From: Nick Naym on
In article doraymeRidThis-54FE62.13022317112009(a)news.albasani.net, dorayme
at doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/16/09 9:02 PM:

> 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.


Boy, don't I feel better. ;P
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

From: Nick Naym on
In article 161120092104173485%nospam(a)nospam.invalid, nospam at
nospam(a)nospam.invalid wrote on 11/17/09 12:04 AM:

> 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

Balancing a cup of coffee between your legs doesn't constitute
"consumption." If you use a product in a manner that was not intended, the
manufacturer is not (or should not be) responsible for any consequential
injury.


> 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.






--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

From: Nick Naym on
In article 171120090213489304%nospam(a)nospam.invalid, nospam at
nospam(a)nospam.invalid wrote on 11/17/09 5:13 AM:

> 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.
>

I guess that means that Henkels -- because its knives are well-known to be
sharper than those of most other manufacturers of kitchen cutlery -- would
be responsible for me injuring myself because I didn't use one of its
kitchen knives properly.

(I have an idea: Let's launch a class action suit against all of the cell
phone manufacturers on behalf of all of the morons who have had car
accidents and suffered serious injury because they were texting (or even
just talking) while driving!)




> 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.

--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

From: Nick Naym on
In article doraymeRidThis-57411D.18510417112009(a)news.albasani.net, dorayme
at doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/17/09 2:51 AM:

> 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.
>

As much as it may besmirch me ;P , I must totally agree with dorayme.

I have watched over the years as the f**ing lawyers, in greedy, self-serving
pursuit of the corporate deep pockets of manufacturers, have made sure that
usage warnings were affixed to most products. These often took the form of
"Keep out of reach of children" (or some variant of "This is not a toy");
some caveats take the form "Adult supervision required." What's left?
"Restricted to use by adults who have the brains to come in out of the
rain"?



> ...
>
>> 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".

--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

From: dorayme on
In article <C7299F71.4BBB0%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article doraymeRidThis-54FE62.13022317112009(a)news.albasani.net, dorayme
> at doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/16/09 9:02 PM:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Boy, don't I feel better. ;P

That does not mean you are free to go forth among the sheep and
multiply. Take up some useful study.

--
dorayme
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: spam
Next: "Canceled opening the page" (Safari)