On 4 Jan 2006 09:06:33 -0800, "rigger" wrote:

For the record please explain how YOUR law degree and YOUR years of
trial experience are superior when compared to the paltry Yale and
Harvard degrees and combined years of experience in restaurant related
law of the defence team.

apparently, 17 years in the coffee business trumps yale and harvard
when it comes to "industry standards" regarding coffee brewing.

the temperature issue has NEVER been successfully used by a plaintiff
in a burn/spill suit since the mcd's case, because the coffee industry
realized that the mcd's defense screwed up on that issue and stepped
forward to offer up expert testimony on coffee issues. the author of
"the coffee brewing handbook" and executive director of the specialty
coffee association of america, ted lingle, has appeared as an expert
witness in subsequent cases, specifically addressing the chemical
justifications for the industry standard brew temperature of 195-205F
as well as the industry standard hold temp of approximately 185F (i
don't have the handbook handy, so i'm not going to quote an exact
number), and the relationship between brew, hold, and serve temp, as
well as providing information regarding consumer preferences for HOT
coffee. in every case where ted has testified, the erroneous
information from liebeck, routinely reintroduced by subsequent
plaintiffs, has been successfully rebutted. this thread is just
another instance of the misinformation entered into the record at the
liebeck trial has been construed as "accurate" just because it's in
the record.

if you'd like more information, i suggest you contact the SCAA:
www.scaa.org