On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 22:21:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
(snip)
But Jeff was able to get a fairly comprehensive story into a few paragraphs
in this case.

Fairly biased, too, with a bit of a slant in favor of Stella Liebeck. He also
totally ignored the press conference Liebeck held in which she tried to defend
her behavior when people challenged her for filing the lawsuit in the first
place. Seems she might have been feeling a bit guilty about filing it since she
was raised in a time when people were brought up to take responsibility for
their actions. The only defense she could come up with was the whine "Well I
didn't want to file the lawsuit, but my family made me do it!". If she isn't old
enough to make up her mind by the time she's 79, when will she be old enough?

The arguments against it either have to ignore that fairly
small set of facts, or they have to be based on some overriding attitudes.
Either way, it's easy to expose the whole case, if you make even a small
effort.

I think some of the truth has been exposed fairly well.

What struck me is that I heard this story back when it happened, and the
information I got came from third parties, and through a soda straw of
communication. I wasn't into double-checking facts in those days except for
my professional writing. Those were the impressions I carried with me about
the case in all the years since. Checking facts in those days was too much
work for everyday use. Now it's easy.

I still think Bill Engvall has the right idea. Stella Liebeck should have been
awarded a sign after that trial. She should have been forced to wear it around
everywhere she went so nobody would have given her a cup of hot coffee, a sharp
knife, a sharp pencil, a piece of bubblegum, or anything else with which she
might have been able to injure herself or anyone else.
Oh yeah, her sign would have said "I'm STUPID!".