Everything I read indicates justification for that which you inherently know is wrong - doesn't make it right, just allows you to go with the flow so you can take advantage as the next guy.
I'm saying this is part of what is wrong with our society - instead of teaching morals and values we end up teaching how to beat and manipulate the system. I think this is a slow downward spiral that leads to a bad ending. As everyone becomes savvy to what you know, then they all start screwing the system and then the retailers/manufacturers pad the products even more. It becomes a viscous cycle. The only loser is us - the retailer and manufacturer just pass it on. Society goes downhill and we all learn how to mistrust each other and pay more for stealing from each other. Much a long term no-win scenario. Go back to think about what you would want to teach your own children. -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, May 21, 2010, 10:20:53 AM, you wrote: TC> Bruce, TC> The question in my mind became in this instance: TC> Did spilling a single drink on the camera make the owner at fault for TC> the subsequent failure of the object? My wife has a G9 and I have a TC> G10, the predecessors to the G11. Knowing their build quality and TC> that I use the G10 in wet and windy conditions when skiing, I would TC> not think that spilling something on any modern camera should TC> immediately make it inoperative. TC> Back to the moral issues since that seems to be what we're talking TC> about. I'll say what I think and am willing to take the brunt of it. TC> Big picture, not just this incident - Does being honest *always* TC> require telling everything you know? If the answer is yes, then I'm TC> afraid one will find themselves at a severe disadvantage as there are TC> certain types of people who will capitalize on that to their own TC> advantage and to other's disadvantage. There is honesty but there's TC> also discretion, both are admirable attributes and serve one well. TC> If it were me with the G11 drink spill, I would have likely done the TC> same as occurred. If asked, I would have told the truth that I spilled TC> something on it. If not asked, I would figure they did not deem the TC> reason important and were simply happy to give me a replacement. Had TC> I been asked, I'd have made the claim that I certainly wouldn't expect TC> a spill to cause the camera to immediately become non-functional. TC> Let's see, will it work at SeaWorld when splashed? What about at TC> Yosemite in the spray of Bridal Veil Falls, a rainy day? TC> Do you know how many extended warranties are purchased to cover this TC> sort of thing that are never used? Now there is a scam. The majority TC> of them, never utilized, goes straight to the bottom line. A hugh TC> profit center preying on people's insecurities. TC> A little story. TC> About eight years ago, through a totally stupid act of my own doing, I TC> accidentally set off the fire suppression system in my hotel room (I TC> could make this story very funny if I gave you all the details). TC> Though buck naked at the time... No... TC> I pulled on some pants, threw my laptop bag out into the hallway, and TC> bounded down two flights of stairs to the office, just as those TC> nauseating alarms and flashing lights started going off all over the TC> hotel. TC> I told them what I'd done that set the sprinklers off. TC> Guess what? TC> They did not know how to turn the fire supression system off. TC> They did not have a procedure manual at the hotel. TC> They called another hotel in the same chain to see if they knew how. TC> Yes, but different system. TC> Fire department calls to see if there's a fire. No there's a flood, TC> so you needn't come. TC> I go back to my room and the maintenance guy is standing in two inches TC> of water with a shop vac trying to vacum up the water while it's still TC> coming out of the ceiling. TC> I immediately told him to get out of there before he gets himself electrocuted. TC> Still trying to figure out the suppression system, I am running and TC> relaying information from the office to the maintenance guy back at TC> the control panel which is in the basement/pool level of the hotel. TC> Still bare chest, pair of pants, bare feet. TC> As I'm running past the pool I see water dripping out of the ceiling TC> into the pool! From 3 floors above! Oh crap and a bunch of other TC> things! TC> The local Fire Department finally shows up sirens blaring. TC> They go down and just as they're about to stem the flow of water, the TC> system exhausts itself. Apparently, it's a finite pressurized supply. TC> So all the water that would have been used for the entire hotel, went TC> out into my room, over a period of about 30 minutes. Oh crap and a TC> bunch of other things! TC> The hotel graciously assigned me another room. I went and bought dry TC> clothes and went into work. TC> I lurked back in through the side door that evening around 8:00. TC> Carpets were pulled up all over the place with big blowers running. TC> Wow I think, several weeks later, they haven't sued me. TC> Not quite that lucky. TC> Months later, after having stayed at the hotel for the next four TC> months, out of a misplaced sense of guilt, I receive a letter. TC> It's from the hotel chain's, insurance company's, risk management company. TC> They're demanding payment of $27,000 in damages, including my room, TC> the 3 floors below, and lost income because other hotel residents left TC> (the alarm system kept malfunctioning and going off intermittently for TC> the next 8 - 10 hours). TC> I finally got some advice and called my home owners insurance to see TC> if I was in some way covered through it. Yes. So they took up the TC> litigation in my defense. TC> My argument was, that while I was indeed responsible for having set TC> the system off, I was not responsible for the hotel not knowing how to TC> control it and turn it off. I would have thought they should be able TC> to turn it off in under 5 minutes. So I figured I was responsible for TC> no more than 1/6 of the damages. TC> Under Washington State law, a tenant is only responsible for their TC> room. The arbitrator also agreed with the argument that the hotel TC> itself was to blame for their incompetence and that the vast majority TC> of the damage was directly related to that. TC> I ended up paying $350. TC> Now here's what really gets me. The hotel chain had insurance. We TC> all know that insurance is just another form of gambling. They take TC> your money, betting that in the majority of instances, they'll never TC> have to pay out. In this case they did. But then, instead of figuring TC> this was one the times they lost the bet, the insurance company used a TC> risk management firm to try and recover the money. What the heck? They TC> wanted it both ways. TC> How does this story relate to the G11 incident? I guess it showed me TC> that everything is not always so black and white as some would like to TC> believe. TC> Owner was responsible for spilling a drink. Was he totally responsible TC> for the camera no longer working? From my viewpoint no. I'd have TC> thunk the camera was little more impervious than that. TC> Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
