![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Awaiting the Count Chocula/Twilight marketing tie-in
I'm not one for legal wonkery, but this is pretty wonderful on a variety of levels: it turns out you can't actually sue the makers of Cap'n Crunch because you led to believe that crunchberries were real fruit. Which is awesome enough on its own, but the details are golden:
The plaintiff, Janine Sugawara, alleged that she had only recently learned to her dismay that said "berries" were in fact simply brightly-colored cereal balls, and that although the product did contain some strawberry fruit concentrate, it was not otherwise redeemed by fruit.
"Otherwise redeemed by fruit" is quickly worming its way into my heart as one of the best turns of phrase I've read in a long time.
According to the complaint, Sugawara and other consumers were misled not only by the use of the word "berries" in the name, but also by the front of the box, which features the product's namesake, Cap'n Crunch, aggressively "thrusting a spoonful of 'Crunchberries' at the prospective buyer."
Say what you will of the plaintiff's intellectual capacities, but whoever crafted the "thrusting a spoonful" bit has earned my respect. "Thrusting Spoonful" goes atop my list of hypothetical band names.
But to put this entire debacle in context, the final graf from the blog entry:
Judge England also noted another federal court had "previously rejected substantially similar claims directed against the packaging of Fruit Loops [sic] cereal, and brought by these same Plaintiff attorneys." He found that their attack on "Crunchberries" should fare no better than their prior claims that "Froot Loops" did not contain real froot.
The plaintiff, Janine Sugawara, alleged that she had only recently learned to her dismay that said "berries" were in fact simply brightly-colored cereal balls, and that although the product did contain some strawberry fruit concentrate, it was not otherwise redeemed by fruit.
"Otherwise redeemed by fruit" is quickly worming its way into my heart as one of the best turns of phrase I've read in a long time.
According to the complaint, Sugawara and other consumers were misled not only by the use of the word "berries" in the name, but also by the front of the box, which features the product's namesake, Cap'n Crunch, aggressively "thrusting a spoonful of 'Crunchberries' at the prospective buyer."
Say what you will of the plaintiff's intellectual capacities, but whoever crafted the "thrusting a spoonful" bit has earned my respect. "Thrusting Spoonful" goes atop my list of hypothetical band names.
But to put this entire debacle in context, the final graf from the blog entry:
Judge England also noted another federal court had "previously rejected substantially similar claims directed against the packaging of Fruit Loops [sic] cereal, and brought by these same Plaintiff attorneys." He found that their attack on "Crunchberries" should fare no better than their prior claims that "Froot Loops" did not contain real froot.
no subject
We had a guy in class who kept failing CPR. Why? He kept forgetting to check for a pulse! Doing CPR on live people=BAD.
Serious chest trauma is not one. Most laypeople aren't going to start CPR on a goopy body though. I however have done CPR on a person with serious chest trauma. It does remain high on my list of experiences not to repeat.
Do Not Resuscitate orders are another. Obvious signs of rigour mortis, danger to rescuers, dependant lividity, and frozen chest (cause you can make a serious mess).
But not having a head is always a personal favorite. :) It's technically absolute signs of no life ie decapitation. Now having no contents IN the chest- that would be an issue...
no subject
Now you sound like my parole officer. Though everything else sounds perfectly reasonable. I guess. Hard for me to get into the mindset of a first responder instead of an instigator.