Comment GIVE ME A BREAK! (Score 1) 500
I hate pop-up ads, too. But has anyone noticed the guy (Philip J. Carstens) who is suing Bonzi Software also sued his "former employer" after he sustained an "injury" of a "traumatic nature" when he bit into a piece of "Halloween Candy" taken from a dish located on the reception desk and "broke loose a dental crown."
It's kind of like the story about the burglar who sued for being trapped for 8 days in a garage of a house that he burgled -- with "nothing" to survive on, except a case of soft drinks and a bag of dry dog food.
You should read Philip J. Carstens' legal argument: "The candy was either furnished by Mr. Carstens' employer, or by the receptionist employed by Mr. Carstens' employer, with full knowledge of the company's management and because the injury occurred in the course of his employment, Mr. Carstens had clearly sustained an injury compensable under the Industrial Insurance Act."
Compensable? What does that word mean? Do they mean like... as in... compensation? Do they mean like... M-O-N-E-Y?
But the really shocking thing is: HE WON THE CANDY LAWSUIT AND ACTUALLY GOT MONEY FOR HIS "TRAUMATIC INJURIES"! You can read all the "traumatic" details of that fateful day at: http://www.wa.gov/biia/890723.htm
However, there's one more interesting twist to this story. It turns out the "employer" that Mr. Carstens sued was the law firm of "Lukins & Annis" -- that's right, the same law firm who is now suing Bonzi Software on Mr. Carstens' behalf.
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. YOU HAVE A LAWYER -- WHO SUED HIS OWN LAW FIRM FOR BEING "TRAUMATICLY INJURED" BY A PIECE OF HALOWEEN CANDY -- AND NOW THE SAME GUY HAS BEEN "INJURED" BY INTERNET POP-UP ADS TOO?
The poor guy. I guess some people just have all the bad luck.
Tim King
It's kind of like the story about the burglar who sued for being trapped for 8 days in a garage of a house that he burgled -- with "nothing" to survive on, except a case of soft drinks and a bag of dry dog food.
You should read Philip J. Carstens' legal argument: "The candy was either furnished by Mr. Carstens' employer, or by the receptionist employed by Mr. Carstens' employer, with full knowledge of the company's management and because the injury occurred in the course of his employment, Mr. Carstens had clearly sustained an injury compensable under the Industrial Insurance Act."
Compensable? What does that word mean? Do they mean like... as in... compensation? Do they mean like... M-O-N-E-Y?
But the really shocking thing is: HE WON THE CANDY LAWSUIT AND ACTUALLY GOT MONEY FOR HIS "TRAUMATIC INJURIES"! You can read all the "traumatic" details of that fateful day at: http://www.wa.gov/biia/890723.htm
However, there's one more interesting twist to this story. It turns out the "employer" that Mr. Carstens sued was the law firm of "Lukins & Annis" -- that's right, the same law firm who is now suing Bonzi Software on Mr. Carstens' behalf.
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. YOU HAVE A LAWYER -- WHO SUED HIS OWN LAW FIRM FOR BEING "TRAUMATICLY INJURED" BY A PIECE OF HALOWEEN CANDY -- AND NOW THE SAME GUY HAS BEEN "INJURED" BY INTERNET POP-UP ADS TOO?
The poor guy. I guess some people just have all the bad luck.
Tim King
