chitoryu12 posted:

My favorite part is how the eventual winner is struggling not to burst out laughing at his opponent's "intimidation".

bobjr posted:

Say Nothing posted:

Say Nothing posted:

Three-Phase posted:

Tuck and roll! Not flail and crash!

synthetik posted:

It was a prank!


http://i.imgur.com/oDf9ERa.webm

Choco1980 posted:

I love the dude in white sitting in front who seems to not react in the least to a giant out of control fire spontaneously happening like 2 feet in front of him.

wayne curr posted:

http://kickended.com/projects/1181444073/
"Help Support writing and publishing ofThe Battle of Tompkins Square Park"
Wow this looks like it would have been legit awesome.

grand_danois posted:

Yeah, it really would have been. Here's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ida4eftiWI the guy behind the kickstarter talking about it (the riots, not the kickstarter) and showing some footage. What a pity it didn't make it.

Tony Phillips posted:

Well if you want to laugh more at the guy that got KO'd:

http://combatpress.com/2015/03/going-effin-viral-julian-julz-the-jackal-rabaud/

His take on being on the wrong end of a viral video. If there's a "It's a prank!" version of getting knocked the gently caress out, then this is it.

quote:

This Aunt Is Suing Her 12-Year-Old Nephew for an "Unreasonable" Hug

According to the Connecticut Post, 54-year-old Connell has filed a lawsuit against her 12-year-old nephew claiming he acted "unreasonably" after giving her a hug that caused her to fall and break her wrist.

The unabashed display of affection happened four years ago at her nephew Sean Tarala's eighth birthday. He is the only defendant identified in the lawsuit, which claims his "negligent" hug caused her serious harm.

"All of a sudden he was there in the air, I had to catch him and we tumbled onto the ground," Connell testified before a jury last Friday. "I remember him shouting, 'Auntie Jen, I love you,' and there he was flying at me."

She says she did not complain to her nephew at the time because she didn't want to hurt his feelings, she told jurors. But four years later, Connell is now seeking $127,000 in damages, which include compromising her ability to eat gracefully at social occasions.

"I was at a party recently," she explained. "And it was difficult to hold my hors d'oeuvre plate."

Gorilla Salad posted:

Part schadenfreude, part just plain

**Also, NOT an Onion article not matter how much it reads like one**

The jury's back - she lost.

RandomFerret posted:

Suing is the only way to get the insurance company to pay out. She isn't some cartoon villain trying to pry pennies out of a kid's piggy bank. Every time you blindly share an inflammatory article like this you play right into the hands of the corporations who keep spreading this kind of bullshit. They want you to think lawyers are evil because lawsuits are the only way to punish corporations.

McDonald's once fused a woman's genitals together with boiling liquid that they intentionally served too hot, and they had been repeatedly warned was too hot, but I'm willing to bet that all you ever heard about it was that some dumb bitch got a million dollars for spilling coffee on herself.

quote:

"This was meant to be a simple homeowners insurance case," she said. "Connecticut law is such that I was advised by counsel that this is the way a suit is meant to be worded."

Connell said that an individual, not an insurance company, had to be named as a defendant.

"I adore this child. I would never want to hurt him. He would never want to hurt me," she told CNN.

The boy refers to Connell as his aunt, although she said he is the son of her cousin. The family remains close. Just a few weeks ago, Connell said, she took the boy out shopping for his Halloween costume.

"It's amazing the power that the Internet has that something can go viral, completely out of context," she said. "I'm certainly not trying to retire to some villa in the south of France. I'm simply trying to pay off my medical bills."

Data Graham posted:

Say "tort reform" in casual company and I guarantee within thirty seconds someone will have mentioned McDonald's and coffee.

And that person will know nothing of the details of the case.

Nuebot posted:

I've explained the case to several people, even provided them evidence of what had happened only to be responded to with "Well the dumb bitch shouldn't have ordered hot coffee then!" Never underestimate the willful stupidity of people.

RandomFerret posted:

Suing is the only way to get the insurance company to pay out. She isn't some cartoon villain trying to pry pennies out of a kid's piggy bank. Every time you blindly share an inflammatory article like this you play right into the hands of the corporations who keep spreading this kind of bullshit. They want you to think lawyers are evil because lawsuits are the only way to punish corporations.

Ivor Biggun posted:

As far as I can tell it was an attempt to get the family's insurance to cough up for medical treatment.

Choco1980 posted:

I'll never understand why restaurants/coffee places/whatever serve warm drinks so hot that if you immediately take a sip you'll probably cause blisters in your mouth (and why so many people demand those temperatures). Is it really hard to have like simple 100F liquid, which is still quite warm and comforting? I mean, I'd understand if it took less than like, 10 minutes to cool down to non-dangerous heat levels why they serve it so warm, but it's ridiculous.

Choco1980 posted:

I'll never understand why restaurants/coffee places/whatever serve warm drinks so hot that if you immediately take a sip you'll probably cause blisters in your mouth (and why so many people demand those temperatures). Is it really hard to have like simple 100F liquid, which is still quite warm and comforting? I mean, I'd understand if it took less than like, 10 minutes to cool down to non-dangerous heat levels why they serve it so warm, but it's ridiculous.

Shalkore posted:

Yeah! What this guy said! Waiting 60 seconds for my beverage to cool down is unacceptable!

What do we want? Cooler hot beverages now!

When do we want it? 60 seconds ago!

Eponine posted:

100F liquid would be barely tepid, to be fair and would be a great breeding ground for bacteria to grow. I think guidelines say it should be around 180F, which if poured on bare skin is a decent 1st degree burn. Part of the issue with the McDonald's case was that the coffee spilled on clothing which held the overheated liquid close to the skin and didn't allow it to cool off.

Ozz81 posted:

Still doesn't make it any less of a dick move to sue someone for (a) being a kid and (b) causing an accident. That she didn't say anything about it and waited until after the kid's mom died makes her an even bigger piece of poo poo, she easily could have said something sooner.

Eponine posted:

The issue, if I remember what I read correctly, was that people complained that the coffee they got at the drive thru wasn't hot enough by the time they drove to work, so the managers/owners started to heat the coffee beyond guidelines to make the people who complained happy.

Eponine posted:

The issue, if I remember what I read correctly, was that people complained that the coffee they got at the drive thru wasn't hot enough by the time they drove to work, so the managers/owners started to heat the coffee beyond guidelines to make the people who complained happy.

Gorilla Salad posted:

Well, I live in a first world country with universal healthcare

mostlygray posted:

I have to say that I'm in the "Coffee's served too drat hot" group. I normally take coffee black but, if I get it from Starbucks, it's still too hot to drink 1/2 an hour later. I have to put cream in it to make it drinkable on my drive.
150deg is fine. I don't need 190.

Ozz81 posted:

Still doesn't make it any less of a dick move to sue someone for (a) being a kid and (b) causing an accident. That she didn't say anything about it and waited until after the kid's mom died makes her an even bigger piece of poo poo, she easily could have said something sooner.