Google is NOT my friend :-\
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: spam
Next: "Canceled opening the page" (Safari)
From: dorayme on 16 Nov 2009 20:10 In article <1j9acll.qf6war1ya0qwmN%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote: > Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)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
From: dorayme on 16 Nov 2009 21:02 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. -- dorayme
From: nospam on 17 Nov 2009 00:04 In article <doraymeRidThis-42E120.12100417112009(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)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.
From: nospam on 17 Nov 2009 00:04 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 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.
From: dorayme on 17 Nov 2009 02:51
In article <161120092104123210%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-42E120.12100417112009(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)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 |