Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Bryan wrote: >You've got it wrong. The policy doesn't pay if the damage is a direct result >of war, nuclear or otherwise. It also won't pay if the damage is the result >of a nuclear hazard. But, if the nuclear hazard causes a fire, and the fire >is the direct cuase of the damage or loss, the policy pays. > >Comforting, isn't it <g>. I wonder if you could get away with arguing that the blast was just a REALLY BIG fire? Presumably, if we follow insurance company logic, we should pack the kids off with a box of matches after 'the big one'? Can't wait to test that theory! "Honey, if you've got any influence in Pakistan, now would be a good time to cause a little unrest. By the way, have you seen the kids?" Thanks Bryan, this truly bizarre stuff. Take care, Gary _____________________________________________________________ "The difficulty now is that unexceptional adults believe the loss of youthful dreaming is itself "growing up," as though adulthood were the passive conclusion to a doomed activity and hope during adolescence." OO The Uses of Disorder [_]<| Personal Identity and City Life -- Richard Sennett /|\ Gary Elshaw Post-Grad Film Student Victoria University New Zealand http://elshaw.tripod.com/ http://elshaw.tripod.com/photointro.html _____________________________________________________________