Remove all warning signs. Clean the gene pool.

[Buff Mchugelarge]

Whilst on a fairly old train the other day I saw a sign that said..

"Do not lean out of the window when the train is moving"

Pretty obvious I reckon. So obvious in fact I find it slightly offensive.

I strongly believe the human race would benefit from the removal of all warning signs. The people who actually need them would die out pretty quickly. Sticking their heads out of moving trains, walking off cliff tops, flying kites in thunderstorms, that kind of thing.
This would save what's left of the ever dwindling supplies of common sense.


I will however allow signs that protect the rest of us from them in the meantime.

[p1stonhead]

Surely ridiculously obvious ones are more for kids who may not know better?

[Ste1987]

I reckon the compensation culture is to blame

[Fitz666]

And this is half the problem, there are no lifeguards in the gene pool.

[4Q]

I had a schoolmate who was killed back in the early 80's sticking his head out of a train window, he was pretty stupid though so probably wouldn't have read the sign if there'd been one there.

[Buff Mchugelarge]

Fitz666 said:

And this is half the problem, there are no lifeguards in the gene pool.

[Cotty]

Some old style trains with slam doors required you to open the window lean out and open the door from the outside. Often people would lean out and open the door as the train was pulling into a station. So I suppose if any one did get injured leaning out of the train when it was moving they can say we told you so.

[anonymous-user]

4Q said:

I had a schoolmate who was killed back in the early 80's sticking his head out of a train window, he was pretty stupid though so probably wouldn't have read the sign if there'd been one there.

That's half the problem - the inherent stupidity of the bottom feeders. Anyone who needs a sign to protect them probably can't read.

[Boring_Chris]

Buff Mchugelarge said:

Pretty obvious I reckon. So obvious in fact I find it slightly offensive.

That may be a fairly extreme example but there are people out there without the benefit of your superior intellect.

This does not mean that they are any less worthy of having a head firmly attached to their shoulders than you.
Say for example; someone with learning difficulties is in a particularly active mood on your train and their carer needs a little official reinforcement to prevent them from sticking their head out the window? You might agree that the sign is a good idea? That is, unless your feel anyone without the benefit of your superior intellect deserves to be beheaded on public transport? Which you might! Who's to say?! But then, what a mess it would make. And how would it disrupt your journey? Or indeed, after witnessing such a situation, mental well being... ?

Maybe, sometimes, people occasionally operate on autopilot and need a little signage, or guidance, no matter how subtle, to steer them out of harms way... think what should happen if you'd just witnessed the above when you happen over a railway line without barriers? You're texting on your phone, or whatever, just trying to process what you'd witnessed (or maybe you're posting on the internet about how clever you are and how you don't need the world of officialdom to keep you safe?) when you should saunter onto the lines and splat, you're hit by a train?

Sometimes, for reasons too numerous to mention, people don't fully think things through and a little guidance can go a long way. If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about it. But I would bear it in mind when making ridiculous statements like "I find it a little offensive".

Edited by Boring_Chris on Thursday 2nd June 13:53

[Kermit power]

Boring_Chris said:

Buff Mchugelarge said:

Pretty obvious I reckon. So obvious in fact I find it slightly offensive.

That may be a fairly extreme example but there are people out there without the benefit of your superior intellect.

This does not mean that they are any less worthy of having a head firmly attached to their shoulders than you.
Say for example; someone with learning difficulties is in a particularly active mood on your train and their carer needs a little official reinforcement to prevent them from sticking their head out the window? You might agree that the sign is a good idea? That is, unless your feel anyone without the benefit of your superior intellect deserves to be beheaded on public transport? Which you might! Who's to say?! But then, what a mess it would make. And how would it disrupt your journey? Or indeed, after witnessing such a situation, mental well being... ?

Maybe, sometimes, people occasionally operate on autopilot and a little signage, or guidance, no matter how subtle, to steer them out of harms way... think what should happen if you'd just witnessed the above when you happen over a railway line without barriers? You're texting on your phone, or whatever, just trying to process what you'd witnessed (or maybe you're posting on the internet about how clever you are and how you don't need the world of officialdom to keep you safe?) when you should saunter onto the lines and splat, you're hit by a train?

Sometimes, for reasons too numerous to mention, people don't fully think things through and a little guidance can go a long way. If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about it. But I would bear it in mind when making ridiculous statements like "I find it a little offensive".

By and large I agree, although there are some which are patently absurd, such as "contents may be hot" on cups of coffee or "warning, may contain nuts" on packets of nuts!

[Boring_Chris]

Crossflow Kid said:

4Q said:

I had a schoolmate who was killed back in the early 80's sticking his head out of a train window, he was pretty stupid though so probably wouldn't have read the sign if there'd been one there.

That's half the problem - the inherent stupidity of the bottom feeders. Anyone who needs a sign to protect them probably can't read.

Did you used to hurt animals as a child? Maybe have an obsession with fire?

fking weirdo.

[Eric Mc]

And I always assumed this was a Government Information Film -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQslnmcHOeM

[anonymous-user]

Boring_Chris said:

Crossflow Kid said:

4Q said:

I had a schoolmate who was killed back in the early 80's sticking his head out of a train window, he was pretty stupid though so probably wouldn't have read the sign if there'd been one there.

That's half the problem - the inherent stupidity of the bottom feeders. Anyone who needs a sign to protect them probably can't read.

Did you used to hurt animals as a child? Maybe have an obsession with fire?

fking weirdo.

I've read my bit a couple of times, then read your bit a couple of times and can't quite understand what you're going on about, or what it is that's got you riled to the point of personal insult.
Could you explain?

[Prizam]

[Boring_Chris]

Crossflow Kid said:

Boring_Chris said:

Crossflow Kid said:

4Q said:

I had a schoolmate who was killed back in the early 80's sticking his head out of a train window, he was pretty stupid though so probably wouldn't have read the sign if there'd been one there.

That's half the problem - the inherent stupidity of the bottom feeders. Anyone who needs a sign to protect them probably can't read.

Did you used to hurt animals as a child? Maybe have an obsession with fire?

fking weirdo.

I've read my bit a couple of times, then read your bit a couple of times and can't quite understand what you're going on about, or what it is that's got you riled to the point of personal insult.
Could you explain?

Well, therein lies the issue.

Lets break it down - not for you, but for anyone else reading (I'm confident you're beyond understanding here)

1, a child, vaguely described as having some form of learning difficulties, was tragically killed in - again, vaguely described - a horrific train accident.
(at this point I'd suggest the actual facts are of little relevance here - 'a' situation was described and you reacted to the information to hand).
2, you described the dead child as a 'bottom feeder'.

You referred to a dead child using phraseology typically reserved for fish... You understand where I'm coming from here? It shows a worryingly callous mindset, lacking in empathy.

Early signs of psychopathy include; hurting animals, and starting fires.

Are you there yet?

[Boring_Chris]

Kermit power said:

Boring_Chris said:

Buff Mchugelarge said:

Pretty obvious I reckon. So obvious in fact I find it slightly offensive.

That may be a fairly extreme example but there are people out there without the benefit of your superior intellect.

This does not mean that they are any less worthy of having a head firmly attached to their shoulders than you.
Say for example; someone with learning difficulties is in a particularly active mood on your train and their carer needs a little official reinforcement to prevent them from sticking their head out the window? You might agree that the sign is a good idea? That is, unless your feel anyone without the benefit of your superior intellect deserves to be beheaded on public transport? Which you might! Who's to say?! But then, what a mess it would make. And how would it disrupt your journey? Or indeed, after witnessing such a situation, mental well being... ?

Maybe, sometimes, people occasionally operate on autopilot and a little signage, or guidance, no matter how subtle, to steer them out of harms way... think what should happen if you'd just witnessed the above when you happen over a railway line without barriers? You're texting on your phone, or whatever, just trying to process what you'd witnessed (or maybe you're posting on the internet about how clever you are and how you don't need the world of officialdom to keep you safe?) when you should saunter onto the lines and splat, you're hit by a train?

Sometimes, for reasons too numerous to mention, people don't fully think things through and a little guidance can go a long way. If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about it. But I would bear it in mind when making ridiculous statements like "I find it a little offensive".

By and large I agree, although there are some which are patently absurd, such as "contents may be hot" on cups of coffee or "warning, may contain nuts" on packets of nuts!

Yeah some may seem silly but the world doesn't operate through the lens of which you or I see it. I don't see the point in getting all high and mighty just because evolution of a corporate product necessitated warning signs left right and centre.

In a similar way, the documentary 'Hot Coffee' is quite an eye opener. It's about the elderly lady in America who spilt her 'hot' coffee on her legs, leaving horrific burns. The country was up in arms when she took it to court but, once all of the details were made available, I don't think there's anybody could side with McDonalds.

Well, anybody other than Crossflow Kid.

Edited by Boring_Chris on Thursday 2nd June 14:36

[GCH]

[PanzerCommander]

I completely agree.

Though the signs aren't there to protect people from their own stupidity they are often there for arse covering purposes, some slimy shiny suited no win no fee lawyer would jump all over somebody loosing a limb or head sticking it out of a train window if there were no warning signs.

[Fugazi]

The reason why you see these warnings on packets of nuts/peanuts is because you can be allergic to peanuts and not tree nuts or vice-versa. Peanuts aren't actually nuts, they belong to the legume family, like peas and beans. Although I believe they both contain similar proteins and you can be allergic to both, hence the standard warning on anything that may be contaminated by either form of nut, to remove ambiguity.

[antspants]

^^ Did not know that