#Blueharvest 7 keyed code#

I wonder what the condition of the wall is? Was it in good condition, where it is smooth and not possible to break apart so that the animal could not climb the wall? Or was the wall in poor condition, where the wall was not smooth (rocky) or in bad condition, that even a human could do some rock climbing on that thing? For the tiger grotto, the wall was NOT HIGH ENOUGH to repel the animal.Īlso, there's word that the tiger had some cement in her claws, which is a sign that somehow the animal was able to climb the wall. Regardless if an animal is taunted or not, it is the responsibility of the San Francisco Zoo to build safe exhibits that prevent animal escapes in the first place. My analysis: The zoo is responsible for this incident. The lawyer for the mauled men: They did not taunt the tiger and zoo employees at the nearby cafe refused to let the men hide in the facility.

They also claim that they had a quick enough response. The Zoo: They claim that the tiger was taunted by the three (now possibly four) people that were allegedly involved. There's this huge blame game going around, and it always seems that when things get really f-ed up, you always call the best 'spin' public speakers and lawyers in the nation to screw around with the story. Our local news outlets don't even talk about the oil spill anymore. OK, maybe in a month, just like the Cosco Busan oil spill incident. Now, this story has hit the national headlines big time, and this story is not going away that easy. Even more tragic is that one man was killed, and two were mauled (and survived) by the same tiger that attacked a keeper. The San Francisco Zoo has had some bad incidents in the past years, from an elephant dying, to a lady being mauled by a tiger. I was almost ready to demand my membership fees back from Costco that day.Īnyone got an opinion about the interpretation of the coupon? Just post a comment! I wonder how many other unhappy customers walked in and realized that their favorite 20th Century Fox DVDs like the Simpson's and Family Guy was going to be turned away at the register with a coupon that didn't tell the whole truth about their advertising? I noticed this when an eligible coupon for this week didn't show-up on the product's display. Not all items at the El Camino Costco had their price with the coupon discount displayed. Should have put their advertising price sign on the eligible items.Clearly mark that the items are only legit to the codes on the coupon and item.Listed all ELIGIBLE DVDs ON THE COUPON.I drove over ten miles to that location to purchase something that the coupon is rejected? I wanted to buy the Family Guy 'Blue Harvest' Star Wars spoof, but I went home with nothing. Nevertheless, I wasn't happy when the guy at the register rejected this, and I also spoke to the manager that this coupon is misleading. But since the coupon has three DVD titles, are they they eligible? I don't know.

#Blueharvest 7 keyed code#

There are three item code numbers, but there are four DVDs displayed, meaning that these codes can't really apply to the four displayed DVDs, and also supports that it is legit to any 20th Century Fox DVD.Īctually, it only qualifies to the DVDs that matches the three item code numbers on the Costco price sticker. The Costco coupon is actually misleading. This Costco coupon looks to me like I can purchase ANY 20th Century Fox DVD, as long as the program on the DVD has been on television. Looking at this coupon on the left, what does this tell you?