View Single Post
  #128   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,rec.woodworking,rec.crafts.metalworking
[email protected] krw@at.biz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default An idiot and his table saw... The truth

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:42:26 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/5/12 11:35 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:21:55 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a supposed
example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard the real
story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns.


Bull****.


No, it's not. She required skin grafts in her crotch. This is all
easily obtained information. There's a documentary on netflix that
spells it all out.


"Third degree burns" are very specific. 180F water doesn't do that
sort of damage.

The coffee was FAR hotter
than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a deliberate
ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't even be
sipped for 10-15 minutes.


180F *is* appropriate for coffee. Dunkin' Donuts required that their
coffee be served at 180F +/- 3F, at that time. What she did is not
appropriate for a cup of coffee. BEcause of this nonsense it's
difficult to find a decent cup of coffee anymore.


I'd like to see you try to drink 180 degree water.


DOn't be absurd.

160degree is palatable, but hot. 180 will burn you.


So sip it to cool it. The *fact* is that McD's isn't a sit-down
restaurant. People want to take the coffee with them. McD's *DID
NOT* tell her to hold the hot coffee in her crotch. That was all her
idea.

Go get an accurate thermometer and drink some 180 degree water.
Just please video record it so I can enjoy the results.


Good Lord, you're stupid.

Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC were
a couple of hundred dollars.


Irrrelevant.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.


Irelevant.


If you think those issues are irrelevant to the lawsuit, you are grossly
misinformed.


They are *TOTALLY* irrelevant to the issue. They may have provoked
her to sue but they should be TOTALLY irrelevant to the issue before
the courts, i.e. whether McD's was at fault.

You really should learn something about logic.