Lineage II Addiction Lawsuit Makes It Past the EULA 267
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the four-little-letters dept.
from the four-little-letters dept.
We recently discussed a man who sued NCsoft for making Lineage II "too addictive" after he spent 20,000 hours over five years playing it. Now, several readers have pointed out that the lawsuit has progressed past its first major hurdle: the EULA. Quoting:
"NC Interactive has responded the way most software companies and online services have for more than a decade: it argued that the claims are barred by its end-user license agreement, which in this case capped the company's liability to the amount Smallwood paid in fees over six months prior to his filing his complaint (or thereabouts). One portion of the EULA specifically stated that lawsuits could only be brought in Texas state court in Travis County, where NC Interactive is located. ... But the judge in this case, US District Judge Alan C. Kay, noted that both Texas and Hawaii law bar contract provisions that waive in advance the ability to make gross-negligence claims. He also declined to dismiss Smallwood's claims for negligence, defamation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress."
I hope his lawsuit succeeds... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
because if it does, I'll have a killer suit against Burger King for making their food too delicious.
Nah, let's start a class action suit against Slashdot. :)
Re: Class Action Lawsuit... (Score:4, Insightful)
Its a good idea when planning a class action lawsuit to ensure that your target actually has any money to be paid out. I think /. likely fails in this regard :P
I am sure its generating some money, but I doubt its huge...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nah, sue Pringles - they even claim that once you pop you can't stop... but wait, does that legally constitute a warning and therefore relieve them of responsibility?
Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Then why the fuck are Pringles tubes resealable ?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the judge would throw the case out as soon as he samples the product.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have to have a heart attack first. No monetary loss, no foul. Plus, if you smoke or do anything else bad for your heart (like sitting in front of a computer all day), you'll probably lose then too.
Of course, IANAL...
Re: (Score:2)
Small potatoes. I'll sue all owners of a vagina!
Wow, you must have been busy.
Big "Uh Oh!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah... this attempt is very interesting. A Texas company writing a license agreement in a state requiring any legal claims against them be brought in Texas and limiting liabilities in ways that are expressly prohibited under Texas law? Hrm! Either that EULA came from a boiler-plate that originated from out of state (not a good excuse) or they simply thought they could get away with it and got caught. This is rather like the "new patent troll" story where people are trying to benefit themselves through legal means when they actually have no right to claim such.
I wonder if the pendulum is actually starting to swing the other way now?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you miss the part where some of their Texas-requiring EULA is actually prohibited by Texas law?
Re: (Score:2)
Do any other states have laws that overrule the jurisdiction clause? If so then it would make sense for the limitation to be there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Big "Uh Oh!" (Score:5, Informative)
Let me quote the post you responded to, with a bit of emphasis
A Texas company writing a license agreement [...] requiring any legal claims against them be brought in Texas and limiting liabilities in ways that are expressly prohibited under Texas law
You're welcome. Have a nice day!
I wanna sue too... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
probably not, but you could sue the world for making you addicted to money.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's not addiction, then I don't know what it is.
You bring up a point there (jokingly, but the point is important I think): what is addiction?
I'm going to suggest the following standard for judging if something is actual addiction or not, it should probably be a legally recognized standard. Let's call it the "Bob Saget in Half Baked standard," because I'm taking this from Bob Saget's character in Half Baked.
If the person in question has performed fellatio for his or her "addiction," then it is an addiction. If he or she has not performed fellatio, then
Eaugh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I keep forgetting (Score:5, Insightful)
that we're no longer responsible for our own actions.
Re:I keep forgetting (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a feeling that if NCSoft put "warning this game has been proven by Court Precident to be extremely addicting" more people would pick it up.
Seriously though - while I believe this lawsuit is pretty dumb (this is right up there with suing a crack dealer because he/she didn't warn you about how addictive it is) some people take addictions differently. I've experimented with various recreational drugs/alcohol etc - many of which are potentially addictive and walked away in each case never to do it again,
Re: (Score:2)
that we're no longer responsible for our own actions.
The "good": this is why the governments feel the need to step in and protect you.
The 'bad": the govs are made of people equally no longer responsible for their actions!
The "ugly": while your lack of responsibility is potentially punishable, theirs are not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And why exactly shouldn't NCsoft we responsible for their actions or lack their off too?
Assume for a moment that MMORPGs can be addictive for some people and assume further that NCsoft has hard data on that. Then that means that they would knowingly let people run into addiction issues and do nothing about it, quite the opposite, they would happily continue to collect the monthly fee. Isn't that negligence or at least not far off? Especially considering that it would be rather simple to do something about i
stupid lawsuit, good ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If EULAs were written in plain language, and required that you sign them at the time of purchase, they'd be fine. But all of the "by opening this software" EULAs are bullshit by definition.
They don't do that anymore because people starting reconsidering the purchase when they hit the "first born child" and "immortal soul" clauses...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd argue that they're full evil - assuming my understanding of contract law is accurate (and it may very well be wrong).
Contract law requires that the terms of the contract be present before someone purchases the good/service. With software, you get hit with a nice big EULA long after the purchase. They want it both ways: They want to restrict what you can and can't do with their software and have contractual protection against breaches, but they don't want the burden of having to tell people that up front
Re: (Score:2)
It's a stupid lawsuit, but I favor any ruling that weakens the EULA. Those things are near-evil.
I'm hesitant to gut EULAs.
If you're trying to start a business involving software, you wind up taking on risk, like any business.
Without legal protections, you can still operate, but you take on more risk. You can mitigate this through insurance, but it's expensive.
If you're trying to raise capital, your investors are going to look at how much risk you've got, because more risk means lower expected returns. That means you're going to get less capital.
It won't kill off the business, by any means. But the lar
Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling (Score:5, Informative)
As co-owner of a small software house, I agree.
We have aggressive EULA's as well, but as we're based in Europe we also have strong consumer laws to work with. The EULA's main purpose is to stop lawsuits dead in their tracks and just be reasonable about usage.
Sure, if the software doesn't work as the user expects it to, we will either attempt to fix it first or issue a refund. Its the user's choice whether we try to fix it first or refund immediately (no questions asked), if the refund request is made within 30 days of purchase. We generally offer a refund long beyond those 30 days as well, we have free fully-functional 21-day trial versions, and you have to agree to the EULA before even purchasing. The EULA is clearly linked, not hidden, and a refund request can be done by a simple email. We even allow you to use a single copy on all your computers instead of purchasing a copy per computer. I know, people usually do this with all their software, but it is usually against the EULA.
We find this entirely reasonable and gives the user more than enough chance to see if it works as they expect it to, and is actually more lenient to the end-users than is legally required. The right to refund (in our case) is only 7 days, and the manufacturer (us) has the right to attempt a fix 3 times before having to refund.
But you still need the EULA as developers, because the liability is insane. For example, say you were walking around while holding your netbook in one hand and typing on it with the other, while the software is running (which is a pretty weird thing to do in any case), and you walk under a bus, we may actually be liable under law. I've never heard of an actual case like this, but legally, it's possible. So the EULA needs a clause which disallows you from usage when usage could result in serious injury to anyone (not just the user). That's just one of a great many examples. As over here it's not allowed to simply have a clause which waives liability for many cases, each case like this needs to be covered explicitly by the EULA.
And even with a strong EULA, you simply can't cover all these cases. Luckily, the place we operate from is not (yet) a sueing society like the USA, and awarded damages are usually limited to provable loss (and not some arbitrary number some money hungry lawyer thought up, or emotional damage and whatnot). Add to that that due to our exact situation - contrary to what someone posted above - we actually are able to limit the court's location where you can sue us to our own country.
Still, the possibility for insane lawsuits are still there, and simply cannot be fully covered by an EULA.
Now ask the question, what is wrong here? Are we manufacturers evil for trying to protect ourselves from people seeking to make an easy buck at our expense? We could cover that, but then a single copy would not cost $15, it would cost $15000. I sincerely doubt the average end-user would like to pay that amount for software. Or are the laws insane for allowing end-users to act irresponsibly and then succesfully blaming others for their own mistakes? In my book that is behaviour you try to teach kids not to have, though it seems a great many missed that part of their education.
If laws, end-users, and manufcaturers would simply be reasonable, EULA's would not be needed. Blame not the manufacturer for including a EULA, blame the law for needing one! We work hard for our money just like you do, and no, we don't think you're entitled to our life savings because you stubbed your toe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If by weakens, you mean forces everyone to make a stronger EULA, one that protects them against this kind of lawsuit, then yeah, this is really going to weaken EULAs
Re: (Score:2)
Write out 100 times: My enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend.
See also: US foreign policy since ... well, pretty much forever.
Re: (Score:2)
It must be nice! (Score:3, Interesting)
Obvious (Score:2, Funny)
The judge probably just thought "blah blah blah, click OK".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:look another US-American idiot! (Score:5, Insightful)
More good comes from modern religion than you can imagine.
War. Racism. Homophobia. Sexism. Indoctrination of children. Rejection of science/reason. Rejection of contraception leading to the spread of STDs.
So what's the good bit? It better be fucking massive.
Re:look another US-American idiot! (Score:4, Insightful)
Peace, tolerance, acceptance, equality, taking good care of your family, critical thought, responsibility.
I'm sure you can find something in that list that should appeal to you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Is buddhism not a religion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:look another US-American idiot! (Score:5, Informative)
Buddhism doesn't involve believing in any gods (though some people worship Buddha apparently), so you can be an atheist Buddhist..
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Excellent point. From the linked article:
"WHEN I was a boy in Tibet, I felt that my own Buddhist religion must be the best — and that other faiths were somehow inferior. Now I see how naïve I was, and how dangerous the extremes of religious intolerance can be today."
Re: (Score:2)
It is of course just as stupid to deny that there could be a god as it is to say that your god definitely exists when there is 0% proof. But I was just pointing out that you can follow Buddhist philosophies without believing in any god (no, I'm not a Buddhist or anything else, I'm pretty agnostic).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure sounds like worship to me. While I have respect for some stuff that dead people have done and taught, I don't make little statues of them and give them gifts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like any religion Buddhism has countless sects. I'm sure there are some sects, especially the sort that seem to be popular in Hollywood, that are more secular in nature. Just like there are sects of Christianity that are drastically different from the more common forms.
Exactly, so believing in gods is not one of the basic things that makes Buddhism Buddhism.
I wasn't going by Hollywood, while I was checking what I was saying about Buddhism and Atheism I was using this link: http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/buddhaatheism.htm [about.com]
It does say:
The many mythological creatures and beings that populate Mahayana Buddhism art and literature are often called "gods" or "deities." But, again, just believing in them is not the point.
Re: (Score:2)
buddhism is a bit like a hindu offshoot.
there are so many branches of hindu that everyone on the planet could really be considered a kind loose variant of hindu.
hindu is sort of the belief in a soul or spirit, though some branches do not believe in that.
The soul can be in one part, or two parts (duelism and none-duelism)
It could be related to a god, or just be part of nature.
The key aspect is that at some point you want to become one with everything.
This is different from western philosophy that view humans
Re:look another US-American idiot! (Score:4, Insightful)
I can have more of that without religion than with it.
peace: without a religion, many wars cease to exist, since there's no "promised land" to fight over, no divine commands to wage war that would otherwise not be necessary. There's no holy war, and no infidels to conquer or convert, no crusades to wage. Certainly, war doesn't disappear completely if you remove religion, but the amount of reasons to wage it shrinks considerably.
acceptance: of what you mean more specifically? But generally I'm a very "whatever floats your boat" kind of person. I think that all victimless crimes should be decriminalized. Religion isn't very accepting of many kinds of those, though.
equality: The bible isn't big on this, especially regarding women, who for instance may not speak in church (Corinthians 14:34). Religion is very much coming in conflict with equality. For instance, the opposition to gay marriage and ordaining women.
taking good care of your family: I don't think there's been a single society on this planet that thought differently. Of course the standards for what "taking good care of your family" means exactly vary widely, but everybody seems to agree on that it's a must.
critical thought: right. Critical thought and blind obedience are mutually exclusive. Did Abraham exericse a lot of critical thought in pondering whether to sacrifice his son? Now of course he was stopped at the last moment, but the whole event is a show of the complete lack of any kind of thought. When told to sacrifice he does, and when told to stop he does.
responsibility: more details on this is needed, but about the same deal as the family one if I understood you correctly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
responsibility: more details on this is needed, but about the same deal as the family one if I understood you correctly.
You can do anything you want, as long as you confess it to a priest later and say you're sorry. If you do that all the consequences go away.
Re: (Score:2)
peace: without a religion, many wars cease to exist, since there's no "promised land" to fight overy
Sounds nice, except that religion is most often only an excuse for war, most of the time the actual reasons are greed, the thirst for power, and such like.
Re:look another US-American idiot! (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, the story of Abraham and Lot always made me think the Christian God is more than a little bit of a sadist. Why exactly would I want to worship a Deity that thinks its hunky dory to ask for the head of one of his loyal follower's children, or makes bets with the enemy that cause one of his most loyal to have his family murdered and to be tortured? If any man did that we'd call him a sick fuck, but a Deity equals that's cool? Then again a whole lot of the bible never made any damned sense to me. Take Lucifer: Here you have the best and the brightest, the number one guy taking a shot at the title. Now he lost the first round but knows they'll be a second shot at the title. So instead of rallying his troops, trying to build a large army and giving them what they need to win, he and his generals are supposed to beat the shit and torture the crap out of those that are gonna be fighting FOR him? WTF? Is he supposed to be retarded?
As for TFA, ever since we saw that bitch, and I'm sorry but she was an absolute bitch that should have had her kids taken away, sue McDonald's because the lazy heifer fed her kids NOTHING but McDonald's for their ENTIRE life and then sued because they were fat and diabetic, then I knew the court system in this country is completely fucked up. What's next? Ohh I got a blister playing HL2, Valve owes me a million dollars! Oh and seeing those install screens on XP and Windows 7 all day gives me a headache, I want 10 million from MSFT AND a dozen top of the line x360s with lifetime XBL gold AND a pony! (Black 2010 convertible preferably) Give me a fricking break! Is this numbnuts gonna have to actually pay for all the time he wastes of the court, or is that just another bill We, The People get to enjoy?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're picking and choosing very specific verses that suit your argument.
That doesn't make him wrong. Would you rather he picked versus completely unrelated to anything he was saying?
I've read the whole of the bible twice btw. God directly started wars in the old testament. That sounds like religion giving reasons for war to me, unless you're saying that the Israelite leaders were just pretending that God said something as an excuse for war? *gasp* Would humans ever do something like that, make up gods and beliefs to control people and get their own way? Surely not!
Re: (Score:2)
I've read the whole of the bible twice btw. God directly started wars in the old testament. That sounds like religion giving reasons for war to me,
True. I'm just pointing out that the new testament is quite different in that respect (and does that not count? does negative stuff in the OT mean that the NT can't possibly bring something positive?), and that not all wars are divinely inspired. Most wars where religion plays a role, it's really just an excuse for an Us vs. Them war. It could just as easily be about skin colour, ideology or football teams. People tend not to be very picky when it comes to excuses to exclude people.
*gasp* Would humans ever do something like that, make up gods and beliefs to control people and get their own way? Surely not!
Isn't that kinda what I s
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that kinda what I said? Politics abuses anything as an excuse to get what they want. Abstract concepts are really popular, apparently.
My point is that I wish people would consider that everything about their religion may be man made. Not just the "politics". Now that I've managed to accept that this is the case with Christianity (very hard when you're brought up believing it as 100% truth your whole life), it's easy to see how it's just as much of a farce as all the other belief systems that people have around the world. There are millions of smart people out there who currently believe in stuff that they'd immediately dismiss as a fairyt
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and don't forget about the crusades and Spanish Inquisition or is it b/c those are 100's of years old they don't count
No, they don't count because they're political, rather than religious. Religion was just an excuse. The people in power used religion to keep people in line, which makes heresy basically rebellion. The crusades weren't religious, but cultural. "Those people are different and getting closer! Let's go take their stuff!"
OK how about all the terrorists fighting for religion now?
Which ones exactly are fighting for religion? It seems to me most are fighting for freedom or against cultural suppression. They feel put down, so they rise up.
Hell on a smaller scale how about abortion clinic bombings?
You mean the people who are insan
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, they don't count because they're political, rather than religious. Religion was just an excuse. The people in power used religion to keep people in line, which makes heresy basically rebellion. The crusades weren't religious, but cultural. "Those people are different and getting closer! Let's go take their stuff!"
And how do you not think that organized religions do not have rules to keep people in line? Even if the people in power were corrupt its the religions they used to instill the fear they didn't get all the soldiers to fight and torture for them by saying it was for their culture they told them that it was for their religion and their god.
Which ones exactly are fighting for religion? It seems to me most are fighting for freedom or against cultural suppression. They feel put down, so they rise up.
I don't know maybe the thousands that are fighting for Sharia Law [wikipedia.org]?
You mean the people who are insane murderers? I'd like to know what kind of religion inspires that kind of murder.
The one this group [wikipedia.org] follows apparently
I'm not denying that. Many people are willing to die for what they believe in, rather than renounce that belief. Is that wrong of those people? Or is it wrong of the people who kill them? (You know, the ones in power who feel their power threatened by people who believe something they can't control?)
sure that's a nice way to look at it but I was more talking about
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you subject yourself to reading the bible through? I wouldn't read anything through, least not more than once. I'm trying to find a good book on Taoism at the moment, and maybe Buddhism but that's trickier. Trying to compare and contrast the deeper philosophy between religions (I have no use for gods) ... it's an enlightenment thing. A lot of religions had enlightened spiritual leaders -- Jesus got nailed to a tree for saying we should try being nice to each other for a change, and Buddha acci
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you subject yourself to reading the bible through?
It's what you're told to do - read the bible every day, as well as praying. It helps to keep you brainwashed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course since I'm not religious I consider any scripture based justification for war an excuse.
Still, the less excuses that will do, the better, and the whole "promised land" deal created quite a bit of trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
"critical thought, "
Except when applied to the superstition itself. The essence of religion is prohibition and submission.
Re: (Score:2)
The essence of religion is prohibition and submission.
Depends on the religion, I guess. For me, the essence is faith.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you're a Bahá'í [wikipedia.org] then? It's the only religion I know which pays more than lip service to science and reason, faith in any other religion pretty much precludes critical thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you're a Bahá'í [wikipedia.org] then? It's the only religion I know which pays more than lip service to science and reason, faith in any other religion pretty much precludes critical thinking.
I'm not familiar with Bahai, but you might not be familiar with all branches of Christianity.
My church encourages critical thinking, has a lot of mathematicians and scientists among its members, and the level of education is, as far as I can tell, at least, quite a bit higher than that of the average (mostly non-Christian) population. But even that bastion of conservativism and traditionalism, the Vatican, invests quite a bit in science.
Somebody making generalizing claims that this can not be true, is just
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if that one deserves scorn, I usually reserve 'scorn' for the Bible.
I don't see how any person who claims to know what critical thinking is can base their life around the Bible. Harry Potter is more believable than the Bible and I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes a much better moral code.
If the Bible didn't exist and was just published then nobody would get past the first chapter.
Re: (Score:2)
The things you mention are all works of people
And they're all encouraged or glorified in religious texts. Funny that.
Now you are the one who is picking and choosing from the bible to try and support your points, making excuses for all the stuff that you are scared people won't agree with, or perhaps that you don't agree with yourself. I hate how compartmentalised people can be about this stuff, so terrified to consider that the whole of their religion might just be bunk.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand what my religion is about. It's not about some verse in Exodus. It's about the NT. It is, in fact, quite explicitly about love. Love for God, and love for your fellow humans.
According to Matthew 22:36-40, the entire bible hangs on that. If parts of the bible don't seem to agree with this, it might be prudent to question your interpretation of them.
That's not picking and choosing, that's sticking to what's important. What the single central figure in the bible personally says it'
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter, if you believe the bible then the old testament is as much a part of who the Christian god (and therefore Jesus) is as the new.
Re: (Score:2)
It does matter. It's the essence of what it's all about. If you ignore the words of Jesus, you're ignoring the most important part of the bible (at least from a Christian viewpoint).
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say ignore the new testament, but why ignore all the rest? Anything that you don't understand you just automatically say "oh well God is definitely real and he's a good guy, so it must be me that's just not understanding here", instead of truly, really, honestly giving consideration to the fact that the bible might just be an entirely human fabrication.
Re: (Score:2)
People have taught people to fear and hate. That doesn't mean that's what Christianity is about.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, take another look.
The Bible actively encourages slavery [wikipedia.org].If 'people' take slaves, or sell their own children to other people as slaves, they're just following what god told them to do.
Homophobia as well, the Bible tells us to put homosexuals to death, it's not the work of 'people', it's a commandment from God.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bible actively encourages slavery [wikipedia.org].
No it doesn't. It acknowledges the existence of it, and limits its abuse. Slavery was dead common in all countries in that part of the world at that time.
Furthermore, the new testament makes it pretty clear that to God, a slave is not any less than his master. There's a story where Paul helps the runaway slave of a friend, and sends him back as an equal, rather than a slave.
Re: (Score:2)
That's totally unfair. You missed out overpopulation.
Re: (Score:2)
he said modern religion, not old (thousands of years), nor ancient
So, in that case substitute praying for paying.
Stop bashing religion. Paying is a form of grace. More good comes from modern religion than you can imagine.
That works for, scientology, evangluism, capatilism, neo-psudo-comunism, republicanism etc....
Re: (Score:2)
A few religious people do that so you blame all religions? There are atheists who have started wars, are racist, are homophobes, are sexist, indoctrinate children, reject science they don't agree with, ignore reason, and spread STDs directly.
Guess that leaves us agnostics as the only true saints.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slight disagreement: the modern translation is "you shall not murder", not "you shall not kill". The bible certainly contains a lot of killing in it, divinely mandated too. The "you shall not kill" taken seriously would turn christians into buddhist monks that make sure not to harm even an ant, and that clearly isn't happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me again which verse tells me not to murder...I just read the list [biblegateway.com] and it's not there.
Re: (Score:2)
here [biblegateway.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Where does it say that's one of the Ten Commandments?
The only place in the Bible where it says "Ten Commandments" is Exodus 34:28 [biblegateway.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Umm.. try counting them up. Those are the Ten Commandments that are being referenced in the passage you linked to.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bible's pretty clear about which words were written on version 2.0 of the tablets.
Exodus34:27: Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
It's also very clear about which set of tablets are the Ten Commandments:
Exodus34:28: Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.
I underst
Re: (Score:2)
Okay so what are you trying to say the ten commandments are? And are you saying God made a different covenant just because the first set of tablets were smashed?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally? I don't know the will of "god" and I don't believe the Bible is any more divine than Harry Potter.
What I'm saying is that what the the Bible refers to as the Ten Commandments and what Christians usually quote when asked what the Ten Commandments are are two completely different things, ie. that their belief is based on dogma rather than any form of reason or critical thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the list again ... it's just the antonyms of the parent post.
PS: You're right about the Ten commandments [biblegateway.com] though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
With all due respect, stop being a fucking moron. Nobody here has suggested killing all Christians. Nobody here has suggested burning a church, much less all churches. To not only ascribe nonsense to people but declare it to be some sort of sexual thrill for them has to make you one of the most shallow, despicable excuses for a human being I have ever seen in my life. One who obviously has nothing intelligent to say, so he just makes shit up to attack as it pleases him . I'm sure you sleep awfully well
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Killing all Christians and burning all churches = wet dream of every slashdot anti-theist
Don't be such a fucking clown. I think Christianity and all religions have it dead wrong, but I don't want to kill everyone who has beliefs. I can understand and even respect some religious beliefs, and I see that religion does provide positive influences in some people's lives, though on a larger scale it has many negative effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Killing all Christians and burning all churches = wet dream of every slashdot anti-theist.
No, the wet dream (if we have one) is for them to get a fucking clue, then start actually being the people they thought [nairaland.com] they [cybercollege.com] were [religioustolerance.org] in their delusions [holysmoke.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Religions are exclusive, so either all are lies and one is truth, or they are all lies.
There is no reason to respect religion. I don't believe in your imaginary "grace". Prove it exists or fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. There are faiths that believe that all other religions/holy books are manifestations of the same god and welcome any of them to speak at their temples (in fact they actively invite them...)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
McDonald's was the stupid one. All she wanted was the medical bills for her 3rd degree burns paid; I think that's quite reasonable. McDonalds said "No way, bitch, sue us". Dumb. They deserved getting their asses handed to them on a platter, they BEGGED for it.
Re:look another US-American idiot! (Score:4, Insightful)
The McDonald's coffee wasn't just coffee hot, it was boiling hot; far hotter than anyone would expect coffee to be and far hotter than coffee should be. You're sitting in a car with a cup of coffee it's going to be over your lap. With normal coffee if you spill it it's going to hurt like hell, but you're not going to need medical attention. McDonald's coffee gave her third degree burns. It looks to me like McDonald's was the negligent one.
Pizza is expected to be firey hot when it comes out of the oven. Coffee isn't expected to be just a few degrees below boiling; that is, unless you get it from McDonalds. Its coffee is insanely hot; I always put ice in it to cool it down enough to drink, otherwise I'd have to wait an hour for it to be drinkable.
McDonald's coffee is stupidly hot.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So if you sold someone some pizza and they shoved a piece of the melted cheese onto their "nether region", and they got burns, its your fault ?
What person in their right mind, regardless of "how hot" something is puts an OPEN container of coffee between their thighs ? If someone said "I put my hot coffee between my thighs and I got burned - Its your fault." came to me I'd say sue too.. because I'd think there is no way this can be my fault.
Regarding your pizza example: no, they'd just be an idiot.
Regarding McDonald's: "McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 F (82–88 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Prior to her lawsuit, there had been approximately 700 other burn cases involving McDonald's between 1982 and 1992." (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants [wikipedia.org])
I agree it wasn't a good idea to put the coffee in her lap but she spent eight days in a hospital, required