"Legally Stupid"
Sid9
suit.
You only read the headlines and have no undertsanding of what brought that
suit about.
If you knew the facts you would understand why MacDonald's lost.
The "fat food" suit was only filed. The "fat food" suit has yet to go before
a judge.
Since you know nothing about the merits of the suit you are perfectly suited
to pass the kind of judgements you posted here.
You fit the "Re:" above perfectly.
"Gary Lantz" <gar...@defnet.com> wrote in message
news:ukfjp33...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "BitHead" <bit...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3d474ca...@news-server.rochester.rr.com...
> > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:24:17 -0400, "Gary Lantz" <gar...@defnet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Why are we even paying judges that allow such asinine suits. That is
> were
> > >this whole business has gone overboard.
> >
> > An interesting question from the man who at every single opportunity
> > seeks to plance the mantle of 'victimhood' on everyone to sheild them
> > from the own stupidity.
> >
> > For example, you said as regards the Coffee case, " That is the cost
> > of doing business and if they want to spend the money to sue anyone,
> > that is a right they have and so do you."
>
> Just how stupid are you? Anyone should have the right to sue but someone
> suing for spilling hot coffee held between their legs should entitle a
judge
> to be disbared for taking the case. And the court costs should be
punitive.
>
> >
> > Source:
> >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=7oei5f%24r95%241%40f
> fx2nh5.news.uu.net
> >
> > But to answer your question, you're quite right; such should be trhown
> > out. Period. Trouble is, tossing such nonsense out on it's ass as
> > should ahve happened in several of these cases, takes fair and smart
> > judges, which is something we're a bit short on of late. More than one
> > person has noted, and I will join them, that there is more than a
> > casual connection between this situation, and the left stonewalling
> > President Bush's attempts to get Judges to the bench, instead of being
> > bottled up in the nomination process by the Democrats in the Senate.
>
> Bush would put in Judges that would not allow rightful suits if they were
> for the average guy against big bushiness. He put in a special group of
> cronie wingnuts that he thought would be passed right away while he had a
> wingnut Senate. Zealots like this should never be allowed on the bench.
> Just like the sorry Ashcroft that the people of Missouri rejected should
> never even have a job unless it is as a clerk at a porn shop.
>
> >
> > You remember the Democrats, who get the lion's share of the political
> > contributions made by trial lawyers, and who have had the American
> > Trial Lawyer's Association in their hip pocket for decades, now. With
> > fair-minded judges, ones with some common sense, these trial lawyers
> > stand to make a pile less than they do now, on these kinds of suits.
> >
> >
> > Now do you understand, Lantz?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -->
> > BitHead,
>
>
> You dimwit,Trial Lawyers can do nothing if judges are in control or common
> sense. 90% of the American Public need every trial lawyer they can get
that
> is good. Right wingnut Republicans would have suits limited to $250,000,
> then their corporate lawyers would run out the cases so that they got too
> expensive for the lawyer to take, again, that would give the ultra rich
> and Big Bushiness more ammo to continue the assault on the middle class to
> enrich the cronies.
> > Associate Editor, www.grey-sanctuary.com
> > Remember, Those who tolerate everything, stand for nothing.
> > Visit: http://www.grey-sanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/
> >
>
>
Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_AQ19.64244$ND5.5...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> Obviously you don't know the entire story about the MacDonald's hot coffee
> suit.
> You only read the headlines and have no undertsanding of what brought that
> suit about.
> If you knew the facts you would understand why MacDonald's lost.
>
> The "fat food" suit was only filed. The "fat food" suit has yet to go
before
> a judge.
>
> Since you know nothing about the merits of the suit you are perfectly
suited
> to pass the kind of judgements you posted here.
>
> You fit the "Re:" above perfectly.
>
>
At what point does common sence kick in with liberals? Isn't free choice
what America is all about? What ever you see as merits of the "fat food"
suit, the under lying truth remains. We have free choice. If this suit were
to be won against "fat food," the repercussions would be great. It would
mean consumers are at the mercy of marketers and their slick packaging.
Media would now become liable to government over sight, Big Brother would
become omnipotent and rule over all commerce. The Third Way would become
reality. Government controlled marketing and government solutions for
capitalism.
The commi/socialists will have won. America would no longer be free to
choose anything without Uncle Sams seal of approval.
If marketing is soooooooooo powerful, why isn't Al Gore in the White House?
Naomi Wolf dressed Al, be put new teeth in Al, she taught him to roar like a
preacher. Al marketed him self as a cross between Eul Gibbons and Ronald
Reagan and still lost. It proves even with NJ marketing firms attempting to
instill the idea of disenfranchisement, only the ignorant are swayed.
Should all shiny objects be banned? We know the tactics of the DNC should.
--
CB
--
Come election season, like the Tooth Fairy, every ignorant inner city voter
looks forward to the Cigarette Fairy.
-- CB
Sid9
The right to sue is not the right to win that suit.
The subject "Re: Legally Stupid" fit you to a T
"Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore" <C...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:ai8m5h$3g4$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore
> The right to sue somebody that has damaged you is not important to you.
> The right to sue is not the right to win that suit.
I have no problem with anyone's right to sue. That wasn't my point, if it
was yours then I agree. One could sue a ham sandwich but whether a judge
would see merit in it is another thing.
What merit does this suit have? To dictate what "fast food" entrepreneurs
sell?
...which may have merit. I've been on the Atkins diet and lost 35 lbs. Low
carb diets work best but convencing McDonald's to sell Egg McMuffins without
the muffins and serve Vienna Sausages for lunch might not go over very well.
Patriot
> The right to sue somebody that has damaged you is not important to you.
> The right to sue is not the right to win that suit.
>
And here folks we have the "lawsuit happy" mentality.
Eyewitness
<C...@prayforme.com> wrote:
>
>"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:_AQ19.64244$ND5.5...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
>> Obviously you don't know the entire story about the MacDonald's hot coffee
>> suit.
>> You only read the headlines and have no undertsanding of what brought that
>> suit about.
>> If you knew the facts you would understand why MacDonald's lost.
>>
>> The "fat food" suit was only filed. The "fat food" suit has yet to go
>before
>> a judge.
>>
>> Since you know nothing about the merits of the suit you are perfectly
>suited
>> to pass the kind of judgements you posted here.
>>
>> You fit the "Re:" above perfectly.
If memory serves, the McDonalds' "Hot Coffee" suit was entirely
different.
The plaintiff lawyers turned up evidence that McDonalds had received
complains from people with second and third degree burns going back
five or seven years. Seems to me I remember reading somewhere that
McDonalds even settled financially with some of these people.
This plaintiff's point was that McDonalds KNEW their coffee was
dangerous in regard to its' temperature and how it was served, and yet
served it that way with 'reckless disregard' for the safety of their
customers.
If my memory is even remotely accurate and some reasonable percentage
of the above is true, seems to me that's totally different than a guy
trying to cash in because he ate too many bacon cheeseburgers.
Sid9
You only saw some headlines or a TV report...
You haven't read the complaint.
The suit by the lady that got burned by MacDonald's coffee initially looked
silly...when you saw the facts it was serious negligence by MacDonald's...
"Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore" <C...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:ai8mtn$4p3$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
Sid9
We have abuses by large corporations that believe they can get away with
things.
Mostly these companies do get away with abuse.
That's why so called "Tort Reform" is another Republican screwing of the
public on behalf of big business.
"Patriot" <Pat...@USAproud.com> wrote in message
news:mYR19.8897$Ru5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Sid9
The "fat suit" may have merit. It's too soon to pass judgment on it.
The defendants no doubt will ask for a summary dismissal. The judge will
reviewed the complaint and decide whether there is merit to the suit.
If it's frivolous that will be the end of it.
"Eyewitness" <943e...@underpants.net> wrote in message
news:jlsfku4g1orhq0ql9...@4ax.com...
Geo
actually have any merit.
Sid9
companies.
"Geo" <g...@sdf.com> wrote in message news:3D47FC72...@sdf.com...
Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore
> actually have any merit.
I'm in the process of suing a person who lost in a suit against me. They owe
me 5K worth of legal fees, plus about 10 grand more for character
assassination. I doubt if I can get the punitive but actual damages I have
no doubt. If the Judicial System would assign punitive damages in every suit
along with actual damages, careful consideration would be given rather just
going off half cocked.
Punitive damages are very hard to prove. It's usually subjective unless in
the case of a burn which can be proven.
Unless a fat guy can come up with 5 years of junk food receipts, it will be
impossible to prove where the guy got so !#$%^&* fat.
There is a trend to assign a percentage of fault to the victim. Off hand I'd
say 99.9% of being fat is from poor choices. I lost 35 lbs. on the Atkins
diet. If anything, the US government and their quack military doctors from
the 50's caused America to get fat. We grew up thinking fatty foods make us
fat. It's carbohydrates mixed with fats that cause longer digestion and
longer storage.
Fats pass right through the body when there are less than 20 carbs mixed in,
per day. The CDC will tell you that high protein diets are bad but who in
their right would eat nothing but meat? Moderation in eating, less than 20
carbs a day, with a little exercise and the weight will come off. Actually
with no exercise the weight will come off but without toning muscle, one
will turn out looking droopy.
CB
Wildflower
<PLONK> Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore, etc.
PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
Original NG headers trimmed off :
-- al.impeachbush
-- alt.politics
-- alt.politics.bush
-- alt.politics.usa.republican
===============================
Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore <C...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:ai91do$eot$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
>
> "Geo" <g...@sdf.com> wrote in message news:3D47FC72...@sdf.com...
> > We need a 'loser pays' system. That would help drive what cases
> > actually have any merit.
>
> I'm in the process of suing a person who lost in a suit against me.
Geo
people who have no will power to avoid the McDonalds value meal.
Defending frivolous lawsuits costs insurance companies and businesses a
lot of money. They recover that money either by raising insurance
premiums and costs extravagantly, or in the case of physicians, dropping
coverage altogether. That benefits no one.
eflorack
> suit.
> You only read the headlines and have no undertsanding of what brought that
> suit about.
> If you knew the facts you would understand why MacDonald's lost.
I do know the facts, and I do know why they lost. they ahd money and
therefore must be evil. Explain to me why htis woman was not
responsible enough to use a freakin cofe holder? I also know that
exactly the same case was laughed out of court in England just this
last year.
http://www.grey-sanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/sue.asp
http://www.grey-sanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/suedeux.asp
Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore
"Wildflower" <dea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p0V19.102681$uh7.16608@sccrnsc03...
Sid9
MacDonald's had settled a number of similar claims previously.
MacDonald's knew their coffee temperature was dangerous.
MacDonald's did nothing with complete disregard for their customer's safety.
After they were punished they reduced their coffee temperature to a safe
value.
They now use thermometers to check coffee temperature.
It's quite obvious that the public is safer for these actions.
Was it dumb for the plaintiff to put the coffee between her legs? Yes.
Could she have known how dangerous it was? No.
"eflorack" <eflo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bd154db5.02073...@posting.google.com...
Eyewitness
>We need a 'loser pays' system. That would help drive what cases
>actually have any merit.
As I understand it, they have such a system in Japan.
If I sue you for a million and we end up in court a million will, in
fact, change hands. If I lose, I owe YOU a million. No one gets a free
ride.
In this sort of system, the defendant is more likely to reach a
pre-trial agreement if he knows he's wrong. Fewer cased end up in
court because the litigants have to be VERY sure they're right.
That might not be a completely accurate description of the civil court
system in Japan, but I believe it's close.
Patriot
> Was it dumb for the plaintiff to put the coffee between her legs? Yes.
>
> Could she have known how dangerous it was? No.
>
How can you NOT know that putting a hot cup of coffee between your legs is
not only stupid but also something that could cause pain and suffering,
a.k.a., "danger".......
Pathetic. The warning on the cups should read, "Hey dumbass, there's
steam coming out of the cup, that means it's hot..... "
David Johnston
>
> "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:OGW19.92770$Og3.23...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com..
>
> >
> > Could she have known how dangerous it was? No.
> >
>
> How can you NOT know that putting a hot cup of coffee between your legs is
> not only stupid but also something that could cause pain and suffering,
> a.k.a., "danger".......
Of course I can't think of any other place you could hold a cup of coffee
while driving my car that couldn't cause pain and suffering. Of course I
deal with that problem by not being a caffeine addict.
Sid9
excessively hot coffe that MacDonald's paid off on that caused this
decision.
They KNEW it was dangerous and they didn't do anything about it after many
people were injured.
It's MacDonald's caalous disregard for their patrons safety that made the
decision.
"Patriot" <Pat...@USAproud.com> wrote in message
news:JiZ19.200624$Wt3.155577@rwcrnsc53...
Tempest
Sid9 wrote:
>
> Loser pays system would give all the advantage to rich powerful persons and
> companies.
Something else to consider, it will be the taxpayers who pay when
federal, state and local governments are the ones bringing the cases and
lose.
--
"...Republicans use patriotism the way snipers use tall buildings, it's
just a way of getting a better shot at the people they want to take out
anyway..."
--Terry Sawyer
Tempest
Patriot wrote:
>
> "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:OGW19.92770$Og3.23...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> > Was it dumb for the plaintiff to put the coffee between her legs? Yes.
> >
> > Could she have known how dangerous it was? No.
> >
>
> How can you NOT know that putting a hot cup of coffee between your legs is
> not only stupid but also something that could cause pain and suffering,
> a.k.a., "danger".......
That wasn't the issue jackass.
The issue was that the cup and lids were insufficient for preventing
spills in the first place.
And McDonald's knew about the problem for years and did nothing to
improve the cups and lids because it was cheaper to settle the lawsuits.
That is, until they finally got slapped down.
> Pathetic. The warning on the cups should read, "Hey dumbass, there's
> steam coming out of the cup, that means it's hot..... "
And your warning should read, "I'm a dumbass, I talk about things I know
nothing about."
Keith
>
>
> Patriot wrote:
>>
>> "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:OGW19.92770$Og3.23...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>>
>> > Was it dumb for the plaintiff to put the coffee between her legs?
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > Could she have known how dangerous it was? No.
>> >
>>
>> How can you NOT know that putting a hot cup of coffee between your
>> legs is not only stupid but also something that could cause pain and
>> suffering, a.k.a., "danger".......
>
> That wasn't the issue jackass.
>
> The issue was that the cup and lids were insufficient for preventing
> spills in the first place.
>
> And McDonald's knew about the problem for years and did nothing to
> improve the cups and lids because it was cheaper to settle the
> lawsuits.
>
> That is, until they finally got slapped down.
>
>> Pathetic. The warning on the cups should read, "Hey dumbass,
>> there's steam coming out of the cup, that means it's hot..... "
>
> And your warning should read, "I'm a dumbass, I talk about things I
> know nothing about."
>
Hey dumbass, If you want cold coffee order it that way. Lawyers
shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us that want it scalding hot.
--
Proud to be a infidel!
"Keith"
Tempest
Sid9 wrote:
>
> It's not this ONE case.... it's the many cases of severe burns from
> excessively hot coffe that MacDonald's paid off on that caused this
> decision.
>
> They KNEW it was dangerous and they didn't do anything about it after many
> people were injured.
>
> It's MacDonald's caalous disregard for their patrons safety that made the
> decision.
You might as well give it up, Sid.
This guy is as bad as spazmaniac.
Show them the facts, and they ignore it.
> "Patriot" <Pat...@USAproud.com> wrote in message
> news:JiZ19.200624$Wt3.155577@rwcrnsc53...
> >
> > "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:OGW19.92770$Og3.23...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > > Was it dumb for the plaintiff to put the coffee between her legs? Yes.
> > >
> > > Could she have known how dangerous it was? No.
> > >
> >
> > How can you NOT know that putting a hot cup of coffee between your legs is
> > not only stupid but also something that could cause pain and suffering,
> > a.k.a., "danger".......
> >
> > Pathetic. The warning on the cups should read, "Hey dumbass, there's
> > steam coming out of the cup, that means it's hot..... "
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Tempest
Hey shit for brains, the issue isn't about the temperature of the
coffee.
The issue is about, oh fuck it, you wouldn't understand it anyway.
Sid9
degrees Fahrenheit;
2.Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven
seconds;
3.Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and
whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in
permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many
months, and in some cases, years;
4.The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and
bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns,
the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty,
the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
5.McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from
its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to
its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
6.From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many
receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and
buttocks;
7.Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by
McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent
spillage by McDonald's employees;
8.At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service
window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive
areas, which resulted in disability for years;
9.Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of
the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at
McDonald's required temperature;
10.McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and
extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
11.McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the
heat -- As one witness put it: "No, there is no current plan to change the
procedure that we're using in that regard right now;"
12.McDonald's admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when
sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
13.Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the
worst scald burns he had ever seen.
from: http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
"Keith" <v2pl...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns925CCB233E...@204.127.202.16...
Brandon Berg
> <PLONK> Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore, etc.
> PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
> Original NG headers trimmed off :
> -- al.impeachbush
> -- alt.politics
> -- alt.politics.bush
> -- alt.politics.usa.republican
So? Other than alt.impeach.bush, is this thread not relevant to all of those
newsgroups, and alt.support.diet.low-carb as well? There's nothing inherently
wrong with crossposting--when used judiciously it can make these discussions
much more interesting and informative by bringing in new people with new ideas,
experiences, and perspectives. Besides, it's a lot more on-topic than a lot of
the things that go on in here even without cross-posting.
And I'm not sure what you think a troll is, but that wasn't it.
Patriot
> It's not this ONE case.... it's the many cases of severe burns from
> excessively hot coffe that MacDonald's paid off on that caused this
> decision.
>
> They KNEW it was dangerous and they didn't do anything about it after many
> people were injured.
>
> It's MacDonald's caalous disregard for their patrons safety that made the
> decision.
>
It's fucking hot coffee! Duh!
Patriot
"Tempest" <tem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D4885AC...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Patriot wrote:
> >
> > "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:OGW19.92770$Og3.23...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > > Was it dumb for the plaintiff to put the coffee between her legs? Yes.
> > >
> > > Could she have known how dangerous it was? No.
> > >
> >
> > How can you NOT know that putting a hot cup of coffee between your legs
is
> > not only stupid but also something that could cause pain and suffering,
> > a.k.a., "danger".......
>
> That wasn't the issue jackass.
>
> The issue was that the cup and lids were insufficient for preventing
> spills in the first place.
>
> And McDonald's knew about the problem for years and did nothing to
> improve the cups and lids because it was cheaper to settle the lawsuits.
>
> That is, until they finally got slapped down.
>
> > Pathetic. The warning on the cups should read, "Hey dumbass, there's
> > steam coming out of the cup, that means it's hot..... "
>
> And your warning should read, "I'm a dumbass, I talk about things I know
> nothing about."
>
It's fucking hot coffee. I've been having an egg McMuffin and coffee
frequently for years, no problems..... hey, I'm a few pounds overweight,
maybe I should get involved in that class action lawsuit for all those fat
people who blame fast food for their lack of willpower.......
Patriot
> It's not this ONE case.... it's the many cases of severe burns from
> excessively hot coffe that MacDonald's paid off on that caused this
> decision.
>
> They KNEW it was dangerous and they didn't do anything about it after many
> people were injured.
>
> It's MacDonald's caalous disregard for their patrons safety that made the
> decision.
>
Frivilous, whether one case or many. Anyone who can't handle a hot cup of
coffee - oh well, accidents happen. Preventable? OK, so don't buy the
coffee, or better yet, wait til it frick'n cools down before handling.
Sheesh! This kind of lawsuit benefits very few and only serves to punish
consumers.
David Johnston
>
> "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:D7_19.69985$ND5.6...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com..
> > excessively hot coffe that MacDonald's paid off on that caused this
> > decision.
> >
> > They KNEW it was dangerous and they didn't do anything about it after many
> > people were injured.
> >
> > It's MacDonald's caalous disregard for their patrons safety that made the
> > decision.
> >
>
> Frivilous, whether one case or many. Anyone who can't handle a hot cup of
> coffee - oh well, accidents happen. Preventable? OK, so don't buy the
> coffee, or better yet, wait til it frick'n cools down before handling.
I don't see how that is a credible option for the pathetic caffeine addicts.
They are at the drive-through window. Waiting to handle the coffee isn't really
possible.
Sid9
When 700 or more including children wee seriously burned? Frivolous?
Frivolous?
You must be one of those compassionate conservatives.
"Patriot" <Pat...@USAproud.com> wrote in message
news:5a329.15454$Ru5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
eflorack
> Why is it necessary to repeat what has been stated on these pages?
I dunno, you tell me. POssibly because it doesn't ring true?
>
> MacDonald's had settled a number of similar claims previously.
Mostly to avoid fighting it, becayuse of the costs involved, defending
itself from the greedy.
And the Brits, as I say, based on the evidence, laughed this nonsense
out of their courts.
> > http://www.grey-sanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/sue.asp
> > http://www.grey-sanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/suedeux.asp
Sid9
"McDonald's admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when
sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk"
What was snipped comes from the court records Just in case you didn't get a
chance to read it here goes:
from: http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm "
"eflorack" <eflo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bd154db5.02080...@posting.google.com...
Patriot
eflorack
> What part of this don't you believe?
That you're after the best inetersts of the consumer. Rather, I figure
you're out to destroy corporate America out of a misguided sense of
'fairness'.
>
> "McDonald's admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when
> sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk"
If coffee isn't too hot to drink when I buy it, I don't want it.
Neitehr do most coffee drinkers. It's not fresh.
>
> What was snipped comes from the court records Just in case you didn't get a
> chance to read it here goes:
Oh, I saw it.
>
> "1.By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190
> degrees Fahrenheit;
Which is after all the best brewing temp.
>
> 2.Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
> skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven
> seconds;
welcome to the world.
> 5.McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from
> its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to
> its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
More like 100 years.
Suits don't change the fact that that's the temp it brews at.
Welcome to reality.
http://www.grey-sanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/sue.asp
http://www.grey-sanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/suedeux.asp
Sid9
They don't do it that way anymore.
Only "compassionate conservatives" like you need 190F coffee.
Good Luck.... and hope you never spill any!
"eflorack" <eflo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bd154db5.02080...@posting.google.com...
Patriot
> The suit worked.
and prices went up
>
> They don't do it that way anymore.
Not because they did anything wrong, but because they don't care to deal
with anymore frivilous lawsuits.
>
> Only "compassionate conservatives" like you need 190F coffee.
Negative, serving coffee at already "optimum" drinking temperature means the
coffee will be cold before it's finished. Now I don't know about you, but I
don't have a microwave in my car.......
Tequila Mockingbird
Isn't it amazing that Starbucks seems to just limp along as a penny-ante
business even though they don't serve up 190F coffee? Gosh, what're
they waiting for?
(fool!)
Sid9
have to snip out without acknowledging it?
I know... whenever right wingers hear or see anything that doesn't fit their
preconceived notions they close their eyes and hollar "liberul" or
"pinko-commie".
Which explains all the "liberul press" that they see.
Every truthful article is painful and causes rightie's knee jerk reactions.
"Patriot" <Pat...@USAproud.com> wrote in message
news:53i29.252672$uw.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Santo Romeo
one of these pointless invectives:
"Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore" <C...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:ai8m5h$3g4$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
>
> "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:_AQ19.64244$ND5.5...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> > Obviously you don't know the entire story about the MacDonald's hot
coffee
> > suit.
> > You only read the headlines and have no undertsanding of what brought
that
> > suit about.
> > If you knew the facts you would understand why MacDonald's lost.
> >
> > The "fat food" suit was only filed. The "fat food" suit has yet to go
> before
> > a judge.
> >
> > Since you know nothing about the merits of the suit you are perfectly
> suited
> > to pass the kind of judgements you posted here.
> >
> > You fit the "Re:" above perfectly.
> >
> >
>
> At what point does common sence kick in with liberals?
Who sez the suitors are liberals?
> Isn't free choice
> what America is all about? What ever you see as merits of the "fat food"
> suit, the under lying truth remains. We have free choice. If this suit
were
> to be won against "fat food," the repercussions would be great. It would
> mean consumers are at the mercy of marketers and their slick packaging.
The last statement is painfully true; Americans are, indeed, at the mercy of
marketers and their slick packaging. At the supermarket or other food
places, do you choose against a "normal" fat-containing food (such as
butter or milk) and in favor of foods that are advertised as "low-fat?"
Then you're a victim of your own ignorance about the nutritional needs
of the human body Doctors and dietitians have known for 80 years that
low-fat and no-fat diets are dangerous. Heart patients are forbidden to
eat margarine, because it contains partially-saturated fat that's converted
to 'hard' cholesterol in the blood stream. Diabetic children can't drink
Ovaltine or eat "healthy" foods like Raisin Bran because their chief
ingredient is white sugar. And so on.
I agree, the suit in question is idiotic (Like the Hindus who ate fries at
Mac's and claimed they were misled about the beef flavoring in the fries.
Fucking idiots. A true Hindu won't even walk on the same side of the
street that houses a restaurant where beef is served, in any form). .
> Media would now become liable to government over sight, Big Brother
>would become omnipotent and rule over all commerce. The Third Way
> would become reality. Government controlled marketing and government
> solutions for capitalism. The commi/socialists will have won. America
> would no longer be free to choose anything without Uncle Sams seal of
>approval.
>
Well, actually, liberals and conservatives would have both won. We
already have a highly regulated economy (Ever hear of the tariff laws?
Some of the heaviest tariff regulations passed early in the last
century were dreamed up by the Republic Party. Ever hear of the
Taft-Hartley Act? Taft was a conservative). Let's not get into popular
myths such as "free capitalism". Capitalism in the U.S. hasn't been free
since just before WWI. Dems and GOP's alike since Teddy Roosevelt
have passed a ton of laws regulating business, and most have been in
favor of protecting big business.
True, though, the fat-goof suit is absurd. Truly. But not exactly stupid.
Like most such lawsuits, it bends the principle of common sense in
favor of greed. The defendants will collect a few bucks (that's what
it's all about, right?), and the lawyers will reap millions. It's the
American Way.
> If marketing is soooooooooo powerful, why isn't Al Gore in the White
House?
He's not in the White House because the Bush team was clever and
resourceful enoguh to buypass their usual states' rightsd ideology and
headed straight for the Supreme Court in order to manipulate an
election they didn't like. But take heart: Dubyuh has become so popular
that he vows that instead of losing the 2004 election by 500,000
popular votes, he'll probably only lose by $250,000 or so.
> Naomi Wolf dressed Al, be put new teeth in Al, she taught him to roar like
a
> preacher. Al marketed him self as a cross between Eul Gibbons and Ronald
> Reagan and still lost. It proves even with NJ marketing firms attempting
to
> instill the idea of disenfranchisement, only the ignorant are swayed.
>
Hm, yes. Poor Al. The Dems should never have run him in the first
place (the Pubs don't like to mention that Al, despite his faults and
despite a so-so Democratic turnout, still managed to win the popular vote.
But who gives a shit about the popular vote, hm?).
> Should all shiny objects be banned? We know the tactics of the DNC should.
> --
> CB
The DNC?
> --
> Come election season, like the Tooth Fairy, every ignorant inner city
voter
> looks forward to the Cigarette Fairy.
> -- CB
I have to agree with that. But, then, why *should* disenfranchised inner
city voters put a check by Dubyuh's name?
>
>
--SJR
SJR
> What is it about the truth, that McDonald's admits to in court, that you
> have to snip out without acknowledging it?
>
> I know... whenever right wingers hear or see anything that doesn't fit
their
> preconceived notions they close their eyes and hollar "liberul" or
> "pinko-commie".
>
> Which explains all the "liberul press" that they see.
>
> Every truthful article is painful and causes rightie's knee jerk
reactions.
>
say that not *all* conservatives and moderates are of this ilk. But
for the past few years, the type of right-winger you've just described
has grown to be a real pain in the butt for this country.
-SJR
Keith
Starbucks makes shit for coffee. If you like paying $1.50 for lukewarm
water and the name on the cup then you are the fool!
BitHead
wrote:
And since it's got to be hot for a proper brew, if it;s cooled, off
it's not fresh.
Clearly, we need to consdier my original column on the point:
All of this came about when I looked at a bag of ice I'd just bought,
and noticed that the bag actually had a nutritional statement on it,
of all things. I was amused to learn that because the bag of ice
contained 0% fat, it qualifies under government regulations, as a low
fat food! (They must not be using the water from around here, then.)
It was at this point that I started to consider all the strange and
wonderful messages we are hit with every day, because of government,
and of lawyers. In the process, I made some interesting discoveries.
Consider: It is because of lawsuits and Lawyers that everything we buy
has a ridiculous warning on it. My lawn mower actually has a warning
that reads:
WARNING!
DO NOT PLACE HANDS OR FEET UNDER MOWER WHILE BLADE IS SPINNING.
Duh! This sticker exists because someone went to court claiming minus
part of a hand or a foot, claiming he or she didn't KNOW there was a
slight problem with putting their foot under a mower? Worse... a jury
thought they were telling the truth, and forced the manufacturer to
pay millions for this person's rehab. Far as I can tell, half a foot
is the least of the problems, here.
It gets worse.
I bought a toaster oven the other day. My new toaster oven came with a
whole list of warnings:
"Do not touch heating coils."
Gee. I wonder why?
"Do not stick foreign objects in oven."
Aw, Gee... No French Bread?
"For best results do not submerge oven in bathtub."
It's OK if I leave it on the EDGE of the tub, so long as it doesn't
fall in, I guess. Gotta watch that. We wouldn't want to find out what
they consider less then optimal results, now would we?
"Do not drop oven on your foot."
Aw, Gee. What happens?
"Oven is not to be used as protective headgear."
Not even at a party?
This list of oddball warnings goes on and on. I sometimes think my $30
toaster oven would cost $15 if they didn't have a staff of highly paid
lawyers somewhere thinking up this stuff... and highly paid union
printers packing literature in there with it, containing what the
lawyers tell them to print.
Substitute Safety helmet?
Thinking that there is a reason for all this nonsense, that each of
these warnings on a product represents a previous (successful)
lawsuit, I decided to focus on one of these warnings, I chose to
investigate what caused the 'Toaster oven as Headgear' business. It's
amazing what you can find when you've got a fast Internet connection
and a good computer... and a Saturday afternoon to kill. Turns out
that I was right; there *was* a strange story behind it.
In this example, some moron in Tacoma went to work at a construction
site one day, with a toaster oven on his head instead of his hard hat,
so his pals could get a laugh. Yuk Yuk.
A Scooby-Doo lunch box another worker dropped on him injured him. (I
can just picture this big burley construction worker with his
Scooby-Doo lunchbox, can't you?) From the accounts, the lunchbox
landed on his head. Well, on the toaster oven, which was on his head,
apparenty casuing some damage. What is unclear to me, is how much
damage was pre-existent.
In any event, he apparently wasn't warned by the toaster maker that a
box of tin filled with heating coils and no padding does not protect
your head from metal lunchboxes filled with baloney sandwiches and a
thermos full of coffee, moving at 33 ft/sec. So, in response, he sued
the toaster oven company as well as his employer, Hanna-Barbera, (the
lunchbox maker), and just for good measure, the state of Washington
and the federal government. (Apparently, the work site was a
government building.... A Post Office. Doesn't it make you all warm
and fuzzy inside knowing that idiots like this are responsible for the
quality of the work on government buildings?)
Get this: The guy won $6.33 million, and then took the money and
bought a brand new trailer home (the old one was pretty bad... I
remembered seeing him on TV at the time) and a collection of
commemorative Elvis plates. What novel choices for expenditures! I
guess you can't change a real man.
In response to this unprecedented cost of doing business, the toaster
oven manufacturer decided to warn people of the rather limited uses of
their product.
Now, before you get started... Of course, I believe that companies
should be held accountable for the safety of their products, given
reasonable use. I just think that our purposes could be better served
by one warning:
WARNING: Do not use this product if you are a complete idiot.
We all know about the MacDonald's coffee case, where the older woman
put her coffee between her legs and pulled off... squeezed the cup
while driving, thus spilling her coffee in a rather, shall we say,
tender spot. Nowadays every drive-up and every cup of coffee the
Fallen Arches serves up, has a label:
WARNING! COFFEE IS HOT!!!
Look, Gang... Let's nip this one, shall we? Coffee is hot, and it will
burn you if you're not careful. If you don't understand this, then
you've got bigger problems than a $2.7 million settlement can solve,
OK? I suppose you are, however, qualified as a possible winner of the
Darwin Award.
Now, just recently, a case against McDonalds, which was almost
verbatim the same case as was brought here in the states, was laughed
out of a court in London. I've not seen the particulars, myself, but
the reports I'm seeing suggest the judge gave the plaintiff a bit of a
chewing out, and I gather the lawyer is in trouble over it, as well.
One wishes that had happened here in the states when the same case
came up; the case in England would never have been brought.
The ideals we all grew up with would be served best if the next time
someone goes to court to sue both Nabisco and Ford, because neither
company warned him that Jell-O was not a suitable substitute for motor
oil, the judge quickly throws out the case and recommends that the
plaintiff avoid any pyramid investment opportunities, stairs of over
three steps, yard implements, and most kitchen utensils, and many
small farm animals.
A certain amount of common sense is necessary to survive in this
world. Unless of course you have a jury filled with your peers... IE:
Fellow idiots, willing to pay someone else's money to help you along.
Of course, the people might not be idiots, and they're just after the
money, huh? Do you suppose being hit with commercials from personal
injury lawyers might have something to do with their bringing suit in
the first place? In such an event, might it be the people leveling the
suits that are the abusers?
/BitHead
>
>
>
-->
BitHead,
Associate Editor, www.grey-sanctuary.com
Remember, Those who tolerate everything, stand for nothing.
Visit: http://www.grey-sanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/
BitHead
<TequilaMo...@nospamattbi.com> wrote:
>> Negative, serving coffee at already "optimum" drinking temperature means the
>> coffee will be cold before it's finished. Now I don't know about you, but I
>> don't have a microwave in my car.......
>
>Isn't it amazing that Starbucks seems to just limp along as a penny-ante
>business even though they don't serve up 190F coffee? Gosh, what're
>they waiting for?
Good coffee, maybe?
Patriot
> What is it about the truth, that McDonald's admits to in court, that you
> have to snip out without acknowledging it?
No bonehead - I don't care what was admitted in court, the notion that
someone sues a company for spilled hot coffee is ludricrous. Shit happens.
I happen to like my coffee hot as do millions of other Americans. Whether
spilled coffee happened 700 times or 7 times per billion served makes no
difference. The country's "victimization" mentality is counter-productive.
The country's money motivated lawyers are counter-productive. The country's
"lawsuit" happy mentality is counter-productive.
>
> I know... whenever right wingers hear or see anything that doesn't fit
their
> preconceived notions they close their eyes and hollar "liberul" or
> "pinko-commie".
No, I simply have a problem with folks like you defending the victimization
mentality.
Hey, why don't you join the overweight's vs. fast food lawsuit crowd. After
all, they aren't responsible for their hand to mouth disease.
Patriot
"SJR" <san...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9Vj29.18914$Kl6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:oIi29.103049$Og3.25...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> > What is it about the truth, that McDonald's admits to in court, that you
> > have to snip out without acknowledging it?
> >
> > I know... whenever right wingers hear or see anything that doesn't fit
> their
> > preconceived notions they close their eyes and hollar "liberul" or
> > "pinko-commie".
> >
> > Which explains all the "liberul press" that they see.
> >
> > Every truthful article is painful and causes rightie's knee jerk
> reactions.
> >
> Fairly astute definition of the average, far-righter. I'm relieved to
> say that not *all* conservatives and moderates are of this ilk. But
> for the past few years, the type of right-winger you've just described
> has grown to be a real pain in the butt for this country.
>
A real pain to liberalism, glad to be of service.
Patriot
"BitHead" <bit...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3d49dd17...@news-server.rochester.rr.com...
RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
BitHead
wrote:
>> A certain amount of common sense is necessary to survive in this
>> world. Unless of course you have a jury filled with your peers... IE:
>> Fellow idiots, willing to pay someone else's money to help you along.
>>
>> Of course, the people might not be idiots, and they're just after the
>> money, huh? Do you suppose being hit with commercials from personal
>> injury lawyers might have something to do with their bringing suit in
>> the first place? In such an event, might it be the people leveling the
>> suits that are the abusers?
>>
>
>
>RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
>
A follow up to that is posted at
http://www.grey-sanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/suedeux.asp
Lemme know what you think.
Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore
"Santo Romeo" <san...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:q0j29.18823$Kl6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Nope I read count carbs, not fat content. If people purchase according to
how shiny things are then they get what they pay for and end up looking big
round ball.
> Then you're a victim of your own ignorance about the nutritional needs
> of the human body Doctors and dietitians have known for 80 years that
> low-fat and no-fat diets are dangerous. Heart patients are forbidden to
> eat margarine, because it contains partially-saturated fat that's
converted
> to 'hard' cholesterol in the blood stream. Diabetic children can't drink
> Ovaltine or eat "healthy" foods like Raisin Bran because their chief
> ingredient is white sugar. And so on.
That may be all true. I haven't had any margarine since the mid 80's because
of it's health risks. The FDA should be more responsible in getting out EVER
changing dietary theories by issuing monthly new letters to all grocery
stores. No through laws but through education should come change in eatting
habits.