On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:15:58 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/17/2014 2:34 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:53:48 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/17/2014 9:37 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:22:15 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/16/2014 1:39 PM, dadiOH wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
message
wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:58:35 -0500, Swingman
wrote:
Not to mention you're on the wrong side of the
historical, already accomplished, facts of the issue.

Yup, and so am I apparently. I guess the biggest fault
here wasn't that McDonalds was serving hot coffee, but
the fact that they didn't accede to here original
claims for compensation. Guess they were afraid of the torrent of new
claims
that would follow. So, either way, they were going to
have to pay. That means, that you're right, there
coffee was too hot. Not INHO that it was undrinkable,
but that it's hotness left them open for being sued.

Or that a law-suit-i'm-not-responsible society was
gaining ground in America.

Let me see...

1. McDonalds wants their coffee to be really, REALLY hot. Undrinkably hot.

Define undrinkably hot. Would you serve a drink to a five year old at
the same temperature that you might drink it?


2. They serve it in a squishy styrofoam cup.

3. They put a lid on that cup (maybe just for take out, don't know, I don't
go to McDonalds)

4. In order to drink the undrinkably hot coffee, one has to remove the top.
Which is what she was trying to do.

Do you often place hot liquids served in squishy styrofoam cup between
your legs to open them?




McDonalds knows all about #1 - #3 or - if they don't - they are incredibly
stupid. Not to hard to foretell what happened to her. It seems to me that
McD just doesn't give a rat's ass which is one reason I don't go there (the
main reason is that their burgers suck, ditto BurgerKing).

This is not directed at you. I avoid both establishment too, not
because of the temperature of their products but because the products
them selves long term are more harmful than any thing else.


Most wood working tool manufacturers turned down the opportunity to sell
a safer saw and continue to sell saws that are more dangerous to operate
than other brands. Do they not give a rat's ass about our safety should
we attempt to use them in an unsafe manner? ;~)

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.

So does that mean that we don't want the government to do something to
protect us to begin with, SawStop, and that we would rather sue later if
we are harmed doing something that we should not have been doing in the
first place, opening hot coffee between our legs?

I would rather take care of myself rather than some bureaucrat in
Washington tell me how to live. Unless the widget was being used as
designed and didn't malfunction (particularly in a previously known
manner), I should be on my own, thank you.



Agreed, but I was making the comparison to many here thinking that MD
should be punished for those not wanting to take responsibility for
opening the coffee in an unsafe manner.

But you also brought up SawStop. ;-)


Yeah, it was entered more to prove an emotional response that affects
decision making.

We think that the lady should have been protected from McDonald's, which
few like, and a few dislike like SawStop which is providing a product
that does protects us.

I don't "like" either. I like choice and am actually capable of
figuring out for myself that coffee is hot (or that my table saw can
bite).

I suspect that most would believe that the lady got what she deserved
had she first gone to congress to get mandated a low temperature
regulators on all coffee makers before she was burned.

Not sure I follow that. She deserved? Burns or a megabuck? Even if
she had warned them in a certified letter that coffee was hot, how
would that have changed anything? There is a difference between
"deserved" and "is responsible for".

Both the lady being burned with the McDonald's coffee and the guy
cutting his digit off using a Ryobi saw were more at fault than the
provider of the instrument of mass destruction. Yet there seems to be
almost equal opposition against McDonalds and the saw operator.

I think you're 100% right. Both are responsible for damaging
themselves. IMO, no one else is even 1% culpable. ...besides,
*maybe* her son.

Emotion is the guiding factor.

Of course but I suppose it's emotional to reject all unnecessary
government intervention in my life, too. I rather like liberty but
also understand you can't have liberty without at least as much
responsibility.