On 5/17/2014 12:06 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 9:22 AM, Leon wrote:

There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that
the temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.

??

Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.

No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
anticipated or ever even suggested.

Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider
is a proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to
the reality of the situation.

When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you
change those questionable business practices.

As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

End of story...

Not so much the end of the story Karl. By your own admission, you prefer
your coffee at exactly the same temperature that McD served their coffee at.
It would be safe to assume that a large majority of America does so,
likewise - or else they would have served at a temperature more in keeping
with American tastes. You can't say on one hand that said temperature is
extreme while on the other hand you say that you prefer your coffee at
exactly that temperature; I think you are seriously contradicting your own
position on this matter.

Charitably speaking, is possible that you interposed what you thought
onto what I actually said, and in the context I said it in?

In short, be careful what you think is "safe to assume".

Here's a simplified version to clear up your misunderstanding:

I DO take exception to the ignorant MYTH fostered by the media
surrounding the incident; as well as the complete disregard by the
media, and the ignorant public, for the actual facts of the case.

EVERYTHING I have stated thus far is in reference to, and based on, said
actual FACTS, and even quoted as same as a matter of record.

Including the FACT that I prefer my coffee at a higher temperature ...
which, offered as an aside, has the impact of a fart in a hurricane on
the reality of the final outcome of the case.

Provably injurious is a fairly meaningless term. It seems to work when we
want to present a statement, but civil cases do no prove anything. They
result more in the emotional appeal to the jury - and that is no proof of
anything. Your very own contradictions in this thread would disquqlify
either postion you have taken - just based on the fact that you contradict
yourself. To whit... you want coffee at 180 degrees but you have gone on
record as stating the this very temperature is beyond the level at which
people can safely consume it.

Again, it makes no difference what I, or you, like or feel:

When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you
change those questionable business practices.

As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

Once again ... end of story. Fait accompli. What you feel, or how hot I
like my coffee, has no bearing on the reality of the outcome.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)