This article has nothing to do with insurance related topics. The editors should delete this from their website and print an apology to their readers for this inappropriate item.
I don’t feel that the article is offensive, and I can see how it might be insurance related. But I would have preferred that the situation’s relation to insurance had been included in the report. Sure, it’s funny to those of us that didn’t have to wait over an hour for a flight, but I think it would have been a good opening for how stricter (and more paranoid) security measures are affecting the insurance industry.
Well, almost anything is more interesting than insurance……..and, from the prudish comments, this applies to insurance professionals, too (myself and the others who were also amused, excluded).
Far from INappropriately reported, I think this story was terribly under-reported. Many questions remain: How novel was the sex “novelty”? Why had it suddenly started humming in the trash bin? (Was it happy?) Just why was a “he” travelling with such a “novelty”? And finally, why did he not want to take it home with him?
And not related to insurance? Au contraire (since the French are such sexy people). Was the novelty insured? By whom? What was the “trigger” of coverage? Can such novelties be recalled if they are so clearly defective as to start humming of their own volition? Is the “he” who threw it in the trash bin subject to any improper disposal fines, perhaps begetting an EPA (or Australian counterpart) investigation and possible class action lawsuit on behalf of all the fellow travellers suffering emotional upset over the whole sordid affair?
Thank you, IJ, for having a sense of humor, and allowing some of us readers the opportunity to display our appreciation.
these days it’s getting harder and harder to get laid by anything or anybody anywhere without fear of triggering third world war…
I was disappointed to see this type of news being reported by you.
Typical Aussies.
Would this be the Orgasm heard round the world?
Jaime…
It is now!
This article has nothing to do with insurance related topics. The editors should delete this from their website and print an apology to their readers for this inappropriate item.
I don’t feel that the article is offensive, and I can see how it might be insurance related. But I would have preferred that the situation’s relation to insurance had been included in the report. Sure, it’s funny to those of us that didn’t have to wait over an hour for a flight, but I think it would have been a good opening for how stricter (and more paranoid) security measures are affecting the insurance industry.
Deappropriate?
LIGHTEN UP!!!!!!!!1
hahaha..this is funny. To all those others offended…lighten up!
I would have to agree. How relevant is this to a professional media outlet.
How about some indepth stories on fraud investigations in NY, or some interesting adjuster’s stories from Florida.
It is interesting to me that the people who felt the article was “inappropriate” opened it up to begin with – it was clear what the article was about!
If you are easily offended, I suggest you don’t open things with “sex toy” in the subject line in the future.
I am quite sure this is a record number of postings for an IJ article – seems sex and morality are more interesting than insurance!
I completely agree with you. I also noticed this article is on the top of “Today’s Most Popular” list.
Well, almost anything is more interesting than insurance……..and, from the prudish comments, this applies to insurance professionals, too (myself and the others who were also amused, excluded).
Far from INappropriately reported, I think this story was terribly under-reported. Many questions remain: How novel was the sex “novelty”? Why had it suddenly started humming in the trash bin? (Was it happy?) Just why was a “he” travelling with such a “novelty”? And finally, why did he not want to take it home with him?
And not related to insurance? Au contraire (since the French are such sexy people). Was the novelty insured? By whom? What was the “trigger” of coverage? Can such novelties be recalled if they are so clearly defective as to start humming of their own volition? Is the “he” who threw it in the trash bin subject to any improper disposal fines, perhaps begetting an EPA (or Australian counterpart) investigation and possible class action lawsuit on behalf of all the fellow travellers suffering emotional upset over the whole sordid affair?
Thank you, IJ, for having a sense of humor, and allowing some of us readers the opportunity to display our appreciation.
Sounds like we need a new line of coverage for Contingent Loss of Income