Google is NOT my friend :-\
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: spam
Next: "Canceled opening the page" (Safari)
From: dorayme on 21 Nov 2009 17:43 In article <C72D6E26.4C2D8%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > In article he76ao$5op$1(a)news.albasani.net, AV3 at arvimide(a)earthlink.net > wrote on 11/20/09 5:47 PM: .... > > > You sprinkle your posts with unsubstantiated claims, and respond with > sarcastic remarks when someone takes issue? > > How about offering some substantiation of your blanket claims regarding the > correct temperature of coffee, or that manufacturers of sharp knives are > immune to prosecution for damage due to careless handling of their products, > or that spilling coffee and cutting oneself are not analogous? Making > unsubstantiated authoritative claims -- as if they were well-established > immutable laws of nature -- certainly doesn't constitute a demonstration of > the "intellectual power of your argument." You seem to have a spring in your step this morning, Nick, did my gift of a sheep arrive so soon? -- dorayme
From: Nick Naym on 21 Nov 2009 17:45 In article doraymeRidThis-75798C.09433522112009(a)news.albasani.net, dorayme at doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/21/09 5:43 PM: > In article <C72D6E26.4C2D8%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > >> In article he76ao$5op$1(a)news.albasani.net, AV3 at arvimide(a)earthlink.net >> wrote on 11/20/09 5:47 PM: > ... > >> >> >> You sprinkle your posts with unsubstantiated claims, and respond with >> sarcastic remarks when someone takes issue? >> >> How about offering some substantiation of your blanket claims regarding the >> correct temperature of coffee, or that manufacturers of sharp knives are >> immune to prosecution for damage due to careless handling of their products, >> or that spilling coffee and cutting oneself are not analogous? Making >> unsubstantiated authoritative claims -- as if they were well-established >> immutable laws of nature -- certainly doesn't constitute a demonstration of >> the "intellectual power of your argument." > > You seem to have a spring in your step this morning, Nick, did my gift > of a sheep arrive so soon? Baaahhhhh. -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
From: Walter Bushell on 28 Nov 2009 20:19 In article <rowbotth-86259F.09422717112009(a)news.newsgroupdirect.com>, Rowbotth <rowbotth(a)telusplanet.net> wrote: > roblem 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.) There still exist coffee makers like that. The automatic kind don't get the water hot enough for proper coffee. -- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
From: TaliesinSoft on 28 Nov 2009 20:31 On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:42:27 -0600, Rowbotth wrote (in article <rowbotth-86259F.09422717112009(a)news.newsgroupdirect.com>): > 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.) What's being referred to here was the "percolator", probably the most common form of coffee maker for quite a few years. There is a good description to be found in Wikipedia. -- James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft(a)me.com
From: John McWilliams on 28 Nov 2009 22:51
dorayme wrote: > In article <191120092204306901%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> the issue is not that it was 700 out of x, but rather it had been >> ongoing and no attempt was made to do anything about it. they just >> didn't care if people were burned. > > How do you know that they did not care? Maybe they thought people should > be careful and some things are those people's responsibility. No one seems to mention the 1300 complaints they got over the same time period complaining of cool, cold or very weak coffee. And, if one needs to be warned that hot coffee is, at best, very uncomfortable when spilled on human flesh, one is dense or just fell off the turnip truck. Not that she deserved to be scalded for her stupidity, but neither did she deserve compensation. Also, didn't she support the coffee cup between her thighs? -- john mcwilliams |