Jeff McCann wrote:


"TDKozan" wrote in message
...
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.

Gee, I'm crushed.

I recognize your nom' de infobahn from posts on M.S., But I don't recall
anything in particular about any of your posts. So I don't really have a
clue who you are, what you think, or what your opinions are, and I have no
idea whether your opinion of me is something that should matter to me one
whit, or not. But, hey, thanks for sharing, and bonus points for
expressing your opinion like an adult.

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.

Still with the accusations of plagiarism, eh? I wrote what I posted some
years ago, actually. No, I wasn't council for Liebeck or McDonald's, nor
was I at the trial. I alsodidn't read the actual trial transcripts. So
what I wrote was probably gleaned from some "insider" legal references and
maybe some popular press accounts. I no longer recall specifically. In
any case, it was something I wrote to use in class on a lesson in critical
analysis of persuasive writing. Ergo, I was less interested in the facts
and minutiae of the trial than in using it as a legal case that most
everyone had heard about and formed an opinion on. I may have gotten bad
information, but that is not plagiarism. For example, I've learned that
putting "fluffy" the cat in the microwave to dry it off after a bath will
shortly kill the cat. But writing that that this is so doesn't constitute
plagiarism merely because I rely on what others have written on the
subject instead of conducting an experiment using my own cat and microwave
oven.

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.

I'd prefer to rely on the facts produced in open court, subject to
vigorous cross-examination, by qualified experts, rather than you in your
kitchen
with your meat thermometer. Sorry. I've learned that the "facts" can be
complex things, especially where humans are involved. The chain of
causation in the McDonald's case is likely rather complex. It isn't just
a
matter of sticking a thermometer in a pot of coffee. There's a good
reason
why jurors are instructed not to do this sort of thing. It is highly
likely
to be overly simplistic, absurdly reductionist and just plain wrong. Or
did you really expect that all the testimony from qualified experts with
years of learning and experience who doubtless studied and tested every
aspect of the matter should be disregarded because of whatever you think
you learned
in your kitchen? That seems like the arrogance of ignorance to me.

Moreover, whatever the facts are regarding the specific temperature of
coffee, that was only part of the trial. It was apparently a key part,
but
there were many other factors involved, surely. Maybe my sources were
wrong
about the temperature of the coffee. Personally, I don't know or really
care, because the one inescapable fact is McDonald's was judged negligent
in
it's conduct and therefore civilly liable. Additionally, I have seen no
credible accounts of the trial that demonstrate that Liebeck's claims were
"frivolous," which is, after all, what all the fuss is about. Even if she
had lost, that would not have been any evidence that her claim was
frivolous. We could pick apart this specific detail or that particular
allegation all day. But that ignores the heart of the matter. The
McDonald's case is the best known and most often cited example of a
"frivolous lawsuit," yet I have seen nothing thus far to support that
claim.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between a lawsuit that is
"frivolous" and therefore facially without any merit and improper to even
initiate, and one where the greater weight of credible evidence simply
lies on the other side, meaning that the sued party ought to prevail at
trial. Liebeck won at trial, thus her claims obviously had some merit, so
how did
this case become the poster child for "frivolous lawsuits"? I addressed
that central question in the last paragraph of my original post, and that
is the real issue here, not the reading on your meat thermometer, which
for all I know may be spot on.

It was "frivolous" for the simple reason that McD was serving coffee at the
temperatures recommended by coffee experts and included in international
standards and was found to have done wrong for following those standards
primarily on the basis of a comparison with other sellers of coffee who
were _not_ in compliance with those standards.

If you think it had merit you're entitled to your opinion, but please
forgive me if I (a) disagree with you and (b) believe that you and people
like you are strong arguments for tort reform. And yes, it will have a
"chilling effect". It's _supposed_ to do that.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)