Google is NOT my friend :-\
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: spam
Next: "Canceled opening the page" (Safari)
From: dorayme on 18 Nov 2009 15:35 In article <C729A256.4BBB3%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > In article 171120090213489304%nospam(a)nospam.invalid, nospam at > nospam(a)nospam.invalid wrote on 11/17/09 5:13 AM: > .... > > 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. Good case. (I see you have recovered a little brain power. Must be hard keeping away from those sheep. But well done!) -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 18 Nov 2009 15:41 In article <C729A398.4BBB6%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > 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"? This is the tip of an iceberg. Connected is the ugly plethora of signs that councils and government bodies feel obliged to put up. The biggies, of course, are the prohibition drug laws. Until these are completely repealed, societies can never truly grow up and give harmful practices away by mature good reasoning and self preservation and in a lasting manner. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 18 Nov 2009 15:55 In article <he152s$5pr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, AV3 <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article <dfmanno-3DB274.23345517112009(a)news.albasani.net>, > > "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno(a)mail.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <doraymeRidThis-42E120.12100417112009(a)news.albasani.net>, > >> dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> > >>> McFact No. 1:Â 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! > >> Well, how about this: she suffered third-degree burns and required skin > >> grafts. > > > > And this is relevant how? > > > It shows the relevance of the complaints that the coffee was overheated > at McDonald's, compared with coffee served at other such companies, > which didn't cause such serious burns when spilt in the normal course of > usage. The moral is: don't overheat coffee dispensed to the public and > give consideration to frequent complaints. > This is just jumbled reasoning. It is not true that McD *overheat* their coffee. That may well be a good business move in the context of a nanny state. it dos not make it right or good. It makes it so that many people who like their coffee piping hot can't get it there, it makes it so that when some people who like it at least warmish will get it coldish. > > No, the chip trick is irrelevant, because it is an unlikely, abnormal > behavior. It is also abnormal to put coffee on your lap between your legs. > Spilling coffee is not. Getting serious burns from overheated You seem quite unaware of the presumptions you make. It is *not* overheated. That it is overheated might be the conclusion of an argument but it should not be constantly used in the middle of the thing. > coffee is the liability of the company that continued to overheat its > coffee despite well documented complaints and well documented > comparisons with other such companies. The court took these facts into > account and was sustained in its judgement and conduct by a series of > higher courts, which have the duty to reverse misjudgements of lower > courts. Case closed. Cases get closed when I am through talking. And I have only just begun, Pal! There are well documented complaints about many things. This does not make them an argument that a company ought morally or legally to take them into account. It might be a good commercial argument though. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 18 Nov 2009 20:01 In article <he1tp4$8dl$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Coffee > is supposed to be sold at a drinkable temperature You just make things up as they suit you. It is not *supposed* to be this at all for reasons I have given. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 18 Nov 2009 21:54
In article <1j9fptk.26py3r1g9z0jpN%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz>, jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > I've never made a coffee that wasn't hot enough to cause serious burns > if spilt all over myself. I think there was a character in The Life & Times of Judge Roy Bean (Bad Bob?) who grabbed a coffee jug off the fire and downed the boiling contents in one go. That is the sort of character that needs to be provided for at McD and any society that does not so provide is a lily livered, no-good, cowardly, infantile.... -- dorayme |