Google is NOT my friend :-\
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: spam
Next: "Canceled opening the page" (Safari)
From: nospam on 19 Nov 2009 21:07 In article <doraymeRidThis-EFFC5A.12042720112009(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)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.
From: dorayme on 19 Nov 2009 21:27 In article <191120092107160900%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-EFFC5A.12042720112009(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)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
From: dorayme on 19 Nov 2009 21:31 In article <191120092107130699%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-ACCD7A.12121220112009(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)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? C'mon now, nospam, are you serious? Whenever I appear for parole or for bail, I lie through my teeth to make a good impression. Companies and politicians regularly and insincerely and belatedly apologise for stuff if they think it will limit the damages. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 19 Nov 2009 21:32 In article <191120092107150808%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-60626C.12190720112009(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)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. They can't the way you have been arguing unless they speed control their products. -- dorayme
From: nospam on 19 Nov 2009 22:04
In article <doraymeRidThis-4BB9E3.13314720112009(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > but even if they were lying, why would they say they were doing > > something wrong if they weren't? > > C'mon now, nospam, are you serious? Whenever I appear for parole or for > bail, I lie through my teeth to make a good impression. Companies and > politicians regularly and insincerely and belatedly apologise for stuff > if they think it will limit the damages. but in this case, it didn't limit their damages at all, it increased it! there's not much of a motivation to lie to make it worse. |