Jeff McCann wrote:
"TDKozan" wrote in message
...

Crap, if you're going to steal someone else's work and present it as
your own, at least steal from someone who has a passing familiarity
with the material they're trying to fob off as fact.


Number one, I didn't "steal someone else's work." Accounts of the trial and
surrounding events are widely available, and are the source for the alleged
facts that were developed at trial. Number two, if you have a problem with
the trial record, try to confine yourself to that, instead of engaging in
smears of those who describe it. Number three, your amateur kitchen lab
experiments notwithstanding, I'm sure the trier of fact had plenty of
opportunity to hear from actual qualified experts on both sides, plus
rebuttals and arguments, and they were able to draw their own conclusions.
In fact, if a juror had played kitchen scientist, it would be juror
misconduct leading to a mistrial. I'm sure McDonald's did all they could to
disprove Liebeck's experts, but apparently could not do so.

Jeff



yawn

You stepped on your crank and got called on it. I don't agree with
much of your opinion but I've never had cause to disrespect you until
today. Personally, I've come to expect plagarism as the norm on the
'net since it's too much work for anyone to get off their fat ass and
actually do something original any more, but when you're caught, have
the grace to admit it.

Your dismissal of my "amateur kitchen lab experiments" is even more
laughable. If you're not going to let a fact get in the way of a good
story, at least label your writing as fantasy.

Facts. . . Couldn't you afford the $20 to follow through on John
Clarke's ANSI cite either? In case your newsfeed missed it, it's
ANSI/AHAM CM-1-2005 and it calls for a temperature of 170-205F.

That's the trouble with facts, they don't allow much wiggle room for
opinion.


TK

--
Cogito ergo bibo