In article , Phil L
writes
Kay wrote:
:::
:: I don't buy that one! Someone tells me that if I want to enter a
:: show, I am going to have an ink stamp, which I don't want, on my
:: hand. And then I have to worry for the next several hours about
:: keeping my hand away from my clothing?
::
Not at all, if you don't want an ink stamp on your hand,
then you are
perfectly able to walk away without one,

But if I have, against my desire, accepted one as a condition of
entering (or re-entering) the show, I think I am reasonably entitled to
expect that it won't cause permanent damage to my clothing, and that I
should not need to take deliberate action to avoid damage.

it *was* *not* forced on him

Though it is not apparent that he could have got into (or back into) the
show without it, so it was not entirely voluntary.

- he
accepted it and then *he* got the ink onto his own shirt.

Well, that is not clear, is it? What he is saying was that the ink
transferred to his shirt. If it was through no deliberate action of his
own, I don't think you can say 'he got the ink onto his own shirt'.


:: If someone is going to insist I have my hand stamped, I reckon
:: they also have a duty to make sure a) that it is washable and I
:: don't have to wear the mark for days to come b) that it isn't
:: going to cause permanent damage to anything it comes in contact
:: with, such as clothing.

Or you could choose not to have the stamp in the first place?
- If you did *choose* to have the ink stamped onto your hand, you have then
accepted responsibility for that ink

But I haven't accepted responsibility for its damaging my clothing
unless I am aware that it is liable to rub off on to clothing and leave
a mark. And I think it is quite reasonable to expect that ink used for
this purpose should *not* rub off and leave a mark.

...how far can this idiotic compensation
culture go?

I'm entirely with you on the general principle. But I think this case is
different.

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"