Prev: spam
Next: "Canceled opening the page" (Safari)
From: nospam on 17 Nov 2009 05:13
In article <doraymeRidThis-57411D.18510417112009(a)news.albasani.net>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)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.
From: Mark Conrad on 17 Nov 2009 08:42
In article <doraymeRidThis-648FE2.14292916112009(a)news.albasani.net>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)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-
From: Kurt Ullman on 17 Nov 2009 12:23
In article <171120091055449487%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam(a)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).

--
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"

From: Paul Sture on 17 Nov 2009 12:41
In article <rowbotth-86259F.09422717112009(a)news.newsgroupdirect.com>,
Rowbotth <rowbotth(a)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.)

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
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 17 Nov 2009 12:50
BakersT <nomailpls(a)domain.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1j9blb4.1kyo21i1623iavN%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz>,
> jamiekg(a)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.

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.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: spam
Next: "Canceled opening the page" (Safari)