Comments on: Warning: This device is only safe for carrying worthless stuff.

By: Phillip Gibb

Phillip Gibb — Thu, 14 May 2009 08:09:42 +0000

my car key is not worthless. and neither is the stupid tag that hangs with it. Ok maybe it is.

By: Karsten

Karsten — Wed, 13 May 2009 07:17:49 +0000

@Shawn: hate to disappoint you, but it EXPRESSLY states that the item is not to be used for “overhead lifting” which pretty much deprives you of the option of standing underneath worthless stuff that is held up by the thing.

Given those limitations, the only use I can see would be supporting wrecked cars that weigh under 2200lbs as you need to move them either up or down an incline of some sort.

By: philthecarl

philthecarl — Wed, 13 May 2009 04:40:50 +0000

I have been using a smaller version of one of those as my key chain for years now and it has never failed me. One could argue that when it supports the keys that run my vehicle it supports more than a ton!

By: Nate

Nate — Wed, 13 May 2009 03:55:55 +0000

I hate to be a critic, but ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’, putting this post slightly over the 22-word standard (by 2,000 words)….

Yet another great moment in marketing – thanks for sharing!

By: sean b.

sean b. — Wed, 13 May 2009 03:55:29 +0000

The coolest use for this thing is if you put your hand through it, it becomes a make-shift brass knuckle! My brother got one confiscated once because of that….

By: Melissa Parnell

Melissa Parnell — Wed, 13 May 2009 01:16:24 +0000

that device looks awfully similar to the device that is holding up the swing on the front porch…

..should i be concerned?

By: Victor P

Victor P — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:18:39 +0000

You should send this to failblog

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 12 May 2009 20:53:38 +0000

***Do not use for the support of human weight should the person weigh greater than one (1) ton. ***

By: Chris Roberts

Chris Roberts — Tue, 12 May 2009 19:54:57 +0000

I built a swing for my girls using a few odds and ends like this. Those parts had the same warning: good and reliable but somehow dangerous for humans. So far my girls have proven them safe.

By: Katie Roche

Katie Roche — Tue, 12 May 2009 19:34:46 +0000

Wouldn’t you think it would be a wise choice for them to say “eye screw” instead of “eye”? Surely there must be someone out there who would try to take advantage of that oversight, sue the pants off that company, and claim “But they said I should use it to attach a chain to my eye!!”

By: Tara

Tara — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:32:53 +0000

This belongs on the fail blog. http://failblog.org/ :-)

By: drewB

drewB — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:26:19 +0000

@m a t t : An “eye” would be an “eye screw.”

By: Shawn

Shawn — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:06:05 +0000

Hey, hold on a second! I think I see a loophole to this legal maneuvering that can be exploited.

It doesn’t *expressly* state that one shouldn’t stand UNDER the useless stuff being supported by the link. The only clause that might apply is far too ambiguous.

I think I see legal fees and a positive judgement in my future…

By: seaton garrett

seaton garrett — Tue, 12 May 2009 16:58:33 +0000

2200 pounds of worthless stuff. I probably have that much worthless stuff, truth be told.

By: m a t t

m a t t — Tue, 12 May 2009 16:49:10 +0000

Does that say “Uses: Attaching chain to eyes…”

Am I missing something?

By: noel

noel — Tue, 12 May 2009 16:44:47 +0000

What were you HOPING to support with it?

By: jamsco

jamsco — Tue, 12 May 2009 16:41:12 +0000

But on the plus side, at least its quick.