboteur could have got around it by disabling the unit.

So let me get this straight. Your excuse for horrible lapses in safety and the primary safety features that would have prevented the tragedy not existing at all is to say some one could have sabotaged it anyway?

"Don't bother putting brakes on cars, some one could cut them anyway."
"Don't bother breakers on outlets, some one could disable them anyway."
"Don't bother putting sprinkler systems in buildings, some one could break them anyway."

Not my excuse, just mentioning the terrible events were caused by a man.
Let see I want to make something break at a place I work at odds say I am going to be able to break it regardless of what safety features are in place, short of armed guards(and even then the whole BS your way through what your doing there part). Safety features are not designed to prevent intentional human intervention, they are designed to prevent accidental events.

Say your car with out breaks scenario. Lets say there is a car with no breaks and a angry school bus driver drives it into a kindergarten, I doubt the breaks would have helped.
who do you focus the blame on. The manufacturer or the man who drove the bus into the kindergarten?

Of course the manufacturer. We sue, and win billions in punitive damages! Then retire on an island.

I suppose the manufacturer has more to be sued for then a school bus driver.

Well that is true. I was going for sarcasm however.

[Non Aligned States]

The safety failures were a factor.
But that study is pretty clear it was intentional sabotage.
The main safety factor that might have prevented the tragedy was the refrigeration unit.
But even if that had been in use a clever saboteur could have got around it by disabling the unit.

The study was produced not by an independent investigation group but by Dow Chemicals as an ass covering move. Additionally, the language in the so called "study" is deliberately biased and doesn't address the safety feature concerns beyond calling it "accusations by fringe elements". Yeah, real objective there. Next you'll be telling me that those "studies" by cigarettes firms prove that lung cancer and smoking have no correlation.

[Conservative Ad Droid]

So, let me get this straight, the workers are fired because the company needs the money, (perfectly understandable) the workers storm the building in rage and destroy large amounts of property, and physically harm people, yet... the people who own the place are the bad guys? WTF?

Am I overlooking something........?

[Northern Delmarva]

So, let me get this straight, the workers are fired because the company needs the money, (perfectly understandable) the workers storm the building in rage and destroy large amounts of property, and physically harm people, yet... the people who own the place are the bad guys? WTF?

Am I overlooking something........?

Other than the massive amount of socialists/communists on NSG, no.

[Conservative Ad Droid]

So, let me get this straight, the workers are fired because the company needs the money, (perfectly understandable) the workers storm the building in rage and destroy large amounts of property, and physically harm people, yet... the people who own the place are the bad guys? WTF?

Am I overlooking something........?

Other than the massive amount of socialists/communists on NSG, no.

Damn, I've been here a while too, how could I have forgotten.