Did you ever cook a bag of popcorn in the microwave too long? HOLY
SMOKE! I saw smoke pouring out of the microwave filling up the house
with a toxic burning smoke. That's dangerous stuff. Funny thing the
smoke alarm did NOT go off. It does go off if you burn a piece of toast
in the toaster with hardly any smoke at all. Must be a different kind of
smoke.


--
If I wasn't me I wouldn't like me either.

LSMFT wrote:
Did you ever cook a bag of popcorn in the microwave too long? HOLY
SMOKE! I saw smoke pouring out of the microwave filling up the house
with a toxic burning smoke. That's dangerous stuff. Funny thing the
smoke alarm did NOT go off. It does go off if you burn a piece of toast
in the toaster with hardly any smoke at all. Must be a different kind of
smoke.

No more popcorn for you until after you've had your morning coffee!

On 2010-05-08, LSMFT wrote:
Did you ever cook a bag of popcorn in the microwave too long? HOLY
SMOKE! I saw smoke pouring out of the microwave filling up the house
with a toxic burning smoke. That's dangerous stuff.

They've discovered the chemical, diacetyl, used in the oil/butter stuff
is dangerous to one's health. Popcorn plants had to be modified to
protect workers.

http://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib092107.html

Burning it in the microwave should be a crime. I've seen the stink
spread thoughout a 10,000 sq ft building in minutes after being picked
up by the ventilation system. Takes all day to get rid of.

It's bad mojo all around, but we're too lazy to give up the
convenience and go back to air poppers and popping in oil.

nb

On 5/8/2010 11:04 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-05-08, wrote:
Did you ever cook a bag of popcorn in the microwave too long? HOLY
SMOKE! I saw smoke pouring out of the microwave filling up the house
with a toxic burning smoke. That's dangerous stuff.

They've discovered the chemical, diacetyl, used in the oil/butter stuff
is dangerous to one's health. Popcorn plants had to be modified to
protect workers.

http://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib092107.html

Burning it in the microwave should be a crime. I've seen the stink
spread thoughout a 10,000 sq ft building in minutes after being picked
up by the ventilation system. Takes all day to get rid of.

It's bad mojo all around, but we're too lazy to give up the
convenience and go back to air poppers and popping in oil.

nb

Nothing to do with lazy, folks are told what to buy but we just have to
use common sense instead. I bought an inexpensive microwave popper bowl
probably five years ago. You simply add some popcorn, close the door and
press start. No more complicated than unwrapping that industrial crap
and three minutes later you have a bowl of popcorn without a chemical
factory explosion smell permeating the house (and less expensive too).

"notbob" wrote in message
...

They've discovered the chemical, diacetyl, used in the oil/butter stuff
is dangerous to one's health. Popcorn plants had to be modified to
protect workers.

There's also Perfluorooctanoic acid, which transfers to the oil when the bag
gets hot enough, and is linked to thyroid disease, birth defects, cancer
etc.

It only takes a few minutes to make a big bowl of popcorn with our hot-air
popper, and the popcorn tastes better than anything possible out of a
microwave, seasoned to our taste too rather than with enough salt to pucker
the lips. Tasty and healthy vs. tastes-like-crap and unhealthy--gee, tough
choice.

On May 8, 9:20*am, LSMFT wrote:
Did you ever cook a bag of popcorn in the microwave too long? HOLY
SMOKE! *I saw smoke pouring out of the microwave filling up the house
with a toxic burning smoke. That's dangerous stuff. Funny thing the
smoke alarm did NOT go off. It does go off if you burn a piece of toast
in the toaster with hardly any smoke at all. Must be a different kind of
smoke.

--
If I wasn't me I wouldn't like me either.

Its not smoke from burning, its a chemical smoke, do your lungs give
you trouble? Do a Google for Popcorn Lung, and Health Dangers of
Microwave Popcorn , I bet you just nuked your last bag of your smoky
stuff, get an air popper or a brand thats safe.

ransley wrote:
On May 8, 9:20 am, wrote:
Did you ever cook a bag of popcorn in the microwave too long? HOLY
SMOKE! I saw smoke pouring out of the microwave filling up the house
with a toxic burning smoke. That's dangerous stuff. Funny thing the
smoke alarm did NOT go off. It does go off if you burn a piece of toast
in the toaster with hardly any smoke at all. Must be a different kind of
smoke.

--
If I wasn't me I wouldn't like me either.

Its not smoke from burning, its a chemical smoke, do your lungs give
you trouble? Do a Google for Popcorn Lung, and Health Dangers of
Microwave Popcorn , I bet you just nuked your last bag of your smoky
stuff, get an air popper or a brand thats safe.

It was a gagging smoke, I couldn't not breath a bit of it, it choked me.
It also left yellow stains in the microwave that won't wash off even
with bleach. It bonded with the plastic. I have an idea this toxic
product should be banned. It was only a minute over the 2 minute normal
pop time. I'm all done with this crap. If I die, I'll sue them.


--
LSMFT

If I wasn't me I wouldn't like me either..........

LSMFT wrote:
ransley wrote:
On May 8, 9:20 am, wrote:
Did you ever cook a bag of popcorn in the microwave too long? HOLY
SMOKE! I saw smoke pouring out of the microwave filling up the house
with a toxic burning smoke. That's dangerous stuff. Funny thing the
smoke alarm did NOT go off. It does go off if you burn a piece of toast
in the toaster with hardly any smoke at all. Must be a different kind of
smoke.

--
If I wasn't me I wouldn't like me either.

Its not smoke from burning, its a chemical smoke, do your lungs give
you trouble? Do a Google for Popcorn Lung, and Health Dangers of
Microwave Popcorn , I bet you just nuked your last bag of your smoky
stuff, get an air popper or a brand thats safe.

It was a gagging smoke, I couldn't not breath a bit of it, it choked me.
It also left yellow stains in the microwave that won't wash off even
with bleach. It bonded with the plastic. I have an idea this toxic
product should be banned. It was only a minute over the 2 minute normal
pop time. I'm all done with this crap. If I die, I'll sue them.


Sounds like the ersatz 'butter' they dope the micro popcorn with, to get
it all to pop quickly and minimize the unpopped kernals. You ever look
at the jug of Yellow Stuff they use in a commercial popcorn machine? It
has nothing to do with butter. Or maybe it was the stuff they coat the
inside bottom of the bag with, so it acts like the bottom of a popcorn
popper to get the kernals hot quicker.

I've given up on popcorn. It ain't worth the trouble or the expense. Dry
popcorn is like eating styrofoam, and at a movie theater, they always
salt the hell out of it. I have an air popper here somewhere- haven't
used it in twenty years. I live alone, and popcorn should be a shared
experience. And I don't keep butter- fake or real- in the house, since I
can't use it up before it goes bad, and I don't need the calories.

--
aem sends...

On May 8, 10:20*am, LSMFT wrote:
Did you ever cook a bag of popcorn in the microwave too long? HOLY
SMOKE! *I saw smoke pouring out of the microwave filling up the house
with a toxic burning smoke. That's dangerous stuff. Funny thing the
smoke alarm did NOT go off. It does go off if you burn a piece of toast
in the toaster with hardly any smoke at all. Must be a different kind of
smoke.

I would like to try popping regular popcorn in a paper bag. I am told
that it does really well and 0 cleanup. I just can never seem to find
a paper bag when I want popcorn.

On Sat, 08 May 2010 18:49:04 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

LSMFT wrote:
ransley wrote:
On May 8, 9:20 am, wrote:
Did you ever cook a bag of popcorn in the microwave too long? HOLY
SMOKE! I saw smoke pouring out of the microwave filling up the house
with a toxic burning smoke. That's dangerous stuff. Funny thing the
smoke alarm did NOT go off. It does go off if you burn a piece of toast
in the toaster with hardly any smoke at all. Must be a different kind of
smoke.

--
If I wasn't me I wouldn't like me either.

Its not smoke from burning, its a chemical smoke, do your lungs give
you trouble? Do a Google for Popcorn Lung, and Health Dangers of
Microwave Popcorn , I bet you just nuked your last bag of your smoky
stuff, get an air popper or a brand thats safe.

It was a gagging smoke, I couldn't not breath a bit of it, it choked me.
It also left yellow stains in the microwave that won't wash off even
with bleach. It bonded with the plastic. I have an idea this toxic
product should be banned. It was only a minute over the 2 minute normal
pop time. I'm all done with this crap. If I die, I'll sue them.


Sounds like the ersatz 'butter' they dope the micro popcorn with, to get
it all to pop quickly and minimize the unpopped kernals. You ever look
at the jug of Yellow Stuff they use in a commercial popcorn machine? It
has nothing to do with butter. Or maybe it was the stuff they coat the
inside bottom of the bag with, so it acts like the bottom of a popcorn
popper to get the kernals hot quicker.

I've given up on popcorn. It ain't worth the trouble or the expense. Dry
popcorn is like eating styrofoam, and at a movie theater, they always
salt the hell out of it. I have an air popper here somewhere- haven't
used it in twenty years. I live alone, and popcorn should be a shared
experience. And I don't keep butter- fake or real- in the house, since I
can't use it up before it goes bad, and I don't need the calories.

Popcorn at the movie theater? You must be one of those rich guys Obama is
always talking about.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(snip)
Popcorn at the movie theater? You must be one of those rich guys Obama is
always talking about.

I go to maybe 2-3 movies a year, almost always a cheap matinee. It is
not a big expense for me. I usually sneak in a bag of M&Ms or something.
If I was buying for a carload of bottomless-pit rug-rats, 2-3 times a
month, I would indeed be crying. Why does the theater industry think
VHS/DVD movies sucked up so much of their business, even with an
inferior viewing experience? It wasn't just the expensive tickets to get
in- it was the total cost of the time in the building.

--
aem sends...

On Sat, 08 May 2010 19:16:50 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

wrote:
(snip)
Popcorn at the movie theater? You must be one of those rich guys Obama is
always talking about.

I go to maybe 2-3 movies a year, almost always a cheap matinee. It is
not a big expense for me. I usually sneak in a bag of M&Ms or something.
If I was buying for a carload of bottomless-pit rug-rats, 2-3 times a
month, I would indeed be crying. Why does the theater industry think
VHS/DVD movies sucked up so much of their business, even with an
inferior viewing experience? It wasn't just the expensive tickets to get
in- it was the total cost of the time in the building.

I was referring to the cost of the popcorn. Movies are cheap, their food is
anything but. Nice margin; no cost and outrageous price.

On 5/8/2010 7:16 PM, aemeijers wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(snip)
Popcorn at the movie theater? You must be one of those rich guys Obama is
always talking about.

I go to maybe 2-3 movies a year, almost always a cheap matinee. It is
not a big expense for me. I usually sneak in a bag of M&Ms or something.
If I was buying for a carload of bottomless-pit rug-rats, 2-3 times a
month, I would indeed be crying. Why does the theater industry think
VHS/DVD movies sucked up so much of their business, even with an
inferior viewing experience? It wasn't just the expensive tickets to get
in- it was the total cost of the time in the building.


You are blaming the wrong folks. If it wasn't for the concession sales
they wouldn't be able to keep the lights on. The lions share by far of
your ticket price goes to the movie studios.

George wrote:
On 5/8/2010 7:16 PM, aemeijers wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(snip)
Popcorn at the movie theater? You must be one of those rich guys
Obama is
always talking about.

I go to maybe 2-3 movies a year, almost always a cheap matinee. It is
not a big expense for me. I usually sneak in a bag of M&Ms or something.
If I was buying for a carload of bottomless-pit rug-rats, 2-3 times a
month, I would indeed be crying. Why does the theater industry think
VHS/DVD movies sucked up so much of their business, even with an
inferior viewing experience? It wasn't just the expensive tickets to get
in- it was the total cost of the time in the building.


You are blaming the wrong folks. If it wasn't for the concession sales
they wouldn't be able to keep the lights on. The lions share by far of
your ticket price goes to the movie studios.

Yeah, I know, but from the viewpoint of the consumer, they are the same
thing, just as the car dealer and the car company are the same thing.
They both suffer for either's sins. The theater owners (and aren't a lot
of the big chains owned by the same parent companies as the studios?)
need to start throwing their weight around. Rentals/DVD sales/Cable TV
can't pay the freight for 'real' new movies- the studios NEED the
theaters, to build buzz if nothing else. If they don't get their act
together and start cooperating, it will become like pro sports, which
only rich people can now afford to attend in person. Perhaps both need
the same cure- quit paying the 'talent' so damn much, and start using
cheap unknowns if needed, to get the ticket prices down. You can only
squeeze so many golden eggs out of the goose. I won't pay over 10 bucks
to see a movie. I'll wait six months and rent it, instead.

--
aem sends...

On May 8, 10:20*am, LSMFT wrote:
Did you ever cook a bag of popcorn in the microwave too long? HOLY
SMOKE! *I saw smoke pouring out of the microwave filling up the house
with a toxic burning smoke. That's dangerous stuff. Funny thing the
smoke alarm did NOT go off. It does go off if you burn a piece of toast
in the toaster with hardly any smoke at all. Must be a different kind of
smoke.

--
If I wasn't me I wouldn't like me either.

A guy at work set the timer for 30 min instead of 3 and walked out the
break room. The popcorn caught on fire and had to be put out with a
fire extinguisher, Unfortunately the only extinguisher was a huge dry
chemical job and the guy using it emptied the whole thing. WHAT A
MESS.!!!!

On Sat, 08 May 2010 20:04:11 -0400, George wrote:

On 5/8/2010 7:16 PM, aemeijers wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(snip)
Popcorn at the movie theater? You must be one of those rich guys Obama is
always talking about.

I go to maybe 2-3 movies a year, almost always a cheap matinee. It is
not a big expense for me. I usually sneak in a bag of M&Ms or something.
If I was buying for a carload of bottomless-pit rug-rats, 2-3 times a
month, I would indeed be crying. Why does the theater industry think
VHS/DVD movies sucked up so much of their business, even with an
inferior viewing experience? It wasn't just the expensive tickets to get
in- it was the total cost of the time in the building.


You are blaming the wrong folks. If it wasn't for the concession sales
they wouldn't be able to keep the lights on. The lions share by far of
your ticket price goes to the movie studios.

Sure, but perhaps the studios need a message. There is only one way for the
consumer to send it.

On May 8, 6:27*pm, LSMFT wrote:
ransley wrote:
On May 8, 9:20 am, *wrote:
Did you ever cook a bag of popcorn in the microwave too long? HOLY
SMOKE! *I saw smoke pouring out of the microwave filling up the house
with a toxic burning smoke. That's dangerous stuff. Funny thing the
smoke alarm did NOT go off. It does go off if you burn a piece of toast
in the toaster with hardly any smoke at all. Must be a different kind of
smoke.

--
If I wasn't me I wouldn't like me either.

Its not smoke from burning, its a chemical smoke, do your lungs give
you trouble? *Do a Google for Popcorn Lung, *and Health Dangers of
Microwave Popcorn *, I bet you just nuked your last bag of your smoky
stuff, get an air popper or a brand thats safe.

It was a gagging smoke, I couldn't not breath a bit of it, it choked me.
It also left yellow stains in the microwave that won't wash off even
with bleach. It bonded with the plastic. I have an idea this toxic
product should be banned. It was only a minute over the 2 minute normal
pop time. I'm all done with this crap. If I die, I'll sue them.

--
LSMFT

If I wasn't me I wouldn't like me either..........


LOL... So you are blaming the manufacturer of a food product because
of the mess that resulted when you overcooked the product by 50% of
its intended cooking time and EPICALLY FAILED to follow the directions
for preparing the product found on the box label and package
itself ???

NOWHERE will you find a package of microwave popcorn that says:
"walk away and leave it cooking unattended"... Since the size and
power level of microwaves in which the product will be prepared vary
widely and that 2 minute RECOMMENDED cook time is based on
the use of an 1,100 watt microwave oven at sea level was used to
determine what an "average" cooking time should be...

You also should never use the "popcorn" button on your microwave
to prepare microwave popcorn...

Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

Be more careful next time and monitor what you are cooking in
your microwave oven...

Leaving food cooking unattended (which means not being there
right near the food in question to monitor the cooking process)
is only ASKING for a kitchen fire...

~~ Evan

On May 8, 8:46*pm, aemeijers wrote:

Yeah, I know, but from the viewpoint of the consumer, they are the same
thing, just as the car dealer and the car company are the same thing.
They both suffer for either's sins. The theater owners (and aren't a lot
of the big chains owned by the same parent companies as the studios?)
need to start throwing their weight around. Rentals/DVD sales/Cable TV
can't pay the freight for 'real' new movies- the studios NEED the
theaters, to build buzz if nothing else. If they don't get their act
together and start cooperating, it will become like pro sports, which
only rich people can now afford to attend in person. Perhaps both need
the same cure- quit paying the 'talent' so damn much, and start using
cheap unknowns if needed, to get the ticket prices down. You can only
squeeze so many golden eggs out of the goose. I won't pay over 10 bucks
to see a movie. I'll wait six months and rent it, instead.

--
aem sends...


In the case of a car dealer and car manufacturer they are the same...

The dealership is a FRONT for the car manufacturer, can only sell
the vehicles made by that particular car manufacturer on that one
lot... The dealerships often use manufacturer's financing to borrow
money to be able to purchase the cars that they sell on their lot...

So without the continued support and financial arrangement between
car manufacturer and car dealership the dealerships would cease to
exist if they were ever "dropped" by the car manufacturer...

Look at how many dealerships closed their doors for good when
the GM and Chrysler "downsized" and reorganized... There was
no market from any other car manufacturer at the time for those
dropped dealerships so they are either now out of business or
have downgraded their market share to exclusively selling used
vehicles with no restrictions unlike what they were bound by under
the terms of their contract with the car manufacturer...

A movie theater is entirely different...

An individual theater owner or a large chain decided which titles
they want to show based on the costs of obtaining the films to
show AND the contractual restrictions the studio wishes to
impose on the theater...

How many car dealers have you ever seen NOT stocking or
selling a specific model car of the manufacturer they are in
business with...

Showing movies in a theater is a lot like you as a consumer
deciding to rent a movie at blockbuster only on a scale where
the selections will either result in million dollar profits at all
levels OR be a huge flop...

~~ Evan

Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.

On May 11, 2:15*pm, "h" wrote:
Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.


Yes... That was because there was no valid reason for McDonald's
to serve the coffee that hot (literally just a few degrees shy of
212ºF
which is BOILING water) out of cups which could result in a spill
even when they were used and handled properly... Poor choices
made by McDonald's to keep the coffee VERY hot to reduce waste
and save a few bucks resulted in providing customers with a very
hazardous beverage until it cooled down quite a bit... That is why
they ended up paying damages in that famous case...

If you actually READ deeper about that McDonald's case beyond what
made it into the poorly written news articles which only focused on
her injuries AND the fact that she won, you would learn that the
amount
awarded to her by the jury was in fact reduced by a percentage to
reflect
her poorly made decision to put the coffee cup between her legs rather
than take an extra second to place them in one of the cup holders in
the car...

The McDonald's hot coffee case is a poor comparison to someone
failing to read and understand the cooking instructions on a package
of microwave popcorn... Said popcorn is not dangerous and doesn't
create smoke if you follow the directions and don't burn it by
allowing
it to cook in the microwave 50% longer than the directions indicate...

~~ Evan

"Evan" wrote in message
...
On May 11, 2:15 pm, "h" wrote:
Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing
the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.


Yes... That was because there was no valid reason for McDonald's
to serve the coffee that hot (literally just a few degrees shy of
212ºF
which is BOILING water) out of cups which could result in a spill
even when they were used and handled properly... Poor choices
made by McDonald's to keep the coffee VERY hot to reduce waste
and save a few bucks resulted in providing customers with a very
hazardous beverage until it cooled down quite a bit... That is why
they ended up paying damages in that famous case.

Bull****. She chose to pull off the cap of BOILING (I always assume it is)
coffee, IN HER CAR, while the cup was BETWEEN HER LEGS. Moron. All on her.
Idiot. I still don't see how that case could make. ANYONE who doesn't assume
that HOT coffee could SEAR THE SKIN FROM HIS/HER BONES is an utter moron.

On Tue, 11 May 2010 17:08:10 -0400, "h"
wrote:


"Evan" wrote in message
...
On May 11, 2:15 pm, "h" wrote:
Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing
the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.


Yes... That was because there was no valid reason for McDonald's
to serve the coffee that hot (literally just a few degrees shy of
212ºF
which is BOILING water) out of cups which could result in a spill
even when they were used and handled properly... Poor choices
made by McDonald's to keep the coffee VERY hot to reduce waste
and save a few bucks resulted in providing customers with a very
hazardous beverage until it cooled down quite a bit... That is why
they ended up paying damages in that famous case.

Bull****. She chose to pull off the cap of BOILING (I always assume it is)
coffee, IN HER CAR, while the cup was BETWEEN HER LEGS. Moron. All on her.
Idiot. I still don't see how that case could make. ANYONE who doesn't assume
that HOT coffee could SEAR THE SKIN FROM HIS/HER BONES is an utter moron.


Bones don't have skin, right?

Bring me clarity.

On Tue, 11 May 2010 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On May 11, 2:15*pm, "h" wrote:
Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.


Yes... That was because there was no valid reason for McDonald's
to serve the coffee that hot (literally just a few degrees shy of
212ºF
which is BOILING water) out of cups which could result in a spill
even when they were used and handled properly... Poor choices
made by McDonald's to keep the coffee VERY hot to reduce waste
and save a few bucks resulted in providing customers with a very
hazardous beverage until it cooled down quite a bit... That is why
they ended up paying damages in that famous case...

Bull****. The coffee was a (then) standard 180F.

If you actually READ deeper about that McDonald's case beyond what
made it into the poorly written news articles which only focused on
her injuries AND the fact that she won, you would learn that the
amount
awarded to her by the jury was in fact reduced by a percentage to
reflect
her poorly made decision to put the coffee cup between her legs rather
than take an extra second to place them in one of the cup holders in
the car...

She should have gotten ZERO, and been forced to pay McD's costs.

The McDonald's hot coffee case is a poor comparison to someone
failing to read and understand the cooking instructions on a package
of microwave popcorn... Said popcorn is not dangerous and doesn't
create smoke if you follow the directions and don't burn it by
allowing
it to cook in the microwave 50% longer than the directions indicate...

In article ,
"h" wrote:

Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.

Yep. And her first request, which McD refused, was to cover her direct
medical expenses for THIRD DEGREE burns. She tried to let them off easy;
they declined.

In article , " wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On May 11, 2:15*pm, "h" wrote:
Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.


Yes... That was because there was no valid reason for McDonald's
to serve the coffee that hot (literally just a few degrees shy of
212ºF
which is BOILING water) out of cups which could result in a spill
even when they were used and handled properly... Poor choices
made by McDonald's to keep the coffee VERY hot to reduce waste
and save a few bucks resulted in providing customers with a very
hazardous beverage until it cooled down quite a bit... That is why
they ended up paying damages in that famous case...

Bull****. The coffee was a (then) standard 180F.

Before calling "bull****" make sure you have the facts straight. You don't.

The coffee was 185, not 180. 180 was not "standard". And 180 is more than hot
enough to cause very serious burns.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"h" wrote:

Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.

She was not driving. She was a passenger. And the car was parked.

Yep. And her first request, which McD refused, was to cover her direct
medical expenses for THIRD DEGREE burns. She tried to let them off easy;
they declined.

On Wed, 12 May 2010 02:21:13 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , " wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On May 11, 2:15*pm, "h" wrote:
Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.


Yes... That was because there was no valid reason for McDonald's
to serve the coffee that hot (literally just a few degrees shy of
212ºF
which is BOILING water) out of cups which could result in a spill
even when they were used and handled properly... Poor choices
made by McDonald's to keep the coffee VERY hot to reduce waste
and save a few bucks resulted in providing customers with a very
hazardous beverage until it cooled down quite a bit... That is why
they ended up paying damages in that famous case...

Bull****. The coffee was a (then) standard 180F.

Before calling "bull****" make sure you have the facts straight. You don't.

The coffee was 185, not 180.

Ok, 185 is *NOT* 212, either.


180 was not "standard". And 180 is more than hot
enough to cause very serious burns.

You're full of ****, too. At the time, the *SPECIFICATION* for Dunkin' Donuts
coffee was 180F +/- 3F. 180F coffee is very much the standard brewing/serving
temperature for coffee.


http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

On May 11, 11:22*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 02:21:13 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , " wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On May 11, 2:15*pm, "h" wrote:
Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.

Yes... That was because there was no valid reason for McDonald's
to serve the coffee that hot (literally just a few degrees shy of
212ºF
which is BOILING water) out of cups which could result in a spill
even when they were used and handled properly... *Poor choices
made by McDonald's to keep the coffee VERY hot to reduce waste
and save a few bucks resulted in providing customers with a very
hazardous beverage until it cooled down quite a bit... *That is why
they ended up paying damages in that famous case...

Bull****. *The coffee was a (then) standard 180F.

Before calling "bull****" make sure you have the facts straight. You don't.

The coffee was 185, not 180.

Ok, 185 is *NOT* 212, either.

180 was not "standard". And 180 is more than hot
enough to cause very serious burns.

You're full of ****, too. *At the time, the *SPECIFICATION* for Dunkin' Donuts
coffee was 180F +/- 3F. *180F coffee is very much the standard brewing/serving
temperature for coffee.



http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm


Wow since you are such a wealth of information why not explain to the
world
a valid reason for brewing and serving coffee at the same temperature
as
the rinse cycle in a commercial dishwasher must be set to in order to
insure
the dishes are sterilized during the cleaning process...

Also, how long must a person NOT DRINK the coffee served to them at
180 F
before they can safely consume a beverage which is some 60 degrees
hotter
than home hot water heaters are set to prevent scalding injuries...

There is no reason to serve beverages that hot when the only reasoning
I have
ever heard behind the temperature is "it preserves the flavoring of
the coffee"...

Which company do you work for, McD's or Dunkin's ???

~~ Evan

On May 12, 1:10*pm, Evan wrote:
On May 11, 11:22*pm, "



wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 02:21:13 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , " wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On May 11, 2:15*pm, "h" wrote:
Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.

Yes... That was because there was no valid reason for McDonald's
to serve the coffee that hot (literally just a few degrees shy of
212ºF
which is BOILING water) out of cups which could result in a spill
even when they were used and handled properly... *Poor choices
made by McDonald's to keep the coffee VERY hot to reduce waste
and save a few bucks resulted in providing customers with a very
hazardous beverage until it cooled down quite a bit... *That is why
they ended up paying damages in that famous case...

Bull****. *The coffee was a (then) standard 180F.

Before calling "bull****" make sure you have the facts straight. You don't.

The coffee was 185, not 180.

Ok, 185 is *NOT* 212, either.

180 was not "standard". And 180 is more than hot
enough to cause very serious burns.

You're full of ****, too. *At the time, the *SPECIFICATION* for Dunkin' Donuts
coffee was 180F +/- 3F. *180F coffee is very much the standard brewing/serving
temperature for coffee.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Wow since you are such a wealth of information why not explain to the
world
a valid reason for brewing and serving coffee at the same temperature
as
the rinse cycle in a commercial dishwasher must be set to in order to
insure
the dishes are sterilized during the cleaning process...

Look it up. That is the recommended brewing/storage temperature for
coffee.

Also, how long must a person NOT DRINK the coffee served to them at
180 F
before they can safely

When you get where you're going it's not iced coffee. That's the way
people want it, in fact. ...sorta why McD (and DD) served it hot,
until the lawyers got in between the maker and the consumer.

consume a beverage which is some 60 degrees
hotter
than home hot water heaters are set to prevent scalding injuries...

Nonsense. You can drink beverages a *lot* hotter than 120F.

There is no reason to serve beverages that hot when the only reasoning
I have
ever heard behind the temperature is "it preserves the flavoring of
the coffee"...

Which company do you work for, McD's or Dunkin's ???

You are a fool (no news here).

"Evan" wrote in message
news:dec87e02-0151-4779-b121

Bottom line, only a MORON puts a beverage cup BETWEEN THEIR legs and then
takes off the cap, moving car or not. You're just begging to have liquid
spill on you, hot or cold. Who does that? Only morons.

In article , h wrote:

Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing
the lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.

Because the coffee temperature was unusually hot for coffee and the
coffeecup lids used by McD's then were of a design unusually prone to
causing customers to to spill hot coffee. And McD's resisted fixing that
after something like about 600 burn injury complaints until one went as
far as the famous lawsuit.

Furthermore, she was not driving the car. The car was parked when
she spilled coffee onto her crotch and as a result needed skin graft
surgery to repair 3rd degree burns (as defined by killing the entire
thickness of all layers of the skin in at least a significant part of
the burn area).

There are much better examples than this one for citing how USA has
excessive existence/extent of lawsuits.

--
- Don Klipstein )

In article , h wrote:

"Evan" wrote in message
...
On May 11, 2:15 pm, "h" wrote:
Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing
the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.


Yes... That was because there was no valid reason for McDonald's
to serve the coffee that hot (literally just a few degrees shy of
212ºF
which is BOILING water) out of cups which could result in a spill
even when they were used and handled properly... Poor choices
made by McDonald's to keep the coffee VERY hot to reduce waste
and save a few bucks resulted in providing customers with a very
hazardous beverage until it cooled down quite a bit... That is why
they ended up paying damages in that famous case.

Bull****. She chose to pull off the cap of BOILING (I always assume it is)
coffee, IN HER CAR, while the cup was BETWEEN HER LEGS. Moron. All on her.
Idiot. I still don't see how that case could make.

In part, because McD's choice of coffeecup lids back then was
excessively bad at requiring customers to get more adventurous in
order to drink their coffee.

ANYONE who doesn't assume that HOT coffee could SEAR THE SKIN FROM
HIS/HER BONES is an utter moron.

It is unusual for coffee to be that hot.

My "day job" has a Bunn "Pour-O-Matic" coffeemaker and I measured
its output to be 158 degrees F mere seconds after I filled my cup with
such. On the time when I took a measurement of the coffee temperature at
my greatest "side job" on-site in place-of-business of my greatest client,
it was even cooler, about 147 F.

Coffee needs to be served at a temperature where it is drinkable, as
opposed to "SEAR THE SKIN FROM HIS/HER BONES". Especially if the company
serving the coffee is not trying to do something along the lines of
reducing usage of "free refills" by making the coffee less drinkable.

- Don Klipstein )

In , zz* wrote:
On 5/11/10 13:37:51 -07 PDT, Evan wrote:

On May 11, 2:15*pm, "h" wrote:
Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.

Yes... That was because there was no valid reason for McDonald's to
serve the coffee that hot (literally just a few degrees shy of 212ºF
which is BOILING water) out of cups which could result in a spill
even when they were used and handled properly... Poor choices
made by McDonald's to keep the coffee VERY hot to reduce waste
and save a few bucks resulted in providing customers with a very
hazardous beverage until it cooled down quite a bit... That is why
they ended up paying damages in that famous case...

Bull****. The coffee was a (then) standard 180F.

I seem to think that stellawards.com cited serving temperature of
185 F.

And I have been somewhat crazy enough to on a few occaisions take a
thermometer into the workplace and deploy the thermometer unto the
coffee...

The output of the Bunn "Pour-O-Matic" at my "day job" mere seconds
after filling my cup was 158 F. And my cup was a plastic mug with
name of one of one of University of Pennsylvania's fraternities.

I even carried the same thermometer into the place of business of my
biggest client. Mere seconds after serving into a styrofoam cup, I
measured about 147 degrees F.

If you actually READ deeper about that McDonald's case beyond what
made it into the poorly written news articles which only focused on
her injuries AND the fact that she won, you would learn that the amount
awarded to her by the jury was in fact reduced by a percentage to
reflect her poorly made decision to put the coffee cup between her legs
rather than take an extra second to place them in one of the cup holders
in the car...

She should have gotten ZERO, and been forced to pay McD's costs.

The McDonald's hot coffee case is a poor comparison to someone
failing to read and understand the cooking instructions on a package
of microwave popcorn... Said popcorn is not dangerous and doesn't
create smoke if you follow the directions and don't burn it by
allowing it to cook in the microwave 50% longer than the directions
indicate...

I consider the famous McD-coffee case to have low similarity to abusing
"microwave popcorn" due to the infamous coffee not being abused except by
its seller (in large part from unusually high serving temperature and by
its customers necessitating abuse due to abusive packaging design
[coffeecup lids having a design more promoting spills]).

--
- Don Klipstein )

In , zz* wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 02:21:13 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:
(edited for space by me, )
In , zz*z wrote:
On 5/11/10 13:37:51 -07/PDT, Evan wrote:

On May 11, 2:15*pm, "h" wrote:
Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.

Yes... That was because there was no valid reason for McDonald's to
serve the coffee that hot (literally just a few degrees shy of 212ºF
which is BOILING water) out of cups which could result in a spill
even when they were used and handled properly... Poor choices
made by McDonald's to keep the coffee VERY hot to reduce waste
and save a few bucks resulted in providing customers with a very
hazardous beverage until it cooled down quite a bit... That is why
they ended up paying damages in that famous case...

Bull****. The coffee was a (then) standard 180F.

Before calling "bull****" make sure you have the facts straight. You don't.

The coffee was 185, not 180.

Ok, 185 is *NOT* 212, either.

180 was not "standard". And 180 is more than hot
enough to cause very serious burns.

You're full of ****, too. At the time, the *SPECIFICATION* for Dunkin' Donuts
coffee was 180F +/- 3F. 180F coffee is very much the standard brewing/serving
temperature for coffee.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

How 'bout I take my favorite thermometer into "day-job work" with me
this coming Friday and I check out the temperature of the coffee that I
purchase from Dunkin Donuts on a "usually weekly Friday late-afternoon
run" on behalf of and reimbursed by the owner of my "day job" workplace?

That particular Dunkin Donuts would have its address being some odd
number in the 3400's of Walnut St in Philadelphia PA USA, with zip code
of 19104.

I did just now put this thermometer into the backpack that I commute
with to/from my "day job", usually by bicycle.

I dare to do so because my "day job" has a Bunn "Pour-O-Matic" that
delivers coffe that gets served at temperature more like 158 F even mere
seconds after going into either a plastic mug or a styrofoam cup. That
is according to the above-mentioned thermometer!

--
- Don Klipstein )

In article , h wrote:

"Evan" wrote in message
news:dec87e02-0151-4779-b121

Bottom line, only a MORON puts a beverage cup BETWEEN THEIR legs and then
takes off the cap, moving car or not. You're just begging to have liquid
spill on you, hot or cold. Who does that? Only morons.

Or the McD's customer in a parked car trying to drink unusually hot
coffee from a cup that was capped by a faultily-unusually-difficult (in
relevant way) coffeecup lid.

- Don Klipstein )

On May 13, 12:10*am, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , * wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 02:21:13 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

* (edited for space by me, )



In , *z wrote:
On 5/11/10 13:37:51 -07/PDT, Evan wrote:

On May 11, 2:15*pm, "h" wrote:
Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

And yet, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her crotch, after removing the
lid while driving the car, sued Micky D's. Successfully.

Yes... That was because there was no valid reason for McDonald's to
serve the coffee that hot (literally just a few degrees shy of 212ºF
which is BOILING water) out of cups which could result in a spill
even when they were used and handled properly... *Poor choices
made by McDonald's to keep the coffee VERY hot to reduce waste
and save a few bucks resulted in providing customers with a very
hazardous beverage until it cooled down quite a bit... *That is why
they ended up paying damages in that famous case...

Bull****. *The coffee was a (then) standard 180F.

Before calling "bull****" make sure you have the facts straight. You don't.

The coffee was 185, not 180.

Ok, 185 is *NOT* 212, either.

180 was not "standard". And 180 is more than hot
enough to cause very serious burns.

You're full of ****, too. *At the time, the *SPECIFICATION* for Dunkin' Donuts
coffee was 180F +/- 3F. *180F coffee is very much the standard brewing/serving
temperature for coffee.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

* How 'bout I take my favorite thermometer into "day-job work" with me
this coming Friday and I check out the temperature of the coffee that I
purchase from Dunkin Donuts on a "usually weekly Friday late-afternoon
run" on behalf of and reimbursed by the owner of my "day job" workplace?

* That particular Dunkin Donuts would have its address being some odd
number in the 3400's of Walnut St in Philadelphia PA USA, with zip code
of 19104.

* I did just now put this thermometer into the backpack that I commute
with to/from my "day job", usually by bicycle.

* I dare to do so because my "day job" has a Bunn "Pour-O-Matic" that
delivers coffe that gets served at temperature more like 158 F even mere
seconds after going into either a plastic mug or a styrofoam cup. *That
is according to the above-mentioned thermometer!

DD dialed down their serving temperature, too, after McDs got bitch
slapped. It's barely warm enough to drink on the spot.

On May 11, 12:34*pm, Evan wrote:

Suing someone for your idiocy is absurd and you will never make it
past the motions stage of the process...

Wishful thinking. If he decided to sue, I would give him a better than
50% chance of receiving a settlement.

Case in point, the VERY famous case of a woman pouring McDonald's
coffee on her crotch and receiving a very tidy sum. You liberals and
personal injury lawyers can whine and cry about the coffee being
hotter than it needed to be all you want, but the coffee never should
have been in that general location to begin with.

It's not going to get any better until people start practicing what
they preach, and sticking with their convictions.

On May 11, 4:37*pm, Evan wrote:
The McDonald's hot coffee case is a poor comparison to someone
failing to read and understand the cooking instructions on a package
of microwave popcorn... *Said popcorn is not dangerous and doesn't
create smoke if you follow the directions and don't burn it by
allowing
it to cook in the microwave 50% longer than the directions indicate...

Cup says, "CAUTION HOT"

I'd say that's an EPIC FAIL on reading directions, myself...

On May 12, 2:27*pm, keith wrote:
On May 12, 1:10*pm, Evan wrote:

Wow since you are such a wealth of information why not explain to
the world a valid reason for brewing and serving coffee at the same
temperature as the rinse cycle in a commercial dishwasher must
be set to in order to insure the dishes are sterilized during the
cleaning process...

Look it up. *That is the recommended brewing/storage temperature for
coffee.


"Recommended" by whom ? The NIST lab, the FDA ? Oh, I think
that you are referring to the standards set by the restaurants...


Also, how long must a person NOT DRINK the coffee served to them
at 180 F before they can safely

When you get where you're going it's not iced coffee. *That's the way
people want it, in fact. ...sorta why McD (and DD) served it hot,
until the lawyers got in between the maker and the consumer.


Don't BUY coffee that far in advance... If you MUST do that, stop
your car somewhere safe and pour it from the disposable cup it
was served to you in and keep it in a thermally insulated travel
mug which will keep it warmer longer...


consume a beverage which is some 60 degrees hotter
than home hot water heaters are set to prevent scalding injuries...

Nonsense. *You can drink beverages a *lot* hotter than 120F.


Not really... But then again scalding injuries to internal tissues
are something you are not able to see and not necessarily always
feel either...


There is no reason to serve beverages that hot when the only
reasoning I have ever heard behind the temperature is:
"it preserves the flavoring of the coffee"...

Which company do you work for, McD's or Dunkin's ???

You are a fool (no news here).


And it is better to be foolish than stupid... You are stupid
if you think that all coffee should be brewed and served
as hot as the water used in a commercial dishwasher just
so that some people who are rushing to get to work 100 miles
away from where they bought their coffee will still have a warm
drink when they arrive...

~~ Evan

On May 13, 9:50*am, wrote:
On May 11, 4:37*pm, Evan wrote:

The McDonald's hot coffee case is a poor comparison to someone
failing to read and understand the cooking instructions on a package
of microwave popcorn... *Said popcorn is not dangerous and doesn't
create smoke if you follow the directions and don't burn it by
allowing
it to cook in the microwave 50% longer than the directions indicate...

Cup says, "CAUTION HOT"

I'd say that's an EPIC FAIL on reading directions, myself...


Prior to the lawsuit everyone here has made mention of, the cups
did not carry that warning in any way which would be recognized
as a warning... The old cups used to have very tiny letters which
blended in nicely to the decorative designs on the cup...

EPIC FAIL to not have a clear warning label on a beverage container
when the liquid inside is hotter than someone can safely drink it when
it is sold to them... You can now thank that little old lady who
burned
herself with hot coffee for the clearer warning on the cups used
now...

~~ Evan