What's the dumbest thing you heard said today?

[Old Sweat]

Can you say Toronto Maple Leafs?

 

[OldSolduer]

Can you say Toronto Maple Leafs?

Winnipeg Blue Bombers

Hows that?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Winnipeg Blue Bombers

Hows that?

Can you say Toronto Maple Leafs?

They look kinda different, but sounded the same when I read them

 

[Tank Troll]

Ummmm you all know that this just a satire like 22 minutes right!

 

[PMedMoe]

Ummmm you all know that this just a satire like 22 minutes right!

Like I said....

It's from This is That which is (apparently) CBC's version of The Onion.

So, no, it's not for real....

 

[Danjanou]

Ummmm you all know that this just a satire like 22 minutes  used to be once, before it stopped being funny and entertaining right

FTFY

 

[JMesh]

It's from This is That which is (apparently) CBC's version of The Onion.

So, no, it's not for real....

I got duped? And just days after I called people on the Harper twerking story...

 

[CougarKing]

This takes the cake for absolutely the most retarded thing I've have ever heard:  :facepalm:

link

Does size matter? Study suggests men with smaller testicles are better dads

In a study to figure out why some men are more involved fathers than others, a team of researchers have found that this trait seems to have a connection to testicle size, suggesting that evolution has keyed men to have a trade-off between mating and parenting ability.

Studying 70 men, who lived with their 1 to 2 year old biological child and the child's biological mother, the parents were interviewed (separately) about how much time and effort the men put into directly caring for the child — changing their child's diapers, feeding and bathing them, staying home to take care of them when they're sick or taking their child to the doctor. The men were then examined with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques to determine their brain activity while looking at pictures of their children, and to measure the size of their testicles. Their testosterone levels were also measured.

The relation wasn't perfect, but those men that were found to take a more direct role in their child's care were more likely to have lower testosterone levels and smaller testicles. Those who did not take such a direct role were more likely to have higher testosterone levels and larger testicles. Although higher testosterone levels are often equated with greater virility, according to the study lead Jennifer Mascaro: "Testes volume is more highly correlated with sperm count and quality than with testosterone levels."

One of the more interesting ideas that this study supports is that men are either more 'geared' towards mating or they're more 'geared' towards parenting. Being better at one comes at the expense of the other.

"Our data suggest that the biology of human males reflects a trade-off between investments in mating versus parenting effort," says James Rilling, an anthropologist at Emory University, in Atlanta, GA, according to ScienceDaily.

(...)

 

[Transporter]

Dumbest thing I heard said today? Hmmm... gotta be the USAF LtCol who asked me if my CADPAT was flannel... no joke.

 

[PMedMoe]

And reminiscent of the McDonald's lawsuit in the U.S.  Here we have someone who wants the government to regulate how hot a beverage can be.  :

Posting multiple links for the comments but the first one (article and comments) is the best.  :nod:

Government must legislate lukewarm tea

Woman scalded by tea wants regulation of hot drinks

Should Tim Hortons change its beverage-temperature ways because of one scalded customer?

 

[Seyek]

And reminiscent of the McDonald's lawsuit in the U.S.  Here we have someone who wants the government to regulate how hot a beverage can be.  :

Posting multiple links for the comments but the first one (article and comments) is the best.  :nod:

Government must legislate lukewarm tea

Woman scalded by tea wants regulation of hot drinks

Should Tim Hortons change its beverage-temperature ways because of one scalded customer?

Started reading the first article and it's already wrong. There was no multi-million reward in that coffee case, it was drastically reduced in appeal and settlement (the exact amount is confidential I believe). Important to note also is that the woman sued only for about $20,000, to cover expenses related to the incident in which she suffered burns to just shy of a quarter of her body and required two years of skin grafting and other treatment to recover. The large amount was initially awarded by the court as punishment for Mcdonalds for being aware of the issue (more than 700 other complaints and lawsuits regarding burn injuries) and not taking any action.

Apparently a minor reduction in temperature would be enough to still provide a hot drink, but avoid multi-year crippling injuries, a quick google search seems to indicate that a small temperature reduction would have little to no effect on the drink itself, but substantially reduce burn risks. I know I've spilled drinks on myself made at home without suffering severe burns, though I've never measured the temperatures (tempted to now to see how it compares), so apparently my coffee and tea at home are just fine while being cooler than what's served at Tims or Mcdonalds (having spilled the water from the kettle on myself and suffering only a very minor burn if anything from it).

Not to say that legislation is needed, just pointing out that the common story of woman burned herself and got millions is somewhat misrepresenting what happened, and that it's not necessarily a bad idea to look into if coffee/tea can be served at lower temperatures, or if more secure lids could be used. Also the comments are stupid, but it is the internet, she didn't spill it on herself, it spilled out from the cupholder when the car (also not being driven by her) got into a collision.

Attached is the picture of the woman in question's leg.

 

[PMedMoe]

I enjoyed reading the article for its sarcasm, not for its "facts".    :

Most of the comments are made by people who apparently have no reading comprehension (or who were unaware of the whole story).  I wonder why she hasn't tried suing the manufacturer of the car for shallow cup holders or her ex-husband for getting in the accident?

And yes I've seen the pictures.  I still want my hot drinks served hot, thank you.

 

[Seyek]

I enjoyed reading the article for its sarcasm, not for its "facts".    :

Most of the comments are made by people who apparently have no reading comprehension (or who were unaware of the whole story).  I wonder why she hasn't tried suing the manufacturer of the car for shallow cup holders or her ex-husband for getting in the accident?

And yes I've seen the pictures.  I still want my hot drinks served hot, thank you.

Don't disagree with hot drinks being hot, just disagree with some people's assertion that the matter is absurd, if it can still be served hot, but not quite hot enough to cause horrifying burns, while still being tea/coffee then I'd be fine with that too. And some places do serve their drinks cooler, while still being good.

The suing comment is a tad unfair, as she isn't suing anyone, just suggested that it's an issue that should be looked into.

 

[George Wallace]

Perhaps the solution is "No drive-throughs".  You want a coffee/tea; you walk in and purchase it at the counter.  A lot of these people could use the exercise.  >

 

[PMedMoe]

The suing comment is a tad unfair, as she isn't suing anyone, just suggested that it's an issue that should be looked into.

No she didn't, however she did file a claim against Tim Horton's insurance:

Marchant, who is self-employed, filed a claim with Tim Hortons in the hopes it would assist her in covering the costs of her medical supplies.

But a letter from ClaimsPro, the adjustor for the coffee chain, states: "Our investigation has found no liability on our insured [Tim Hortons]. As such we are respectfully denying your request for compensation."

Source:  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/11/lisa-marchant-hot-drink-regulations_n_3905668.html

Perhaps the solution is "No drive-throughs".  You want a coffee/tea; you walk in and purchase it at the counter.  A lot of these people could use the exercise.  >

Yep.  If you're so concerned about a hot liquid spilling, then purchase and consume it in the restaurant.  Or, buy a damn travel mug.



Edit to add:  Read through the "Most Ridiculous Lawsuits" slideshow at the link.  Hilarious....if you have a sense of humour. 

 

[Journeyman]

Listen to you two -- suggesting that people be responsible for their behaviour.  :rofl:

 

[OldSolduer]

Listen to you two -- suggesting that people be responsible for their behaviour.  :rofl:

So if I have my BB out and I'm talking on it while driving, I'm breaking the law. How about a law that says "no having hot non alcoholic drinks when you're driving" or words to that effect.

:facepalm:

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

So if I have my BB out and I'm talking on it while driving, I'm breaking the law. How about a law that says "no having hot non alcoholic drinks when you're driving" or words to that effect.

:facepalm:

What about hot alcoholic drinks?  Oh wait... that's already covered somewhere.

I always found this whole topic of making sure coffee cups are labelled with "Caution, Hot" and people suing if they are burnt by a hot drink due to their own actions complete garbage.  If the cup itself mallfunctions and launches the hot liquid into your eyes, that's a little different.  Again it goes back to no one wanting to take responsibility for a dumb decision they did... it has to be someone elses fault.

2x  :facepalm:

 

[George Wallace]

So if I have my BB out and I'm talking on it while driving, I'm breaking the law. How about a law that says "no having hot non alcoholic drinks when you're driving" or words to that effect.

:facepalm:

Actually, in some provinces, the law applies to anything that distracts a driver, not just a handheld cellphone.  It could be a KFC drumstick, a sandwich, an iPod, a tablet, newspaper/magazine, whatever may distract a driver from full concentration on their driving.  Spouses, however, are not included.....  ;D

 

[Cbbmtt]

Actually, in some provinces, the law applies to anything that distracts a driver, not just a handheld cellphone.  It could be a KFC drumstick, a sandwich, an iPod, a tablet, newspaper/magazine, whatever may distract a driver from full concentration on their driving.  Spouses, however, are not included.....  ;D

The girls with the pencil eye liner things drive me up the wall. One slam on the breaks and no more eyeball.