Google is NOT my friend :-\
Mark Conrad
Been trying for weeks to find some sort of USB headset
which has a way to adjust the _volume_ of the earphone
part of the headset, no luck.
Apparently it is a legal liability issue; no one wants
to be sued if some dingbat cranks up the volume too high
and damages his own hearing.
None of the volume adjustments in OS X 10.6.2
or in MacSpeech Dictate 1.5.5 affect the earphone volume
of any of my "speech approved" headset microphones.
I have email pleas out to several microphone manufacturers
trying to resolve this vexing problem.
My Strictly Volunteer Work -
-------------------
Typically, I use my present headset microphone/earphone
in noisy restaurant environments, to demo to medical policy
makers that speech recognition can be effectively used in a
noisy hospital environment.
That works fine, right up to the time when I strap the
headset onto them - - - then they complain that they can't
hear the text "readbacks" in the headset earpiece, because
the ambient restaurant noise is overwhelming the weak
earphone volume.
I have been receiving complaints that my posts have been
way too short, so I will include a typical example of the
sort of medical stuff that I dictate in a very noisy restaurant,
with absolutely *NO* mistakes in the resulting text that
require any sort of text correction.
Whoops, let me qualify that.
*NO* mistakes in roughly nine out of ten demonstrations,
occassionally I accidentally mispronounce a complex
medical word, so my accidental mispronunciation gets
recorded as a text mistake.
My Setup -
Two year old MacBook Pro, 4 GB ram
ANDREA NC-91 headset, ordinary low cost
headset which shipped with one of my software
speech apps, I do not recall which one.
USB "TELEX" adapter to allow headset to be plugged
into USB connector on the MacBook, these typically
cost $25 to $50. I think MacSpeech is including
these USB adapters in their boxed shipments
of MacSpeech Dictate.
Regular MacSpeech Dictate 1.5.5 software, $200
Typically, I install the software from scratch,
spend ten minutes training it to recognize my
particular voice.
Next, I "import" three very small files into
the MacSpeech app, grand total of 123 KB in size.
Purpose of these 3 tiny files is to "educate" the fresh
install of MacSpeech to big long medical words which
do not come standard in the default MacSpeech software.
Then we go to the noisy restaurant for the actual demo.
My modest demo dictation below, all dictated using my
voice, resulting text is error-free in 9 out of 10 demos.
Generally takes 8 minutes for me to "read in" the
approx' 600 words of this complex medical jargon,
at a sluggish rate of 75 wpm.
I could dictate it much faster, however MacSpeech and
my present slow hardware tend to develop text errors
at faster dictation rates, in complex medical dictation.
With "ordinary" words, I can snort right along at
dictation rates of 200 wpm without affecting accuracy
to any great extent.
My demo dictation below, try wrapping your tongue
around some of those words :)
--------------------
New Surgical Procedure for Ischemic/Functional Mitral
Regurgitation: Mitral Complex Remodeling
Hirokuni Arai, MD, PhD*, Fusahiko Itoh, MD, Takeshi
Someya, MD, Keiji Oi, MD, PhD, Kiyoshi Tamura, MD,
PhD, Hiroyuki Tanaka, MD, PhD
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Tokyo Medical and
Dental University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo,
Japan
* Address correspondence to Dr Arai, Department of
Cardiothoracic Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental
University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-5-45 Yushima,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8519, Japan Email:
hiro...@tmd.ac.jp
On-pump beating heart mitral complex remodeling was
performed without aortic clamping. The mitral valve was
exposed through a left atriotomy posterior to the
interatrial groove. Interrupted 2-0 braided horizontal
mattress sutures without pledgets were placed around
the annulus to optimize exposure of the subvalvular
apparatus. Secondary chords to the anterior leaflet
from both papillary muscles were carefully separated
from primary chords with a nerve hook and were divided.
Two pairs of 5-0 and 4-0 Gore-Tex sutures (W. L. Gore &
Associates, Flagstaff, AZ) were each placed to both
fibrous portions of the anterior and posterior
papillary muscle tips, buttressed with pledgets of
autologous pericardium. Two pairs of the free arms of
the 5-0 Gore-Tex sutures were twice passed through the
free edge of the middle portion of the anterior leaflet
about 5 mm from the margin, from ventricular to atrial
side. Suture length was adjusted to be the same length
as the corresponding marginal chords, and the sutures
were tied.
Each pair of the free arms of the 4-0 Gore-Tex sutures
was passed through the posterior annulus at sites
around the border of the lateral and middle portions
and middle and medial portions of the annulus,
respectively (annulopapillary suture), and was also
passed through corresponding sites in the annuloplasty
ring (Carpentier-Edwards Physio; Edwards Lifesciences,
Irvine, CA). The 26-mm semi-rigid annuloplasty ring was
then seated. The annulopapillary sutures were pulled to
retract the papillary muscle tips closer to the
annulus, to the point at which leaflet coaptation
occurred in the plane of the mitral annulus during
systole, to visually confirm no residual MR. Suture
lengths were determined, and the sutures were tied.
To avoid air embolism, a vent cannula with a
pressure-monitoring catheter (TOYOBO Co Ltd, Osaka,
Japan) was inserted into the left ventricular apex and
was connected to the suction circuit equipped with a
small reservoir chamber (Senko Medical Instrument Mfg
Ltd, Saitama, Japan). During the final adjustment of
the annulopapillary suture length, this chamber was
filled with blood, and the height of the fluid level of
this chamber was adjusted to load the left ventricle.
The left ventricular systolic pressure was monitored to
keep it slightly lower than the systemic perfusion
pressure to avoid ejection through the aortic valve.
This new technique has been performed on 3 patients
with ischemic/functional MR. The patients were aged 61,
64, and 69 years; their ejection fractions were 0.34,
0.25, 0.32; their left ventricular diastolic diameters
were 62, 74, and 79 mm; and tenting heights were 11,
12, and 14 mm, respectively. Preoperatively, all
patients showed severe MR; perioperative
transesophageal echocardiography showed disappearance
of MR. Mitral valvular function has remained stable
during a mean short-term follow-up of 6 months (range,
1 to 12 months), with no or trivial MR noted.
Mark Conrad
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> How the FSCK did you get through my kill filters, you raving imbecile?
Aw c'mon David, don't hold back, tell us what
you _really_ think.
If you don't pump it up a notch, JR's going to steal
all your thunder by default.
dorayme
Mark Conrad <ae...@mostly.invalid> wrote:
> Apparently it is a legal liability issue; no one wants
> to be sued if some dingbat cranks up the volume too high
> and damages his own hearing.
Yeah? That does not stop any manufacturers of the equipment that have
volume controls like iPods and MP3 players and mobile phones.
--
dorayme
Mark Conrad
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Apparently it is a legal liability issue; no one wants
> > to be sued if some dingbat cranks up the volume too high
> > and damages his own hearing.
>
> Yeah? That does not stop any manufacturers of the equipment
> that have volume controls like iPods and MP3 players
> and mobile phones.
Good point, guess it is not a legal liability issue then.
In any event, I hope some of the headset manufacturers
inform me of some way to increase the volume in the earpiece.
Most likely the guys who make headsets for music _already_
have manual volume controls.
Speech recognition headsets are a tiny specialized part of
sales, such headsets are optimized for speech frequencies.
The dingbat manufacturers likely think that all such
headsets are going to be used in a quiet room, therefore
do not need any manual volume control.
When I am dictating, even complex medical speech as in
the example I posted, I usually have the TV blaring away
in the background.
Mark-
dorayme
Mark Conrad <ae...@mostly.invalid> wrote:
> When I am dictating, even complex medical speech as in
> the example I posted, I usually have the TV blaring away
> in the background.
Good idea, you can simulate traffic if you are not near a main road from
a separate cassette layer with a recording from a busy freeway, it does
not take long to set up. I also like to record dog barks, jack hammers
and pipe them not just to the office but to the dining room, toilet,
bathroom and bedrooms. It *is* the way to go.
--
dorayme
TaliesinSoft
been damaged from playing things loud when they have on earphones. This, to
me, is another of those "its not my fault" incidents. Why is it that
individual responsibility has so fallen asunder?
--
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- talies...@me.com
Thomas R. Kettler
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> And I speculate that there are those who will sue because their hearing has
> been damaged from playing things loud when they have on earphones. This, to
> me, is another of those "its not my fault" incidents. Why is it that
> individual responsibility has so fallen asunder?
Yes, everyone should follow the taking of responsibility example set by
the Wall Street Finance CEO's for the banking mess.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> And I speculate that there are those who will sue because their hearing has
> been damaged from playing things loud when they have on earphones. This, to
> me, is another of those "its not my fault" incidents. Why is it that
> individual responsibility has so fallen asunder?
Sadly the stupid need to be protected from hurting the rest of us as
they thrash about in their moronic screwups. If there was a way to
contain the effects of their idiocy to only them it would solve all our
problems.
Sadly our society allows the stupid legal representation which in turn
allows them to hurt others. Thus even braindead fuckup idiot
shit-for-brains who damage their own hearing through their own friggin'
foolishness can still damage other people's lives *sigh*
Thus what we need to develop is the perfect trap for the stupid that has
no fallout that can affect us. Any thoughts? :-)
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Nick Naym
Genet at jam...@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 11/16/09 4:10 PM:
> TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> And I speculate that there are those who will sue because their hearing has
>> been damaged from playing things loud when they have on earphones. This, to
>> me, is another of those "its not my fault" incidents. Why is it that
>> individual responsibility has so fallen asunder?
>
> Sadly the stupid need to be protected from hurting the rest of us as
> they thrash about in their moronic screwups. If there was a way to
> contain the effects of their idiocy to only them it would solve all our
> problems.
>
> Sadly our society allows the stupid legal representation which in turn
> allows them to hurt others. Thus even braindead fuckup idiot
> shit-for-brains who damage their own hearing through their own friggin'
> foolishness can still damage other people's lives *sigh*
I think the US takes first prize for such utterly asinine behavior (no
doubt, honed by the asshole lawyers (asshole lawyers? Sorry for repeating
myself!) that our legal educational system pumps out of law school). The
poster child for such behavior may very well be Stella Liebeck and her
attorney: In the early '90s they launched a suit (which they won) against
McDonald's because Liebeck burned herself on the hot McDonald's coffee that
she spilled onto her lap.
> Thus what we need to develop is the perfect trap for the stupid that has
> no fallout that can affect us. Any thoughts? :-)
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
Kurt Ullman
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the US takes first prize for such utterly asinine behavior (no
> doubt, honed by the asshole lawyers (asshole lawyers? Sorry for repeating
> myself!) that our legal educational system pumps out of law school). The
> poster child for such behavior may very well be Stella Liebeck and her
> attorney: In the early '90s they launched a suit (which they won) against
> McDonald's because Liebeck burned herself on the hot McDonald's coffee that
> she spilled onto her lap.
In fairness to Ms. Liebeck, she initially asked for around $2500, her
out of pocket expenses for the burn. It was turned down by McD's and she
then got an attorney involved. After that it was just... well when a dog
pisses on a fire hydrant it isn't being a vandal, its just being a
dog...
--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
Mike Rosenberg
> In fairness to Ms. Liebeck, she initially asked for around $2500, her
> out of pocket expenses for the burn. It was turned down by McD's and she
> then got an attorney involved. After that it was just...
An attorney friend filled me in on the details of that case. I wasn't
aware that, at the time, McD's hot coffee was routinely considerably
hotter than that of other fast food joints, that they had gotten
numerous complaints about the temperature, that other people had already
been burned, albeit less severely, and so on. There was a lot more to
the case than we the public were aware of.
--
My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvB98fgse-s>
Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi>
Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
Mike Rosenberg
> > In fairness to Ms. Liebeck, she initially asked for around $2500, her
> > out of pocket expenses for the burn. It was turned down by McD's and she
> > then got an attorney involved. After that it was just...
>
> An attorney friend filled me in on the details of that case. I wasn't
> aware that, at the time, McD's hot coffee was routinely considerably
> hotter than that of other fast food joints, that they had gotten
> numerous complaints about the temperature, that other people had already
> been burned, albeit less severely, and so on. There was a lot more to
> the case than we the public were aware of.
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
BakersT
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> Sadly the stupid need to be protected from hurting the rest of us as
> they thrash about in their moronic screwups. If there was a way to
> contain the effects of their idiocy to only them it would solve all our
> problems.
>
[snip]
>
> Thus what we need to develop is the perfect trap for the stupid that has
> no fallout that can affect us. Any thoughts? :-)
I've got one: let's offer them loans to buy homes that they obviously
can't afford, using terms they won't bother to understand, and then
when...
Oh, wait. You said "no fallout that can affect us", didn't you. Never
mind.
dorayme
mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In fairness to Ms. Liebeck, she initially asked for around $2500, her
> > out of pocket expenses for the burn. It was turned down by McD's and she
> > then got an attorney involved. After that it was just...
>
> An attorney friend filled me in on the details of that case. I wasn't
> aware that, at the time, McD's hot coffee was routinely considerably
> hotter than that of other fast food joints, that they had gotten
> numerous complaints about the temperature, that other people had already
> been burned, albeit less severely, and so on. There was a lot more to
> the case than we the public were aware of.
You mean like:
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
That does not deserve being elavated to the position of a highly
relevant fact! It is an interpretation of something. They may well have
been aware that some people are impatient and cannot control themselves
to wait for it to cool down, or handle it carefully. That there was a
problem with these people. Why should other joints that make it
improperly be the standard? I hate coffee or tea or any hot food that is
not really hot and can send it back to be reheated.
I am off to MD to sue them for spoiling coffee if they do not agree to
compensate me for serving me merely warm coffee and putting me behind
schedule while I attempt to buy a hot one somewhere.
--
dorayme
Nick Naym
Rosenberg at mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 11/16/09 6:25 PM:
> Mike Rosenberg <mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
>
>>> In fairness to Ms. Liebeck, she initially asked for around $2500, her
>>> out of pocket expenses for the burn. It was turned down by McD's and she
>>> then got an attorney involved. After that it was just...
>>
>> An attorney friend filled me in on the details of that case. I wasn't
>> aware that, at the time, McD's hot coffee was routinely considerably
>> hotter than that of other fast food joints, that they had gotten
>> numerous complaints about the temperature, that other people had already
>> been burned, albeit less severely, and so on. There was a lot more to
>> the case than we the public were aware of.
>
> http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
Hot coffee is....well..."hot." How hot -- and how badly one can be burned by
it -- is a matter of "degree" (pun intended).
Do you think she ever gulped down her coffee quickly to quench her thirst
like she probably did a Coke, even when her coffee was "only" 165 degrees F?
Of course not. That's not how a reasonable person consumes a hot beverage,
regardless of its precise temperature. Nor is it reasonable to balance a hot
beverage between your knees (or on your head -- or any other part of your
body) and then bitch about it and launch a suit when it spills on you and
burns your sundries, any more than it is to sue Henckels when you
accidentally hack off your finger with one of its cleavers while cleaving
through a slab of ribs, or sue Colt's Manufacturing Company after
mishandling your Colt 45 and shooting off your big toe.
Gimmee a break.
nospam
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> You mean like:
>
> McFact No. 1:� For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
> the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
> hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
>
> That does not deserve being elavated to the position of a highly
> relevant fact! It is an interpretation of something.
it's not an interpretation of anything. the temperature was physically
measured and was hotter than at other establishments in the area by
about 20 degrees, and about 40 degrees hotter than what is typically
found in the home. it's not safe at that temperature.
> They may well have
> been aware that some people are impatient and cannot control themselves
> to wait for it to cool down, or handle it carefully.
they were in fact aware of that, and that's why they should have
reduced the temperature enough so that their food was safe to consume
at the time it's sold.
> That there was a
> problem with these people. Why should other joints that make it
> improperly be the standard? I hate coffee or tea or any hot food that is
> not really hot and can send it back to be reheated.
mcdonalds sets the standard for how coffee is made? how is it improper
if every other establishment is cooler and mcdonalds is the oddball
that's 20 degrees hotter?
> I am off to MD to sue them for spoiling coffee if they do not agree to
> compensate me for serving me merely warm coffee and putting me behind
> schedule while I attempt to buy a hot one somewhere.
mcdonalds lost because they sold food that was not safe to be consumed,
by *their own admission*!!
if you can prove that lukewarm coffee causes injury or death, you could
very well win an award, but don't bank on it.
nospam
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> Hot coffee is....well..."hot." How hot -- and how badly one can be burned by
> it -- is a matter of "degree" (pun intended).
yes it is hot, and in this case, the coffee was so hot that it was
hotter than could be safely consumed and could cause serious burns
within seconds, something which mcdonalds themselves admitted! they
also stated that over 700 other people, including babies and children,
had been injured and had no desire to change anything. they basically
said their coffee was not safe.
that's why the jury found mcdonalds guilty of a reckless, callous and
willful disregard for the health and safety of their patrons.
had it been 20 degrees cooler, she may still have been burned, but
she'd have had more time to pull her sweatpants away and the burn would
have been significantly less serious.
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-42E...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > You mean like:
> >
> > McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
> > the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
> > hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
> >
> > That does not deserve being elavated to the position of a highly
> > relevant fact! It is an interpretation of something.
>
> it's not an interpretation of anything.
That their coffee was made *correctly* is not such a relevant fact that
it needs elevating to a highlight list against the practice.
> the temperature was physically
> measured and was hotter than at other establishments in the area by
> about 20 degrees, and about 40 degrees hotter than what is typically
> found in the home. it's not safe at that temperature.
>
All the good ways of making coffee at home require close to boiling when
just made. It is up to the person consuming it what temp it should be
cooled to before consuming it. Serving it at the highest temperature is
best for everyone because it gives the greatest range of choices for
consumers who vary in their taste.
> ... so that their food was safe to consume
> at the time it's sold.
>
They are not a nursery. To serve it to kids is one thing. To serve it to
adults is another. You are seriously out of line nospam and I completely
and utterly refuse to live in your nanny state.
It is time that adult citizens learn to be responsible for their own
actions.
...
> mcdonalds lost because they sold food that was not safe to be consumed,
> by *their own admission*!!
>
They lost for similar reasons that people put forward to defend the drug
laws.
> if you can prove that lukewarm coffee causes injury or death, you could
> very well win an award, but don't bank on it.
You are almost totally confused about this. I don't have to prove any
such thing and it is completely and utterly irrelevant that boiling hot
coffee can cause injury to adults who have not learnt to grow up
properly - partly, no doubt, because of millions of people like you who
demand their politicians "protect them".
--
dorayme
nospam
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > McFact No. 1:� For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
> > > the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
> > > hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
> > >
> > > That does not deserve being elavated to the position of a highly
> > > relevant fact! It is an interpretation of something.
> >
> > it's not an interpretation of anything.
>
> That their coffee was made *correctly* is not such a relevant fact that
> it needs elevating to a highlight list against the practice.
it's not a matter of correct or incorrect. the coffee was 20 degrees
hotter than other restaurants. that is *not* an interpretation but a
verifiable fact that anyone with a thermometer can determine.
mcdonalds also testified that it was too hot to be consumed at that
temperature, yet they served it that way.
> > ... so that their food was safe to consume
> > at the time it's sold.
>
> They are not a nursery. To serve it to kids is one thing. To serve it to
> adults is another. You are seriously out of line nospam and I completely
> and utterly refuse to live in your nanny state.
mcdonalds testified that they serve food that can cause serious injury.
that's illegal.
do you want to live where restaurants can serve whatever they want,
however they want, whether or not it can harm customers?
> It is time that adult citizens learn to be responsible for their own
> actions.
it's also time that corporations take responsibility for their actions,
and in this case, injuring over 700 people, including babies and
children, and not caring one whit about it.
this wasn't the first lawsuit against mcdonalds for burns, and in one
instance, a mcdonalds employee spilled hot coffee on a customer in the
drive-thru, causing burns as serious as with ms. liebeck. had this case
not happened, there probably would have been hundreds more injuries,
possibly with something even more serious than just burns occurring.
> > mcdonalds lost because they sold food that was not safe to be consumed,
> > by *their own admission*!!
>
> They lost for similar reasons that people put forward to defend the drug
> laws.
you really ought to read the facts of the case instead of what you
think they are.
> > if you can prove that lukewarm coffee causes injury or death, you could
> > very well win an award, but don't bank on it.
>
> You are almost totally confused about this.
actually i'm not at all confused, having read quite a bit about the
case.
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-574...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
> > > > the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
> > > > hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
> > > >
> > > > That does not deserve being elavated to the position of a highly
> > > > relevant fact! It is an interpretation of something.
> > >
> > > it's not an interpretation of anything.
> >
> > That their coffee was made *correctly* is not such a relevant fact that
> > it needs elevating to a highlight list against the practice.
>
> it's not a matter of correct or incorrect. the coffee was 20 degrees
> hotter than other restaurants. that is *not* an interpretation but a
> verifiable fact that anyone with a thermometer can determine.
>
That it is a certain temperature is not in dispute, its relevance is.
> mcdonalds also testified that it was too hot to be consumed at that
> temperature, yet they served it that way.
>
What is this "yet" doing in your sentence as if there is some sort of
inconsistency. You are being seriously misled and are seriously misled
about quite big issues in this matter and it is blinding you.
> > > ... so that their food was safe to consume
> > > at the time it's sold.
> >
> > They are not a nursery. To serve it to kids is one thing. To serve it to
> > adults is another. You are seriously out of line nospam and I completely
> > and utterly refuse to live in your nanny state.
>
> mcdonalds testified that they serve food that can cause serious injury.
> that's illegal.
>
It is not illegal at all, olive stones in a salad can cause death and
serious injury, you can choke on some foods if you eat them too quickly
and/or without water being handy. I am not going to sit here and explain
all these things at length, the result, from past experience on this
usenet group is that you will end up misunderstanding anyway.
> do you want to live where restaurants can serve whatever they want,
> however they want, whether or not it can harm customers?
>
You are exaggerating to the point of silliness and show you have no idea
what is too crazy or what is sensible enough. You lack judgement and I
cannot teach you this.
> > It is time that adult citizens learn to be responsible for their own
> > actions.
>
> it's also time that corporations take responsibility for their actions,
> and in this case, injuring over 700 people, including babies and
> children, and not caring one whit about it.
>
Bullshit. It is millions. And it is not their fault, any more than it is
the farmer or drug supplier-to-adults's fault that people die of heroin
overdoses. Eating at Macdonald's is such an idiotic thing to do, have
you seen what they serve, never mind the business of the heat of their
coffee (their only one good point I know of).
> this wasn't the first lawsuit against mcdonalds for burns, and in one
> instance, a mcdonalds employee spilled hot coffee on a customer in the
> drive-thru, causing burns as serious as with ms. liebeck. had this case
> not happened, there probably would have been hundreds more injuries,
> possibly with something even more serious than just burns occurring.
>
> > > mcdonalds lost because they sold food that was not safe to be consumed,
> > > by *their own admission*!!
> >
Their coffee was perfectly safe to consume. You are supposed to fucking
well wait till it cools to suit you, not jump to the idiot conclusion
that you can treat it like a milkshake, everyone that does not have one
subservient eye on big daddy govt knows and takes steps to handle this.
> > They lost for similar reasons that people put forward to defend the drug
> > laws.
>
> you really ought to read the facts of the case instead of what you
> think they are.
>
> > > if you can prove that lukewarm coffee causes injury or death, you could
> > > very well win an award, but don't bank on it.
> >
> > You are almost totally confused about this.
>
> actually i'm not at all confused, having read quite a bit about the
> case.
That you suppose that this is what I have to prove is proof that no
matter what you have read, you are confused.
--
dorayme
Mark Conrad
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > When I am dictating, even complex medical speech as in
> > the example I posted, I usually have the TV blaring away
> > in the background.
>
> Good idea, you can simulate traffic if you are not near a main road from
> a separate cassette layer with a recording from a busy freeway, it does
> not take long to set up. I also like to record dog barks, jack hammers
> and pipe them not just to the office but to the dining room, toilet,
> bathroom and bedrooms. It *is* the way to go.
Bless you, I wrote down all of those great suggestions.
Now my life is so complete that I could just cry, and I owe it
all to you.
Just recently I was in the crapper, with all those noises
piped in via loudspeaker.
Was doing my business, when a very large dog suddenly
started barking inside my bathroom, or so it seemed.
Life is exciting again!
Mark-
Rowbotth
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Problem is that at home, before coffeemakers came onto the scene, people
used to put the coffee in the basket above the water in the coffee pot,
and let the water boil until it bubbled up through the little pipe thing
and washed through the coffee, giving the water the flavour. Now just
so we all are keeping up, this is water at boiling temperature. And at
least hundreds of thousands of people drank coffee this way, just a few
degrees off boiling, which is 212 F, more or less, depending upon the
elevation where you live. And we didn't scald themselves. (Or if we
did, we shut up and didn't tell anyone so they wouldn't laugh at us for
being too stupid to be out in public.)
Now we get some greedy old boot who thinks she has found a way to make a
lot of money and she gets some sleazy shyster to put together a case
involving junk science and relying upon the inherent stupidity and
lemming instincts of people who won't think for themselves to justify
the suit. Like this line of utter nonsense that you have been spouting
from 'some lawyer'. Good God, think for yourselves. This lawyer has a
vested interest in having people believe this line of crap. It is
called his "commission".
And as s direct result, for over a decade, no one could get a cup of hot
coffee or tea or a hot bowl of soup, thanks to this greedy old bitch and
the stupidity of a judge who should have been impeached. The judge
should have told her to drink soda pop if she can't figure out how to
drink hot coffee, and to get the Hell out of his court and stop wasting
the public money with her childish nonsense. And then he should have
sicced the local Bar Association on the shysters defending her.
And of course the food service companies loved this - they can charge as
much for the tepid slop they now can get away with serving, and spend
far less money on energy preparing it. And I wonder what damage they
did to the public health? It is quite illegal from a Board of Health
perspective to wash dishes in a public location with warm or cold water.
You MUST use HOT water. Hot water kills germs. This tepid slop MUST
have been directly responsible for a lot of very bad news, health wise.
Or what?
H
nospam
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > mcdonalds testified that they serve food that can cause serious injury.
> > that's illegal.
> >
> It is not illegal at all,
go read up on implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a
particular purpose.
after examining *all* of the facts in the case (as opposed to
selectively reading a few headlines), the jurors overwhelmingly found
mcdonalds to be liable in just 4 hours of deliberations.
on what basis do you disagree with their finding?
> olive stones in a salad can cause death and
> serious injury, you can choke on some foods if you eat them too quickly
> and/or without water being handy.
although accidents can occur, the vast, vast majority of people manage
to eat a wide variety of foods without choking or other injury.
that is very different than serving a liquid that can cause 3rd degree
burns on contact in as little as 2 seconds.
> I am not going to sit here and explain
> all these things at length, the result, from past experience on this
> usenet group is that you will end up misunderstanding anyway.
ad hominems do not make for a persuasive argument.
have you actually read anything about the case beyond fluff? serious
question.
> > > > mcdonalds lost because they sold food that was not safe to be consumed,
> > > > by *their own admission*!!
>
> Their coffee was perfectly safe to consume.
you think it's safe while mcdonalds themselves stated that it was not
safe. how do you explain that discrepancy?
if anything, mcdonalds would want to claim it *is* safe when it really
wasn't, but instead they came right out and said no it's not safe, it's
much too hot to be safe, and that they had no intention of doing
anything to reduce the number of injuries that had already occurred
because it's not safe.
they basically didn't give a shit. *that* is why they lost.
nospam
Rowbotth <rowb...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Problem is that at home, before coffeemakers came onto the scene, people
> used to put the coffee in the basket above the water in the coffee pot,
> and let the water boil until it bubbled up through the little pipe thing
> and washed through the coffee, giving the water the flavour. Now just
> so we all are keeping up, this is water at boiling temperature. And at
> least hundreds of thousands of people drank coffee this way, just a few
> degrees off boiling, which is 212 F, more or less, depending upon the
> elevation where you live. And we didn't scald themselves. (Or if we
> did, we shut up and didn't tell anyone so they wouldn't laugh at us for
> being too stupid to be out in public.)
do whatever you want at home, but if you want to *sell* it, it must
meet certain guidelines.
> Now we get some greedy old boot who thinks she has found a way to make a
> lot of money and she gets some sleazy shyster to put together a case
> involving junk science and relying upon the inherent stupidity and
> lemming instincts of people who won't think for themselves to justify
> the suit. Like this line of utter nonsense that you have been spouting
> from 'some lawyer'. Good God, think for yourselves. This lawyer has a
> vested interest in having people believe this line of crap. It is
> called his "commission".
greedy old boot? she never sued *anyone*. she only asked for her
medical bills to be paid ($20k). mcdonalds said no, had no interest in
settling out of court, and basically caused it to go to trial.
Kurt Ullman
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> greedy old boot? she never sued *anyone*. she only asked for her
> medical bills to be paid ($20k). mcdonalds said no, had no interest in
> settling out of court, and basically caused it to go to trial.
This is one of the few cases where I thought the corporation got
pretty much what it deserved from a Karmic standpoint if not from a
legal one (g).
Jamie Kahn Genet
While I think you go a bit far and are rather rude with it, I tend to
agree that people should have the basic sense that coffee will be very
hot when served. For that matter I _want_ it served hot so I don't have
to drink it too quickly, or in a drive thru find that it's got cold by
the time I'm back home.
Paul Sture
> Problem is that at home, before coffeemakers came onto the scene, people
> used to put the coffee in the basket above the water in the coffee pot,
> and let the water boil until it bubbled up through the little pipe thing
> and washed through the coffee, giving the water the flavour. Now just
> so we all are keeping up, this is water at boiling temperature. And at
> least hundreds of thousands of people drank coffee this way, just a few
> degrees off boiling, which is 212 F, more or less, depending upon the
> elevation where you live. And we didn't scald themselves. (Or if we
> did, we shut up and didn't tell anyone so they wouldn't laugh at us for
> being too stupid to be out in public.)
Sorry, don't really want to get into this thread, but I must point out
that at home most people drink out of china/porcelain/earthenware
vessels, which cool the coffee to a reasonable temperature. Styrofoam or
paper cups simply don't give the same cooling effect.
--
Paul Sture
Jamie Kahn Genet
Yeah, that one bit us all :-\ I'm not sure who I blame the most - the
fools who gave out the loans or those who took them.
IMO you should save for at least 50% of any purchase (or better yet for
100% when it comes to something less expensive than a home - a new
computer or car for example). If you can't manage that, you clearly
_cannot_ afford it and/or manage your money well enough to cover
repayments.
The trouble is nowadays we're all about instant gratification. We want
it all right NOW. Having to save for a few years to get a home is a
foreign idea to most.
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-022...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> > > mcdonalds testified that they serve food that can cause serious injury.
> > > that's illegal.
> > >
> > It is not illegal at all,
>
> go read up on implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a
> particular purpose.
>
And would you read a reading list (one with far more sheer intellectual
backbone than various bullet points quoted in Mike's URL and the various
documents that sly lawyers, commercial companies under mob pressures and
silly jurors and judges output over a miserable little fucking disgrace
of a case) that I gave you? I doubt it.
> after examining *all* of the facts in the case (as opposed to
> selectively reading a few headlines), the jurors overwhelmingly found
> mcdonalds to be liable in just 4 hours of deliberations.
>
You are so impressed with this!
> on what basis do you disagree with their finding?
>
I have told you. An adult should know that tea or coffee served piping
hot should be handled with care. If McD had served it in cups that had
no handles or advertised that their coffee could be sculled down like a
nice cold schooner of beer, then just maybe there might be a reasonable
expectation that they are serving their coffee pretty tepid and this
might open a genuine cause to hold them responsible.
> > olive stones in a salad can cause death and
> > serious injury, you can choke on some foods if you eat them too quickly
> > and/or without water being handy.
>
> although accidents can occur, the vast, vast majority of people manage
> to eat a wide variety of foods without choking or other injury.
>
See what I mean and why I don't waste my breath too much explaining
things to you? The vast majority of people who are served piping hot tea
or coffee or soup or chips do not suffer burn injuries...
> that is very different than serving a liquid that can cause 3rd degree
> burns on contact in as little as 2 seconds.
>
You seem to have no idea what choking on chips and dying or chomping on
olive stones and breaking teeth in a few seconds is like. Try this: grab
thirty really big warm fat chips (as in fish and chips, not crisps) and
stuff them into your mouth at the same time and swallow as fast as you
can and do this at a time when you have eaten loads of food and it has
barely gone down your gullet and especially at a time when you are
suffering a hangover and have rather a dry (dehydrated) mouth. There are
many different ways to be really fucking stupid.
> > > > > mcdonalds lost because they sold food that was not safe to be
> > > > > consumed,
> > > > > by *their own admission*!!
> >
You are terribly naive! What McD say is no evidence at all of real
wrongdoing. You should know that many people will say many unreasonable
and untrue things when it will be worse for them if they don't. Time to
get out from that computer of yours nospam, learn about the world, learn
about torture, human deception, abuse of power, cowardice, self-serving
behaviour and many other things!
Coffee should be served boiling hot and anyone who does not so serve it
to *an adult* deserves, imo, to be simply taken out and shot on the
public street.
> > Their coffee was perfectly safe to consume.
>
> you think it's safe while mcdonalds themselves stated that it was not
> safe. how do you explain that discrepancy?
See above, young man.
--
dorayme
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> greedy old boot? she never sued *anyone*. she only asked for her
> medical bills to be paid ($20k). mcdonalds said no, had no interest in
> settling out of court, and basically caused it to go to trial.
They had no interest in paying her and every other dickhead's medical
bill for attending and eating their crap. How many arteries have been
blocked by people eating their food?
I bet their coffee was really awful, judging by their food.
--
dorayme
dorayme
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> While I think you go a bit far and are rather rude with it, I tend to
> agree that people should have the basic sense that coffee will be very
> hot when served. For that matter I _want_ it served hot so I don't have
> to drink it too quickly, or in a drive thru find that it's got cold by
> the time I'm back home.
Rude yes, guilty as charged. But what the fuck do you mean going too
far? I have not even begun to tell you what infantiles the citizens of
modern Western nations are being forced to become.
Eh, Mr Moderate and Reasonable? <g>
--
dorayme
Julian G�mez
<kurtullman-FA5E7...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <C7273943.4BA8F%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the US takes first prize for such utterly asinine behavior (no
> > doubt, honed by the asshole lawyers (asshole lawyers? Sorry for repeating
> > myself!) that our legal educational system pumps out of law school). The
> > poster child for such behavior may very well be Stella Liebeck and her
> > attorney: In the early '90s they launched a suit (which they won) against
> > McDonald's because Liebeck burned herself on the hot McDonald's coffee that
> > she spilled onto her lap.
> In fairness to Ms. Liebeck, she initially asked for around $2500, her
> out of pocket expenses for the burn. It was turned down by McD's and she
> then got an attorney involved. After that it was just... well when a dog
> pisses on a fire hydrant it isn't being a vandal, its just being a
> dog...
In fairness to McD (which it pains me to do):
She placed the cup of hot coffee between her legs. It sloshed out and
she got burned. How anyone got to her age without being aware of the
risk of her action is amazing.
She sued and was awarded millions. The judge reduced it to $175K.
Regardless, the whole thing was frivolous. She placed herself in a
situation that could create harm, and then tried to blame others.
Wes Groleau
bits and pieces of a case think we know more than the twelve
people who tried not to sleep through all the evidence and
were briefed on the law by a judge.
--
Wes Groleau
Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
whom are you going to speak it to?
-- Clarence Darrow
Wes Groleau
> mcdonalds testified that they serve food that can cause serious injury.
> that's illegal.
quibble: Not illegal, but apparently irresponsible.
--
Wes Groleau
There are some ideas so wrong that only a
very intelligent person could believe in them.
-- George Orwell
dorayme
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> I find it interesting how people (myself included) who heard
> bits and pieces of a case think we know more than the twelve
> people who tried not to sleep through all the evidence and
> were briefed on the law by a judge.
Is that something that has been claimed? I don't think so. What has been
claimed by some dissenters (for example, the most lovable me) is that
there are higher political and societal and social and jurisprudential
reasons why the award was really really stoopid...
--
dorayme
Wes Groleau
> Is that something that has been claimed? I don't think so. What has been
> claimed by some dissenters (for example, the most lovable me) is that
> there are higher political and societal and social and jurisprudential
> reasons why the award was really really stoopid...
What seems to be claimed by many (and I was among that group at one
time) is that the "verdict" was wrong--that McDonald's was NOT liable.
I abandoned that position because I realized that it amounts to my
insisting that people I never met completely misinterpreted evidence
I never saw.
My position now is that I do not know.
I do know that I prefer coffee to be about 60 (Celsius).
Hotter than that, and I am not able to sip small enough
amounts to avoid minor injury to my alveolar ridge.
Cooler than that, and it's gone too quickly. :-)
--
Wes Groleau
"What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing;
it also depends on what kind of person you are."
-- C.S.Lewis
dorayme
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > Is that something that has been claimed? I don't think so. What has been
> > claimed by some dissenters (for example, the most lovable me) is that
> > there are higher political and societal and social and jurisprudential
> > reasons why the award was really really stoopid...
>
> What seems to be claimed by many (and I was among that group at one
> time) is that the "verdict" was wrong--that McDonald's was NOT liable.
>
> I abandoned that position because I realized that it amounts to my
> insisting that people I never met completely misinterpreted evidence
> I never saw.
>
> My position now is that I do not know.
>
How very different you are to me. You are nice, polite, intelligent,
reasonable.
> I do know that I prefer coffee to be about 60 (Celsius).
The thing, Wes, is a bit like in web design, everyone has different a
taste and capacity and machinary at the other end, the main job of the
website maker is to let them get at the information you want.
This is done, to take an example, by not specifying stupid font sizes
that suit some people but not others. There is a wonderful mechanism to
make this very easy and that is that each person can adjust their
preferences to define their normal. All the website maker then needs to
do for main body text is leave it the f alone or (for a bug in IE)
specify body {font-size: 100%;}.
Now with coffee, there is a mechanism but it *needs*, to be effective,
the coffee to be served piping and very dangerously hot to everyone but
children: The mechanism? Why, simply adult brains that have not been
infantilised by a nanny state able to use time and commonsense. This
will keep everyone happy in respect to the temp they like. There is no
other temperature except piping and deliciously dangerously hot that can
so cheaply and practically achieve this mass effect.
--
dorayme
AV3
You underestimate the arrogance and greed of large corporations, which
will serve coffee twenty degrees hotter than competing corporations,
under the belief that they have no liability for damage which it might
cause in careless but normal circumstances, and banks that publicly
advertise mortgages for those with unreasonably low incomes and payback
prospects. They promised that the low initial payback rates would be
continued in subsequent negotiations, but by that time the mortgage had
been packaged and sold to another entity on a planet far, far away. The
inexperienced mortgagee probably didn't know how important it was to get
all promises in writing and under contract, but that is the kind of
client the bank sought out in the first place.
The basic scheme is selling to one "greater fool" after another, a
variation on the chain letter, all such schemes foundering when they run
out of fools to pay into the scheme, but with early participants
pocketing a profit.
I had a related experience with an international bank, when the
co-operative building I live in negotiated a mortgage and circulated its
terms to all residences. Imagine our suprise, when the final contract
included previously unmentioned conditions. I personally refused to sign
away all my possessions and assets to that bank in the event of the
building corporation's failure to pay the mortgage, so it fell through.
The double-dealing bank angling to put a hook into us was HSBC. Beware
their attractive Trojan offers. Should you have occasion to sue such a
corporation, sue them for multi-millions, so as to make an impression on
them.
--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
D.F. Manno
> McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
> the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
> hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
>
> That does not deserve being elavated to the position of a highly
> relevant fact!
Well, how about this: she suffered third-degree burns and required skin
grafts.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"I don't trust organized anything: teams, religions, corporations. People
in enterprise together consistently do two things: promulgate the enterprise,
no matter what, and protect miscreants in their midst." (Alfred Lubrano, author)
D.F. Manno
<jeg-3FCC1D.1...@190-207-246-207.dyn.dsl.cantv.net>,
Julian G�mez <j...@polished-pixels.com> wrote:
> In fairness to McD (which it pains me to do):
>
> She placed the cup of hot coffee between her legs. It sloshed out and
> she got burned. How anyone got to her age without being aware of the
> risk of her action is amazing.
In fairness to her: she wasn't driving and the car wasn't moving.
dorayme
"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-42E...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > McFact No. 1:Â For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
> > the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
> > hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
> >
> > That does not deserve being elavated to the position of a highly
> > relevant fact!
>
> Well, how about this: she suffered third-degree burns and required skin
> grafts.
And this is relevant how? Do you read any of my other ravings? Would it
be relevant to a compensation claim if some idiot did the chip trick I
described?
--
dorayme
AV3
> In article <dfmanno-3DB274...@news.albasani.net>,
> "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <doraymeRidThis-42E...@news.albasani.net>,
>> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> McFact No. 1:Â For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
>>> the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
>>> hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
>>>
>>> That does not deserve being elavated to the position of a highly
>>> relevant fact!
>> Well, how about this: she suffered third-degree burns and required skin
>> grafts.
>
> And this is relevant how?
It shows the relevance of the complaints that the coffee was overheated
at McDonald's, compared with coffee served at other such companies,
which didn't cause such serious burns when spilt in the normal course of
usage. The moral is: don't overheat coffee dispensed to the public and
give consideration to frequent complaints.
> Do you read any of my other ravings? Would it
> be relevant to a compensation claim if some idiot did the chip trick I
> described?
>
No, the chip trick is irrelevant, because it is an unlikely, abnormal
behavior. Spilling coffee is not. Getting serious burns from overheated
coffee is the liability of the company that continued to overheat its
coffee despite well documented complaints and well documented
comparisons with other such companies. The court took these facts into
account and was sustained in its judgement and conduct by a series of
higher courts, which have the duty to reverse misjudgements of lower
courts. Case closed.
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/16/09 9:02 PM:
> In article <C727662E.4BAA3%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gimmee a break.
>
> Granted by all the authority of dorayme.
Boy, don't I feel better. ;P
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
Nick Naym
nos...@nospam.invalid wrote on 11/17/09 12:04 AM:
> In article <C727662E.4BAA3%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
> <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hot coffee is....well..."hot." How hot -- and how badly one can be burned by
>> it -- is a matter of "degree" (pun intended).
>
> yes it is hot, and in this case, the coffee was so hot that it was
> hotter than could be safely consumed and could cause serious burns
Balancing a cup of coffee between your legs doesn't constitute
"consumption." If you use a product in a manner that was not intended, the
manufacturer is not (or should not be) responsible for any consequential
injury.
> within seconds, something which mcdonalds themselves admitted! they
> also stated that over 700 other people, including babies and children,
> had been injured and had no desire to change anything. they basically
> said their coffee was not safe.
>
> that's why the jury found mcdonalds guilty of a reckless, callous and
> willful disregard for the health and safety of their patrons.
>
> had it been 20 degrees cooler, she may still have been burned, but
> she'd have had more time to pull her sweatpants away and the burn would
> have been significantly less serious.
Nick Naym
nos...@nospam.invalid wrote on 11/17/09 5:13 AM:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-574...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>> McFact No. 1:� For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
>>>> the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
>>>> hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
>>>>
>>>> That does not deserve being elavated to the position of a highly
>>>> relevant fact! It is an interpretation of something.
>>>
>>> it's not an interpretation of anything.
>>
>> That their coffee was made *correctly* is not such a relevant fact that
>> it needs elevating to a highlight list against the practice.
>
> it's not a matter of correct or incorrect. the coffee was 20 degrees
> hotter than other restaurants. that is *not* an interpretation but a
> verifiable fact that anyone with a thermometer can determine.
>
I guess that means that Henkels -- because its knives are well-known to be
sharper than those of most other manufacturers of kitchen cutlery -- would
be responsible for me injuring myself because I didn't use one of its
kitchen knives properly.
(I have an idea: Let's launch a class action suit against all of the cell
phone manufacturers on behalf of all of the morons who have had car
accidents and suffered serious injury because they were texting (or even
just talking) while driving!)
> mcdonalds also testified that it was too hot to be consumed at that
> temperature, yet they served it that way.
>
>>> ... so that their food was safe to consume
>>> at the time it's sold.
>>
>> They are not a nursery. To serve it to kids is one thing. To serve it to
>> adults is another. You are seriously out of line nospam and I completely
>> and utterly refuse to live in your nanny state.
>
> mcdonalds testified that they serve food that can cause serious injury.
> that's illegal.
>
> do you want to live where restaurants can serve whatever they want,
> however they want, whether or not it can harm customers?
>
>> It is time that adult citizens learn to be responsible for their own
>> actions.
>
> it's also time that corporations take responsibility for their actions,
> and in this case, injuring over 700 people, including babies and
> children, and not caring one whit about it.
>
> this wasn't the first lawsuit against mcdonalds for burns, and in one
> instance, a mcdonalds employee spilled hot coffee on a customer in the
> drive-thru, causing burns as serious as with ms. liebeck. had this case
> not happened, there probably would have been hundreds more injuries,
> possibly with something even more serious than just burns occurring.
>
>>> mcdonalds lost because they sold food that was not safe to be consumed,
>>> by *their own admission*!!
>>
>> They lost for similar reasons that people put forward to defend the drug
>> laws.
>
> you really ought to read the facts of the case instead of what you
> think they are.
>
>>> if you can prove that lukewarm coffee causes injury or death, you could
>>> very well win an award, but don't bank on it.
>>
>> You are almost totally confused about this.
>
> actually i'm not at all confused, having read quite a bit about the
> case.
--
Nick Naym
nos...@nospam.invalid wrote on 11/17/09 11:55 AM:
I suppose McD's should've considered settling. After all, its coffee _was_
too hot to drink immediately, and she was trying to drink it -- through her
crotch.
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/17/09 2:51 AM:
> In article <161120092104123210%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <doraymeRidThis-42E...@news.albasani.net>,
>> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> You mean like:
>>>
>>> McFact No. 1:� For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
>>> the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
>>> hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
>>>
>>> That does not deserve being elavated to the position of a highly
>>> relevant fact! It is an interpretation of something.
>>
>> it's not an interpretation of anything.
>
> That their coffee was made *correctly* is not such a relevant fact that
> it needs elevating to a highlight list against the practice.
>
>> the temperature was physically
>> measured and was hotter than at other establishments in the area by
>> about 20 degrees, and about 40 degrees hotter than what is typically
>> found in the home. it's not safe at that temperature.
>>
>
> All the good ways of making coffee at home require close to boiling when
> just made. It is up to the person consuming it what temp it should be
> cooled to before consuming it. Serving it at the highest temperature is
> best for everyone because it gives the greatest range of choices for
> consumers who vary in their taste.
>
>> ... so that their food was safe to consume
>> at the time it's sold.
>>
>
> They are not a nursery. To serve it to kids is one thing. To serve it to
> adults is another. You are seriously out of line nospam and I completely
> and utterly refuse to live in your nanny state.
>
> It is time that adult citizens learn to be responsible for their own
> actions.
>
As much as it may besmirch me ;P , I must totally agree with dorayme.
I have watched over the years as the f**ing lawyers, in greedy, self-serving
pursuit of the corporate deep pockets of manufacturers, have made sure that
usage warnings were affixed to most products. These often took the form of
"Keep out of reach of children" (or some variant of "This is not a toy");
some caveats take the form "Adult supervision required." What's left?
"Restricted to use by adults who have the brains to come in out of the
rain"?
> ...
>
>> mcdonalds lost because they sold food that was not safe to be consumed,
>> by *their own admission*!!
>>
>
> They lost for similar reasons that people put forward to defend the drug
> laws.
>
>
>> if you can prove that lukewarm coffee causes injury or death, you could
>> very well win an award, but don't bank on it.
>
> You are almost totally confused about this. I don't have to prove any
> such thing and it is completely and utterly irrelevant that boiling hot
> coffee can cause injury to adults who have not learnt to grow up
> properly - partly, no doubt, because of millions of people like you who
> demand their politicians "protect them".
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/16/09 8:10 PM:
> In article <1j9acll.qf6war1ya0qwmN%mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
>
>> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In fairness to Ms. Liebeck, she initially asked for around $2500, her
>>> out of pocket expenses for the burn. It was turned down by McD's and she
>>> then got an attorney involved. After that it was just...
>>
>> An attorney friend filled me in on the details of that case. I wasn't
>> aware that, at the time, McD's hot coffee was routinely considerably
>> hotter than that of other fast food joints, that they had gotten
>> numerous complaints about the temperature, that other people had already
>> been burned, albeit less severely, and so on. There was a lot more to
>> the case than we the public were aware of.
>
> You mean like:
>
> McFact No. 1:� For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
> the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
> hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
>
It doesn't really matter, though, does it? The f**ing attorneys will sue
_anybody_ with deep pockets if there is even the remotest chance that the
case may have a modicum of _apparent_ merit. After all, what do they have to
lose? Many large corporations are willing to pay off such assholes, to save
litigation costs. For the lawyer representing the plaintiff, it's a win-win
situation; for the corporation, paying such "nuisance suits" is part of the
"cost of doing business" -- sort of like the corner grocer paying the
neighborhood gangsters "protection" money.
The next time you stub your toe in a fast-food restaurant, give Samuel
Hirsch a call: He's the attorney who represented Caesar Barber, the joker
from the Bronx (my home town) who became famous for his attempts to sue
McDonalds and other fast-food chains for having made him "addicted" to their
artery-clogging fare, allegedly resulting in him becoming an unhealthy,
overweight fat-ass.
Hirsch hoped to turn it into a class action suit, enabling him to sue on
behalf of every fat-ass American. Since more than half of Americans are
overweight (a substantial number of whom are flat out obese), and almost
everyone occasionally eats fast food, that scum-sucking bottom-dwelling
ambulance chaser figured any kind of judgment whatsoever would yield him an
enormous payoff.
> That does not deserve being elavated to the position of a highly
> relevant fact! It is an interpretation of something. They may well have
> been aware that some people are impatient and cannot control themselves
> to wait for it to cool down, or handle it carefully. That there was a
> problem with these people. Why should other joints that make it
> improperly be the standard? I hate coffee or tea or any hot food that is
> not really hot and can send it back to be reheated.
>
> I am off to MD to sue them for spoiling coffee if they do not agree to
> compensate me for serving me merely warm coffee and putting me behind
> schedule while I attempt to buy a hot one somewhere.
--
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> In article doraymeRidThis-54F...@news.albasani.net, dorayme
> at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/16/09 9:02 PM:
>
> > In article <C727662E.4BAA3%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Gimmee a break.
> >
> > Granted by all the authority of dorayme.
>
>
> Boy, don't I feel better. ;P
That does not mean you are free to go forth among the sheep and
multiply. Take up some useful study.
--
dorayme
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> In article 171120090213489304%nos...@nospam.invalid, nospam at
> nos...@nospam.invalid wrote on 11/17/09 5:13 AM:
>
...
> > it's not a matter of correct or incorrect. the coffee was 20 degrees
> > hotter than other restaurants. that is *not* an interpretation but a
> > verifiable fact that anyone with a thermometer can determine.
> >
>
> I guess that means that Henkels -- because its knives are well-known to be
> sharper than those of most other manufacturers of kitchen cutlery -- would
> be responsible for me injuring myself because I didn't use one of its
> kitchen knives properly.
Good case.
(I see you have recovered a little brain power. Must be hard keeping
away from those sheep. But well done!)
--
dorayme
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> I have watched over the years as the f**ing lawyers, in greedy, self-serving
> pursuit of the corporate deep pockets of manufacturers, have made sure that
> usage warnings were affixed to most products. These often took the form of
> "Keep out of reach of children" (or some variant of "This is not a toy");
> some caveats take the form "Adult supervision required." What's left?
> "Restricted to use by adults who have the brains to come in out of the
> rain"?
This is the tip of an iceberg. Connected is the ugly plethora of signs
that councils and government bodies feel obliged to put up. The biggies,
of course, are the prohibition drug laws. Until these are completely
repealed, societies can never truly grow up and give harmful practices
away by mature good reasoning and self preservation and in a lasting
manner.
--
dorayme
dorayme
AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <dfmanno-3DB274...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <doraymeRidThis-42E...@news.albasani.net>,
> >> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>> McFact No. 1:Â For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
> >>> the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
> >>> hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
> >>>
> >>> That does not deserve being elavated to the position of a highly
> >>> relevant fact!
> >> Well, how about this: she suffered third-degree burns and required skin
> >> grafts.
> >
> > And this is relevant how?
>
>
> It shows the relevance of the complaints that the coffee was overheated
> at McDonald's, compared with coffee served at other such companies,
> which didn't cause such serious burns when spilt in the normal course of
> usage. The moral is: don't overheat coffee dispensed to the public and
> give consideration to frequent complaints.
>
This is just jumbled reasoning. It is not true that McD *overheat* their
coffee. That may well be a good business move in the context of a nanny
state. it dos not make it right or good. It makes it so that many people
who like their coffee piping hot can't get it there, it makes it so that
when some people who like it at least warmish will get it coldish.
>
> No, the chip trick is irrelevant, because it is an unlikely, abnormal
> behavior.
It is also abnormal to put coffee on your lap between your legs.
> Spilling coffee is not. Getting serious burns from overheated
You seem quite unaware of the presumptions you make. It is *not*
overheated. That it is overheated might be the conclusion of an argument
but it should not be constantly used in the middle of the thing.
> coffee is the liability of the company that continued to overheat its
> coffee despite well documented complaints and well documented
> comparisons with other such companies. The court took these facts into
> account and was sustained in its judgement and conduct by a series of
> higher courts, which have the duty to reverse misjudgements of lower
> courts. Case closed.
Cases get closed when I am through talking. And I have only just begun,
Pal!
There are well documented complaints about many things. This does not
make them an argument that a company ought morally or legally to take
them into account. It might be a good commercial argument though.
--
dorayme
AES
AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> You underestimate the arrogance and greed of large corporations, which
> will <snip lengthy tales of corporate crime, dishonesty, and malfeasance>.
I'm a conservative, law-abiding, responsible, generally Establishment-
supporting senior citizen -- and I absolutely support and endorse the
above post (however irrelevant it may be to this group's charter).
AV3
You keep blaming the victim. She was holding the coffee there, not
drinking it, and she was of apparently too old to have or notice
beverage holders in her car. That was a standard way to hold coffee, as
I remember from many years ago.
But she spilled it in an act of simple carelessness. It was appreciably
hotter than coffee from other such establishments and burned her badly.
MacDonald's had ignored numerous previous complaints and finally got
nailed for recalcitrant neglect, as they should have. I don't think it
unreasonable to take into account that coffee served in styrofoam gets
spilled pretty often.
As pointed out elsewhere, knives are supposed to be sharp, and care is
required, especially if they are advertised for their sharpness. Coffee
is supposed to be sold at a drinkable temperature, and overheating it
was a peculiar, unadvertised practice of MacDonald's. You have as much
right to resent exploitative private lawyers as I have to resent
arrogant, conscienceless corporations insulated from the consequences of
their neglect by a staff of corporate lawyers.
dorayme
AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Coffee
> is supposed to be sold at a drinkable temperature
You just make things up as they suit you. It is not *supposed* to be
this at all for reasons I have given.
--
dorayme
Jamie Kahn Genet
I've never made a coffee that wasn't hot enough to cause serious burns
if spilt all over myself.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
dorayme
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> I've never made a coffee that wasn't hot enough to cause serious burns
> if spilt all over myself.
I think there was a character in The Life & Times of Judge Roy Bean (Bad
Bob?) who grabbed a coffee jug off the fire and downed the boiling
contents in one go. That is the sort of character that needs to be
provided for at McD and any society that does not so provide is a lily
livered, no-good, cowardly, infantile....
--
dorayme
AV3
> AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Nick Naym wrote:
>>> In article 171120091055449487%nos...@nospam.invalid, nospam at
>>> nos...@nospam.invalid wrote on 11/17/09 11:55 AM:
>>>
>>>> In article <rowbotth-86259F...@news.newsgroupdirect.com>,
>>>> Rowbotth <rowb...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>>>
>
> I've never made a coffee that wasn't hot enough to cause serious burns
> if spilt all over myself.
Of course, the victim didn't get her coffee fresh from the pot in the
kitchen, but was sold a substance supposedly ready to drink at some
remove from the pot.
Do you drink from styrofoam at home? As someone else remarked, something
resembling porcelain reduces the temperature differently from styrofoam,
so home consumption isn't directly comparable. As established by ample
evidence at the trial, the serving temperature at MacDonald's was
appreciably higher than the serving temperature at other such
establishments, and that excessive temperature was already the source of
numerous ignored complaints. MacDonald's had had fair warning, even if
that temperature may have been to the taste of some like you.
D.F. Manno
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Coffee is supposed to be sold at a drinkable temperature
>
> You just make things up as they suit you. It is not *supposed* to be
> this at all for reasons I have given.
So if you come into my establishment for a cup of coffee and I sell you
coffee at 212 degrees, that's OK? After all, coffee is not *supposed* to
be sold at a drinkable temperature.
D.F. Manno
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> I have watched over the years as the f**ing lawyers, in greedy, self-serving
> pursuit of the corporate deep pockets of manufacturers, have made sure that
> usage warnings were affixed to most products. These often took the form of
> "Keep out of reach of children" (or some variant of "This is not a toy");
> some caveats take the form "Adult supervision required." What's left?
> "Restricted to use by adults who have the brains to come in out of the
> rain"?
So fucking what? If you are sufficiently clueful, you can ignore the
warnings. No big deal.
Wes Groleau
> Well, how about this: she suffered third-degree burns and required skin
> grafts.
Does it actually say that in the transcripts?
In every medical or first aid class or book I've seen,
part of the definition of "third degree burn" includes
charred flesh. Coffee is mostly water, thus if not under
pressure, CANNOT be higher than 100 degrees Celsius, and
cannot char flesh.
(However, second degree burns can be caused by coffee at
sixty degrees Celsius, and if extensive, might require
skin grafts.)
--
Wes Groleau
Pat's Polemics
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/18/09 3:28 PM:
Not to worry: I wouldn't even think of raiding your harem.
> Take up some useful study.
If I did that, I wouldn't have time to humor you.
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/18/09 3:35 PM:
Whatever I recovered far exceeds what little you ever had.
> Must be hard keeping
> away from those sheep.
I told you not to worry.
> But well done!)
Glad you can rest easy.
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/18/09 3:41 PM:
> In article <C729A398.4BBB6%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have watched over the years as the f**ing lawyers, in greedy, self-serving
>> pursuit of the corporate deep pockets of manufacturers, have made sure that
>> usage warnings were affixed to most products. These often took the form of
>> "Keep out of reach of children" (or some variant of "This is not a toy");
>> some caveats take the form "Adult supervision required." What's left?
>> "Restricted to use by adults who have the brains to come in out of the
>> rain"?
>
> This is the tip of an iceberg. Connected is the ugly plethora of signs
> that councils and government bodies feel obliged to put up.
Said councils and government bodies tend to be populated by assholes and
attorneys. But I repeat myself.
> The biggies,
> of course, are the prohibition drug laws. Until these are completely
> repealed, societies can never truly grow up and give harmful practices
> away by mature good reasoning and self preservation and in a lasting
> manner.
Sounds like you missed your last dose of meds.
Nick Naym
wrote on 11/18/09 5:51 PM:
So, McD's should be held responsible for a mishap due to her poor judgment
because she was "apparently too old to have or notice beverage holders in
her car"?
I know that society doesn't hold children or the mentally incompetent to the
same legal standards as "normal" folks -- they often are forgiven for
transgressions due to their lack/lapse of good judgment. But shall we now
not only forgive them for their poor judgment, but reward them for it as
well? And do we not actually encourage irresponsible behavior by not just
rewarding them for poor judgment, but by passing on the responsibility --
and penalty -- for it to others?
>
> But she spilled it in an act of simple carelessness.
Yes..._her_ carelessness, not McD's.
> It was appreciably
> hotter than coffee from other such establishments and burned her badly.
I have a lot of empathy for victims of _any_ accident. But to somehow
suggest that McD's was responsible for _her_ accident by introducing the
temperature of the coffee -- a totally irrelevant and highly arguable
allegation vis-�-vis the accident itself -- is fallacious (a "red herring").
> MacDonald's had ignored numerous previous complaints and finally got
> nailed for recalcitrant neglect, as they should have. I don't think it
> unreasonable to take into account that coffee served in styrofoam gets
> spilled pretty often.
Were hot coffee served in styrofoam cups been so widely problematic, folks
would've stopped buying it; McD's and every other fast-food/take-out joint
would've either changed the product or stopped offering it.
>
> As pointed out elsewhere,
Where might that have been?
> knives are supposed to be sharp, and care is
> required, especially if they are advertised for their sharpness. Coffee
> is supposed to be sold at a drinkable temperature, and overheating it
> was a peculiar, unadvertised practice of MacDonald's.
How sharp is too sharp, and how hot is too hot? And how is either related to
any injuries I might suffer due to my irresponsible handling of knives or
coffee? And how does my disregard of the knives' sharpness or coffee's
temperature while handling those products get transferred to the
manufacturer or restaurant?
> You have as much
> right to resent exploitative private lawyers as I have to resent
> arrogant, conscienceless corporations insulated from the consequences of
> their neglect by a staff of corporate lawyers.
>
--
Nick Naym
dfm...@mail.com wrote on 11/19/09 12:06 AM:
> In article <C729A398.4BBB6%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have watched over the years as the f**ing lawyers, in greedy, self-serving
>> pursuit of the corporate deep pockets of manufacturers, have made sure that
>> usage warnings were affixed to most products. These often took the form of
>> "Keep out of reach of children" (or some variant of "This is not a toy");
>> some caveats take the form "Adult supervision required." What's left?
>> "Restricted to use by adults who have the brains to come in out of the
>> rain"?
>
> So fucking what? If you are sufficiently clueful, you can ignore the
> warnings. No big deal.
I do...and you missed the "fucking" point.
dorayme
"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-40C...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Coffee is supposed to be sold at a drinkable temperature
> >
> > You just make things up as they suit you. It is not *supposed* to be
> > this at all for reasons I have given.
>
> So if you come into my establishment for a cup of coffee and I sell you
> coffee at 212 degrees, that's OK? After all, coffee is not *supposed* to
> be sold at a drinkable temperature.
You missed my argument before. I will cut you some slack and repeat the
theme.
If you served it at near boiling, that is absolutely correct for
everyone. There is no other *best temperature* but the very highest
(that will not burn someone if it remains in the vessel in which it is
served and picked up by the recipient and that does spoil the coffee).
From that point on, everyone is a winner.
People like me (boulderstone-crushing types) will sip a teensy bit and
take pleasure and then wait a while, talking at length in the meantime,
till it suits to take another sip and then, when cooler, to take bigger
sips. Heaven! Coffee and the sound of my own voice. Are you seriously
suggesting that any society could be good if it did not provide for this?
Weaker individuals will need to wait a while and be patient. But they
get their reward. And note how this accommodates every possible desired
temperature and so every possible taste as long as reasonable behaviour
is present.
Compare the nice world I paint above with yours where everyone else is
held responsible for everything that goes wrong with you. The coffee is
served sort of pathetic and soon will go cold. If you add milk to it or
get delayed or want to drink it when you walk to somewhere where you
like to sit and chat or read, it might easily be too cold for *many*
people.
You paint a world for the average idiot, the lowest common denominator,
almost for the fool. It is very sad and your coffee policy will keep
only this denominator happy. Mob rule in effect. You make the mob happy
while inconveniencing everyone else. There *are* people outside common
mobs you know. Or perhaps you don't know?
--
dorayme
Kurt Ullman
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
> > Well, how about this: she suffered third-degree burns and required skin
> > grafts.
>
> Does it actually say that in the transcripts?
>
> In every medical or first aid class or book I've seen,
> part of the definition of "third degree burn" includes
> charred flesh. Coffee is mostly water, thus if not under
> pressure, CANNOT be higher than 100 degrees Celsius, and
> cannot char flesh.
Burns are characterized by depth of the burn and can be without
char.
--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
AV3
> In article he1tp4$8dl$1...@news.albasani.net, AV3 at arvi...@earthlink.net
> wrote on 11/18/09 5:51 PM:
>
>> Nick Naym wrote:
>>> In article 171120091055449487%nos...@nospam.invalid, nospam at
>>> nos...@nospam.invalid wrote on 11/17/09 11:55 AM:
>>>
>>>> In article <rowbotth-86259F...@news.newsgroupdirect.com>,
>>>> Rowbotth <rowb...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>>>
>
> So, McD's should be held responsible for a mishap due to her poor judgment
> because she was "apparently too old to have or notice beverage holders in
> her car"?
>
> I know that society doesn't hold children or the mentally incompetent to the
> same legal standards as "normal" folks -- they often are forgiven for
> transgressions due to their lack/lapse of good judgment. But shall we now
> not only forgive them for their poor judgment, but reward them for it as
> well? And do we not actually encourage irresponsible behavior by not just
> rewarding them for poor judgment, but by passing on the responsibility --
> and penalty -- for it to others?
>
>
>
>> But she spilled it in an act of simple carelessness.
>
> Yes..._her_ carelessness, not McD's.
>
>
>> It was appreciably
>> hotter than coffee from other such establishments and burned her badly.
>
> I have a lot of empathy for victims of _any_ accident. But to somehow
> suggest that McD's was responsible for _her_ accident by introducing the
> temperature of the coffee -- a totally irrelevant and highly arguable
They weren't held responsible for her accident but for the damage caused
by their excessively hot coffee, causing the seriousness of what would
otherwise have been negligible soiling and mild burning.
>
>> MacDonald's had ignored numerous previous complaints and finally got
>> nailed for recalcitrant neglect, as they should have. I don't think it
>> unreasonable to take into account that coffee served in styrofoam gets
>> spilled pretty often.
>
> Were hot coffee served in styrofoam cups been so widely problematic, folks
> would've stopped buying it; McD's and every other fast-food/take-out joint
> would've either changed the product or stopped offering it.
>
Part of MacD's irresponsible behavior was to ignore numerous complaints
about the excessive temperature their coffee was served at. This was a
matter of record and part of the evidence against MacD, and they were
held liable for it. Justly, I think.
>
>> As pointed out elsewhere,
>
> Where might that have been?
>
>> knives are supposed to be sharp, and care is
>> required, especially if they are advertised for their sharpness. Coffee
>> is supposed to be sold at a drinkable temperature, and overheating it
>> was a peculiar, unadvertised practice of MacDonald's.
>
> How sharp is too sharp, and how hot is too hot? And how is either related to
> any injuries I might suffer due to my irresponsible handling of knives or
> coffee? And how does my disregard of the knives' sharpness or coffee's
> temperature while handling those products get transferred to the
> manufacturer or restaurant?
>
All sharp knives are dangerous, and their manufacturers are not liable
for damage from careless handling. Coffee served at restaurants other
than MacDonald's is not prone to cause serious burns. MacD was held
liable for escessively hot and dangerous coffee and for ignoring
complaints about it. Spilling coffee out of a styrofoam cup is
commonplace and not analogous to cutting yourself while using a knife.
>
>> ...
Mike Rosenberg
> All sharp knives are dangerous, and their manufacturers are not liable
> for damage from careless handling. Coffee served at restaurants other
> than MacDonald's is not prone to cause serious burns. MacD was held
> liable for escessively hot and dangerous coffee and for ignoring
> complaints about it. Spilling coffee out of a styrofoam cup is
> commonplace and not analogous to cutting yourself while using a knife.
There was also the issue of the lid design - McD's lids were harder to
open without spilling coffee than other lids were.
Meanwhile, one topic that hasn't been brought up is that of proportional
liability, and that's something that is always taken into consideration
in such cases.
--
My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvB98fgse-s>
Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi>
Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
Patricia Aldoraz
wrote:
>
> > The biggies,
> > of course, are the prohibition drug laws. Until these are completely
> > repealed, societies can never truly grow up and give harmful practices
> > away by mature good reasoning and self preservation and in a lasting
> > manner.
>
> Sounds like you missed your last dose of meds.
>
Sounds like you are unaware of the whole issue of the law and state
paternalism.
Nick Naym
Patricia Aldoraz at patricia...@gmail.com wrote on 11/19/09 6:21 PM:
Sounds like you have no sense of humor.
Patricia Aldoraz
wrote:
> In article 60a328ce-46b3-4093-be2a-af3e57da5...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com,
> Patricia Aldoraz at patricia.aldo...@gmail.com wrote on 11/19/09 6:21 PM:
>
> > On Nov 19, 6:04 pm, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> The biggies,
> >>> of course, are the prohibition drug laws. Until these are completely
> >>> repealed, societies can never truly grow up and give harmful practices
> >>> away by mature good reasoning and self preservation and in a lasting
> >>> manner.
>
> >> Sounds like you missed your last dose of meds.
>
> > Sounds like you are unaware of the whole issue of the law and state
> > paternalism.
>
> Sounds like you have no sense of humor.
>
nospam
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > mcdonalds testified that they serve food that can cause serious injury.
> > > > that's illegal.
> > > >
> > > It is not illegal at all,
> >
> > go read up on implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a
> > particular purpose.
>
> And would you read a reading list (one with far more sheer intellectual
> backbone than various bullet points quoted in Mike's URL and the various
> documents that sly lawyers, commercial companies under mob pressures and
> silly jurors and judges output over a miserable little fucking disgrace
> of a case) that I gave you? I doubt it.
if it's about this case, i've probably read it already.
nevertheless, the documents to read are the *actual* court filings, not
some rehash, and mike's url was a good summary of the key points in the
case.
> > after examining *all* of the facts in the case (as opposed to
> > selectively reading a few headlines), the jurors overwhelmingly found
> > mcdonalds to be liable in just 4 hours of deliberations.
>
> You are so impressed with this!
what's not to be impressed? the evidence was overwhelming against
mcdonalds, the jury recognized the severity of that, and they basically
debated on how much punitive damages to assess.
> > > > > > mcdonalds lost because they sold food that was not safe to be
> > > > > > consumed,
> > > > > > by *their own admission*!!
>
> You are terribly naive! What McD say is no evidence at all of real
> wrongdoing.
are you actually saying that what mcdonalds says under oath means
nothing because you don't think so?
> You should know that many people will say many unreasonable
> and untrue things when it will be worse for them if they don't.
some do, but in this case, what mcdonalds said was what did them in.
they didn't even try to weasel out of it. they basically said 'we serve
dangerous food, and we know it.'
nospam
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
> > mcdonalds testified that they serve food that can cause serious injury.
> > that's illegal.
>
> quibble: Not illegal, but apparently irresponsible.
it is illegal.
nospam
> > Well, how about this: she suffered third-degree burns and required skin
> > grafts.
>
> Does it actually say that in the transcripts?
yes it does.
she suffered 3rd degree burns (full thickness, to the bone) over 6% of
her body. she was hospitalized for 8 days for skin grafting and
debridement. she was permanently disfigured and disabled for 2 years.
the jury saw photos of her burns and they were shocked at how serious
it was.
> In every medical or first aid class or book I've seen,
> part of the definition of "third degree burn" includes
> charred flesh. Coffee is mostly water, thus if not under
> pressure, CANNOT be higher than 100 degrees Celsius, and
> cannot char flesh.
according to testimony, liquids at the temperature at which the coffee
was served could cause full thickness burns in 2-7 seconds.
nospam
<jeg-3FCC1D.1...@190-207-246-207.dyn.dsl.cantv.net>, Julian
G�mez <j...@polished-pixels.com> wrote:
> She placed the cup of hot coffee between her legs. It sloshed out and
> she got burned. How anyone got to her age without being aware of the
> risk of her action is amazing.
the issue is not that she got burned but that the burns were so severe,
and had occurred some 700 times before to other mcdonalds patrons.
nospam
Mike Rosenberg <mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
> Meanwhile, one topic that hasn't been brought up is that of proportional
> liability, and that's something that is always taken into consideration
> in such cases.
she was found to be 20% responsible.
nospam
<arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> They weren't held responsible for her accident but for the damage caused
> by their excessively hot coffee, causing the seriousness of what would
> otherwise have been negligible soiling and mild burning.
correct.
> Part of MacD's irresponsible behavior was to ignore numerous complaints
> about the excessive temperature their coffee was served at. This was a
> matter of record and part of the evidence against MacD, and they were
> held liable for it. Justly, I think.
that's what did them in.
> All sharp knives are dangerous, and their manufacturers are not liable
> for damage from careless handling. Coffee served at restaurants other
> than MacDonald's is not prone to cause serious burns. MacD was held
> liable for escessively hot and dangerous coffee and for ignoring
> complaints about it. Spilling coffee out of a styrofoam cup is
> commonplace and not analogous to cutting yourself while using a knife.
correct.
nospam
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Coffee
> > is supposed to be sold at a drinkable temperature
>
> You just make things up as they suit you. It is not *supposed* to be
> this at all for reasons I have given.
it's a legal requirement that food sold be safe to consume. that
includes not just being free of dirt, insects and pathogens, but also
at a temperature that won't injure the consumer.
nospam
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> I find it interesting how people (myself included) who heard
> bits and pieces of a case think we know more than the twelve
> people who tried not to sleep through all the evidence and
> were briefed on the law by a judge.
exactly.
it took a week to present all of the evidence, yet everyone thinks they
know everything by reading an article or two.
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Not so. Some of us might have have bigger contexts in mind than the
wretched court case and judgement.
--
dorayme
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Keep saying it. It does not include serving it at a temperature that
allows folk to gobble it all up in a second or two, or to spill it onto
their bodies. In your nanny state there is a tendency for laws to be
enacted and/or construed by folk unaware of the infantile state they are
in when continually protected by massive paternalism from the rest of
society.
--
dorayme
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <he3ouj$ss1$1...@news.albasani.net>, AV3
> <arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
...
> > Part of MacD's irresponsible behavior was to ignore numerous complaints
> > about the excessive temperature their coffee was served at. This was a
> > matter of record and part of the evidence against MacD, and they were
> > held liable for it. Justly, I think.
>
> that's what did them in.
>
It was not excessive and they merely admitted this for commercial
reasons.
> > All sharp knives are dangerous, and their manufacturers are not liable
> > for damage from careless handling. Coffee served at restaurants other
> > than MacDonald's is not prone to cause serious burns. MacD was held
> > liable for escessively hot and dangerous coffee and for ignoring
> > complaints about it. Spilling coffee out of a styrofoam cup is
> > commonplace and not analogous to cutting yourself while using a knife.
>
> correct.
If it is so commonplace to spill it despite the *extra care* that is due
to it being very hot very hot, then perhaps a notice to take care or to
supply much better cups and lids with notices on them at greater cost is
the correct way to proceed to avoid inflicting merely warmish coffee on
everyone. But no such refinements are possible in the nanny sate, all
must be protected by the will of the mob.
--
dorayme
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-3CC...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > mcdonalds testified that they serve food that can cause serious
> > > > > injury.
> > > > > that's illegal.
> > > > >
> > > > It is not illegal at all,
> > >
> > > go read up on implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a
> > > particular purpose.
> >
> > And would you read a reading list (one with far more sheer intellectual
> > backbone than various bullet points quoted in Mike's URL and the various
> > documents that sly lawyers, commercial companies under mob pressures and
> > silly jurors and judges output over a miserable little fucking disgrace
> > of a case) that I gave you? I doubt it.
>
> if it's about this case, i've probably read it already.
>
I was rather meaning a broader type of education for you. To do with the
effects of paternalism on people. It makes them less responsible. It
sets the conditions for them never to really grow up and be *mindful* in
an adult manner.
...
>
> are you actually saying that what mcdonalds says under oath means
> nothing because you don't think so?
>
I am actually saying you should stop being so naive as to their motives
in saying things.
> > You should know that many people will say many unreasonable
> > and untrue things when it will be worse for them if they don't.
>
> some do, but in this case, what mcdonalds said was what did them in.
This looks like an expression of a gift for misunderstanding. We are
discussing if what McD said was true and right and just. You are simply
very happy, once again, with the mere superficial facts.
> they didn't even try to weasel out of it. they basically said 'we serve
> dangerous food, and we know it.'
And again.
--
dorayme
Wes Groleau
> Meanwhile, one topic that hasn't been brought up is that of proportional
> liability, and that's something that is always taken into consideration
> in such cases.
Actually, that depends on the jurisdiction.
In some states, if the plaintiff is 51% at fault,
they get nothing; 49$ and they might as well be
completely innocent.
--
Wes Groleau
Walls Around the Poor
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1520
Wes Groleau
> If it is so commonplace to spill it despite the *extra care* that is due
> to it being very hot very hot, then perhaps a notice to take care or to
> supply much better cups and lids with notices on them at greater cost is
Actually, due in part to this case, most to-go coffee cups
in USA now have printed on them warnings that the contents
are hot, handle with care in English, French, and Spanish.
I've seen some that also have it in German.
--
Wes Groleau
You always have time for what you do first.
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <jeg-3FCC1D.1...@190-207-246-207.dyn.dsl.cantv.net>, Julian
> Gómez <j...@polished-pixels.com> wrote:
>
> > She placed the cup of hot coffee between her legs. It sloshed out and
> > she got burned. How anyone got to her age without being aware of the
> > risk of her action is amazing.
>
> the issue is not that she got burned but that the burns were so severe,
> and had occurred some 700 times before to other mcdonalds patrons.
How many people have car accidents where speed that they cannot safely
handle is the big culprit? Should car manufacturers be liable for not
making their vehicles unable to go past 30 mph? The mere numbers of
irresponsible people is no key to understanding issues. You are thinking
too simplistically.
--
dorayme
Wes Groleau
> <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>> Well, how about this: she suffered third-degree burns and required skin
>>> grafts.
>> Does it actually say that in the transcripts?
>
> yes it does.
>
> she suffered 3rd degree burns (full thickness, to the bone) over 6% of
Well, I guess they've changed the definition.
Like I said, "back in the day" _charred_ flesh
was part of the definition.
--
Wes Groleau
Secunia Software to help you update
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1430
Jamie Kahn Genet
The they'd better not serve me hot food next time I go out! If I dumped
it all in my lap I could get a nasty burn! That's it - all warm food
from now on. Warm chips. Warm ribs. Warm pasta. Mmmm.. warm food - yum!
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
dorayme
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > If it is so commonplace to spill it despite the *extra care* that is due
> > to it being very hot very hot, then perhaps a notice to take care or to
> > supply much better cups and lids with notices on them at greater cost is
>
> Actually, due in part to this case, most to-go coffee cups
> in USA now have printed on them warnings that the contents
> are hot, handle with care in English, French, and Spanish.
>
> I've seen some that also have it in German.
Excellent, now they can make coffee piping hot again. <g>
--
dorayme
D.F. Manno
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I find it interesting how people (myself included) who heard
> > > bits and pieces of a case think we know more than the twelve
> > > people who tried not to sleep through all the evidence and
> > > were briefed on the law by a judge.
> >
> > exactly.
> >
> > it took a week to present all of the evidence, yet everyone thinks they
> > know everything by reading an article or two.
>
> Not so. Some of us might have have bigger contexts in mind than the
> wretched court case and judgement.
No, some of you heard a 30-second sound bite on TV, decided it fit your
pre-conceived notions, and have no desire to be confused by facts.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
Religion ... the only winning move is not to play!
nospam
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > You should know that many people will say many unreasonable
> > > and untrue things when it will be worse for them if they don't.
> >
> > some do, but in this case, what mcdonalds said was what did them in.
>
> This looks like an expression of a gift for misunderstanding. We are
> discussing if what McD said was true and right and just. You are simply
> very happy, once again, with the mere superficial facts.
they said so under oath, so one can assume it's true, especially since
there was never any doubt nor any claim of perjury. you are seriously
grasping at straws.
but even if they were lying, why would they say they were doing
something wrong if they weren't?
nospam
Manno <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > I find it interesting how people (myself included) who heard
> > > > bits and pieces of a case think we know more than the twelve
> > > > people who tried not to sleep through all the evidence and
> > > > were briefed on the law by a judge.
> > >
> > > exactly.
> > >
> > > it took a week to present all of the evidence, yet everyone thinks they
> > > know everything by reading an article or two.
> >
> > Not so. Some of us might have have bigger contexts in mind than the
> > wretched court case and judgement.
>
> No, some of you heard a 30-second sound bite on TV, decided it fit your
> pre-conceived notions, and have no desire to be confused by facts.
bingo!
nospam
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > She placed the cup of hot coffee between her legs. It sloshed out and
> > > she got burned. How anyone got to her age without being aware of the
> > > risk of her action is amazing.
> >
> > the issue is not that she got burned but that the burns were so severe,
> > and had occurred some 700 times before to other mcdonalds patrons.
>
> How many people have car accidents where speed that they cannot safely
> handle is the big culprit? Should car manufacturers be liable for not
> making their vehicles unable to go past 30 mph? The mere numbers of
> irresponsible people is no key to understanding issues. You are thinking
> too simplistically.
auto manufacturers are required to make safe cars. toyota just recalled
3.8 million vehicles because the accelerator pedal could be held at
full throttle due to a defective floor mat. they didn't blow it off and
say 'drive carefully.'
nospam
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > Part of MacD's irresponsible behavior was to ignore numerous complaints
> > > about the excessive temperature their coffee was served at. This was a
> > > matter of record and part of the evidence against MacD, and they were
> > > held liable for it. Justly, I think.
> >
> > that's what did them in.
>
> It was not excessive and they merely admitted this for commercial
> reasons.
their court testimony was solely for commercial gain??? that's *well*
beyond ludicrous.
700 injuries over ten years is one accident roughly every five days!
mcdonalds did *nothing* to try to reduce it. had they shown that they
took even the slightest step to reduce that number, the outcome of the
trial might have been different.
> > > All sharp knives are dangerous, and their manufacturers are not liable
> > > for damage from careless handling. Coffee served at restaurants other
> > > than MacDonald's is not prone to cause serious burns. MacD was held
> > > liable for escessively hot and dangerous coffee and for ignoring
> > > complaints about it. Spilling coffee out of a styrofoam cup is
> > > commonplace and not analogous to cutting yourself while using a knife.
> >
> > correct.
>
> If it is so commonplace to spill it despite the *extra care* that is due
> to it being very hot very hot, then perhaps a notice to take care or to
> supply much better cups and lids with notices on them at greater cost is
> the correct way to proceed to avoid inflicting merely warmish coffee on
> everyone. But no such refinements are possible in the nanny sate, all
> must be protected by the will of the mob.
in fact, there was a very small notice on the cup that said the coffee
was hot, but it did *not* say that it could cause 3rd degree burns in
just seconds. furthermore, the print was so tiny that one juror said
she had to use her glasses to even read it.
dorayme
> > > it took a week to present all of the evidence, yet everyone thinks they
> > > know everything by reading an article or two.
> >
> > Not so. Some of us might have have bigger contexts in mind than the
> > wretched court case and judgement.
>
> No, some of you heard a 30-second sound bite on TV, decided it fit your
> pre-conceived notions, and have no desire to be confused by facts.
It looks to me from where I am standing that it is you that has been
confused by the facts. You are not seeing the forest for the trees.
--
dorayme
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <doraymeRidThis-EFF...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Part of MacD's irresponsible behavior was to ignore numerous complaints
> > > > about the excessive temperature their coffee was served at. This was a
> > > > matter of record and part of the evidence against MacD, and they were
> > > > held liable for it. Justly, I think.
> > >
> > > that's what did them in.
> >
> > It was not excessive and they merely admitted this for commercial
> > reasons.
>
> their court testimony was solely for commercial gain??? that's *well*
> beyond ludicrous.
>
Gosh, you are naive. Everything most big commercial outfits say is for
commercial reasons. Have I become too cynical?
> 700 injuries over ten years is one accident roughly every five days!
>
In how many customers? I suspect that if you analysed more data, you
would find that more than 700 customers in 10 years are particularly
irresponsible, perhaps more have a pattern of irresponsibility in all
sorts of things. I am not floored by your simple statistic.
...
> >
> > If it is so commonplace to spill it despite the *extra care* that is due
> > to it being very hot very hot, then perhaps a notice to take care or to
> > supply much better cups and lids with notices on them at greater cost is
> > the correct way to proceed to avoid inflicting merely warmish coffee on
> > everyone. But no such refinements are possible in the nanny sate, all
> > must be protected by the will of the mob.
>
> in fact, there was a very small notice on the cup that said the coffee
> was hot, but it did *not* say that it could cause 3rd degree burns in
> just seconds. furthermore, the print was so tiny that one juror said
> she had to use her glasses to even read it.
Fancy that! The poor thing had to use her glasses to read! The juror, no
doubt, was also imagining mummy coming along in a mo to change her
nappy.
This thread is turning me in a very unusual right direction! But that is
because a few of you are so namby pamby post-modernist nannyish... <g>
--
dorayme