Jeff McCann wrote:

snip

Still with the accusations of plagiarism, eh? I wrote what I posted some
years ago, actually.

Large portions your post was copied verbatum from Lectlaw and/or
Consumer Attorneys of California. Granted, you threw in your opinion
here and there as well but claiming it as your own is a stretch.
Unless you're the one who wrote the piece for CAC?

Oh well, that's not my point and it really doesn't matter.

snip


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.

snip

And there, sir is the point I was hoping to reach and the point, I
feel, of the "Stella Awards". Facts and truth in the physical world
are usually quite simple things; it is only when they run headlong
against a legal system where "truth" and "fact" are whatever a
hand-picked pool of jurors can be convinced of that they become
complex. The point of today's recreational discussion is, court
findings notwithstanding, that McDonald's was conforming to
established standards with their coffee's temperature.

Granted that Ms Liebeck's case is an egregious exception and most
lawsuits do not torture reality to anywhere near this degree, but
you'd be more convincing if you didn't repeat easily debunked claims
about facts and standards, to say nothing of your bit of hyperbole
about the "victim" being "gagged".

Well, I've had my say and it's been fun typing with you. If nothing
else, this conversation demonstrates the reasoning behind the
annecdotes about lawyers being quick to exclude people with experience
in the matter being tried from their juries.

TK

--
Cogito ergo bibo