Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 01:30:34 GMT, zadoc wrote:
(snip) It is nice to know that some juries in the USA still can discern between right and wrong, and are not afraid of providing protection to the consumer. Maybe the consumer doesn't need protection from their own stupidity. Maybe they need to accept the results of their own actions(for a change). :/ |
#42
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 02:41:22 GMT, Lew Hartswick
wrote: Do you want that hot or cold? The next blurb for McDonalds clerks to learn. :-) Nope. All they have to do is look for the customer's sign. People like Stella Liebeck should be wearing their "I'M STUPID" sign PROMINENTLY displayed for all to see. |
#43
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 01:35:17 GMT, zadoc wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:16:41 -0800, Stuart Grey wrote: rigger wrote: (sic) he had control of the coffee before she burned herself. A concealed danger she was unaware of, although McDonald's was VERY aware and gave no warnings. This must be the evidence of negligence the jury found. Yeah. Who would have thought that hot coffee was... hot. Idiots. If you see all the facts in the correct time frame and context the jury decision seems like common sense. Just be happy it wasn't YOUR mother or grandmother that was burned. No one in my family was either stupid enough to burn themselves that way, nor would they have blamed someone else for their own stupidity and plundered the hell out of them with the aid of a legal pirate. If the local franchisee hadn't been stupid enough to serve coffee at a dangerous temperature, then the victim wouldn't have been awarded damages. ...Or do you think that retailers should be able to provide any hazardous product they like? Here they probably would have been fined under the Trade Practices Act in addition to the civil lawsuit. Yeah, there you seem to desire a Nanny State, to take care of you from the cradle to the grave. :/ |
#44
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:21:05 GMT, zadoc wrote:
(snip) Did the pilots that dropped the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki take responsibility for their own actions? Why? Are you trying to imply that their actions are objectively bad? If so, prove it. Whether they did or not, is the world a happier and more reasonably priced place? For some people, it is. For others it isn't. |
#45
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 01:48:59 GMT, zadoc wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:14:20 -0800, Stuart Grey wrote: Jerry Foster wrote: "Jan Nielsen" wrote in message ... On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 06:46:00 -0500, Cliff wrote: The 2005 Stella Awards It's time once again to review the winners of the Annual "Stella Awards." The Stella Awards are named after 81 year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's (in NM). That case inspired the Stella awards for the most frivolous, ridiculous, successful lawsuits in the United States. Here are this year's winners: Most of them fabricated it seems: http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html -- - JN - Not only are the "cases" cited a bunch of bull, the real case that gave its name to these phony "awards" was anything but frivolous and this whole thing is a slander of Mrs. Liebeck. She suffered massive burns and required several surgeries and weeks of hospitalization. The problem was that McDonalds was serving coffee that was as much as fifty(!) degrees hotter than what other establishments put out. Their reason was that their marketing research showed that coffee kept near boiling gave off an aroma that inspired people to buy more of their breakfast products. By the time Mrs. Liebeck got scalded, they had already paid off several hundred claims for burns from their coffee, but considered it a small price to pay for the increased sales. Which is why the jury clobbered them. For the whole story, see: http://caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts LOL! That website is for the association of lawyers that raked in 40% of that multi-million dollar fiasco. A little conflict of interest, there! The simple fact is, most people believe in the idea of personal responsibility. You seem to be missing the point, which is that the drink was served at far too high a temperature to be safe. If it was capable of causing such damage, it was obviously unsafe. You seem to be missing the point. If this woman can't handle a cup of coffee, she probably wouldn't be competent to handle a piece of bubblegum. :/ Am sure that all readers have consumed a lot of restaurant coffee in their lives, and one usually assumes that it will be served at a safe temperature. Nope. This one ASSumes that it will be served hot and checks. Are you assuming that you need to inspect all the food you are served, that if you, for instance, ate one of their hamburgers that had pieces of broken glass in it that it was your fault because you hadn't carefully inspected it? How about one that was poisoned? Are you a toxicologist, and if so, do you carry an analytical lab around with you? Is this a red herring or just a common smokescreen? It doesn't seem to have much to do with a cup of hot coffee. Personal responsibility only runs so far, and people shouldn't have to protect themselves against irresponsible retailers intent on turning a fast buck. Retailers shouldn't have to protect themselves against stupid customers either. However, as a result of this case, am willing to bet that both the company and the franchisee will be more responsible in the future. They will charge more to the customers, but that won't guarantee they will be more responsible. All this case will result in is that the customers will get colder coffee. :/ If you are frail, and order hot coffee while driving in a car, you were grossly negligent in taking care of yourself. It is not up to the people who sell you the coffee to tell you that you're too stupid and irresponsible - not old and mature enough, to handle coffee. It is if the coffee is inherently unsafe, which it obviously was or the jury wouldn't have ruled in the victims favor, which they did. Wrong. Juries don't always rule based on logic. They often return verdicts based on emotion. Do you have anything against the rule of law? The law is an ass(sometimes). To use an old quote. |
#46
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 06:52:24 GMT, zadoc wrote:
(snip) But SHE spilled it on herself. Irrelevant and immaterial. Hardly. That is a fact, and in many cases is called contributory negligence. Had it been served at a drinkable temperature, she wouldn't have been injured so severely. (snip) Besides serving hot coffee? She would have bitched if it had been cold. An unverifiable supposition. A safe bet, given her past behavior. She's failed to take responsibility for her own actions at least twice, showing a remarkable lack of intestinal fortitude. I'd say it wasn't too large a leap to guess she might complain if her coffee was cold. (snip) Why should it? A product is supposed to be inherently safe for the average user. The average user is supposed to be smart enough to know you don't put a cup of hot coffee between your legs in a moving vehicle. :/ (snip) in nca Actually, I'm surprised that people are willing to defend them. Maybe people are not defending MacDonalds, but defending the concept of personal accountability. |
#47
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 07:05:56 GMT, zadoc wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:29:47 GMT, Sue wrote: On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 03:13:13 GMT, zadoc wrote: On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:57:02 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 23:59:41 -0000, "tg" wrote: (snips) Had I been on the jury, they definitely would have been held liable. God it's people like you that make my skull feel like it's turning inside out. You're the epitomy of the irresponsible brat. It's always always always gotta be someone elses fault. If I had been on the jury, I would have awarded attorneys' fees to McDonald's. Of course, I doubt I will ever be on such a jury. Her error, her clumsiness, her fault, her problem. That I definitely don't agree with. Hint - don't spill your coffee in your lap. Don't we all already know that??? Yes, but we aren't female Harumph!!! A sexist are you? Sue Is there any male who isn't, to a degree at least? The Artful Dodger strikes again. Or are you one of those American women who think there is no difference between male and female other than the obvious anatomical differences. Perhaps no significant differences in intelligence and ability to learn facts, but there are lots of emotional differences. IMHO, anyway. :-) Ooh, I love to dance a little sidestep. |
#48
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 06:10:49 GMT, zadoc wrote:
There are no "Wal Marts" in Oz as far as I know. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Co...Wal_World.html -- Cliff |
#49
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 06:23:32 GMT, zadoc wrote:
Have never bought a cup of coffee from McDonalds Beware Big Boys in the South. They use Chicory in their Coffee IIRC. GAK http://coffeetea.about.com/cs/coffee.../a/chicory.htm [ Folks also used to make coffee from roasted acorns, yams and a variety of local grains. Anything was better than going without! ] -- Cliff |
#50
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 06:56:37 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote: And she would not have been burned AT ALL if it wasn't for HER action. Nor would she have had not McDonalds served & sold the coffee. -- Cliff |
#51
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 06:56:37 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote: Was she too stupid? Even wingers have the right to sue. HTH -- Cliff |
#52
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 01:30:34 GMT, zadoc wrote:
Sorry, but serving coffee hot enough to cause scalding of tissue is totally irresponsible, and there is absolutely no justification for such a dangerous practice. Producing the odor to increase sales ... ? That might have been the clincher. -- Cliff |
#53
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 06:58:21 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote: On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 01:30:34 GMT, zadoc wrote: (snip) It is nice to know that some juries in the USA still can discern between right and wrong, and are not afraid of providing protection to the consumer. Maybe the consumer doesn't need protection from their own stupidity. Maybe they need to accept the results of their own actions(for a change). :/ Yet another gun control rant? -- Cliff |
#54
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:21:05 GMT, zadoc wrote:
Fast food outfits like McDonalds even prepare their hamburgers in advance If you want them fresh ask for extra something. Takes just a wee bit longer, usually, but .... -- Cliff |
#55
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
snip
On the other hand, it is an interesting example of how big corporations are willing to try to deny justice to their customers, even when it isn't in their long term interest. How much business has the fallen arches lost because of this case? It would have been far cheaper to settle rather than generate worldwide resentment. snip When examined at slightly greater depth, "corporations" don't do anything as these are a legal fiction. It is people acting in the name of the corporation that act or don't act. The question then becomes how did these person(s) get into [or take] and retain their positions? It is an old question for people studying organizational behaviors, and one for which there are no [at least to me] convincing answers. It appears that the problems of organizational paronia and egotism are increasing rapidly in most organizations, and the larger the organization the more it is affected. In the United States on of the stock characters in many childrens books and film clips was the snotty rich kid who always seemed to say "it's my bat and it's my ball and if you don't play nice like I want you to, I'm going to take them home." In his defense these were his bat and ball. Re Wal-Mart. It is a US discounter that has gross sales larger than the GDP of 90% of the countries in the UN. It is so large that it is beyond governmental control in the normal sense. I am waiting for the U.S. Senate to ratify a treaty between the US government and Wal-Mart. Like the mob, they make you offers you can't refuse. A sociologist once observed "at some point the qualitative become the qualitative." Wal-Mart if well beyond that point, and the normal "free market" conditions/restraints are no longer operational. Uncle George |
#56
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 07:05:56 GMT, zadoc wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:29:47 GMT, Sue wrote: On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 03:13:13 GMT, zadoc wrote: On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:57:02 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 23:59:41 -0000, "tg" wrote: (snips) Had I been on the jury, they definitely would have been held liable. God it's people like you that make my skull feel like it's turning inside out. You're the epitomy of the irresponsible brat. It's always always always gotta be someone elses fault. If I had been on the jury, I would have awarded attorneys' fees to McDonald's. Of course, I doubt I will ever be on such a jury. Her error, her clumsiness, her fault, her problem. That I definitely don't agree with. Hint - don't spill your coffee in your lap. Don't we all already know that??? Yes, but we aren't female Harumph!!! A sexist are you? Sue Is there any male who isn't, to a degree at least? I wouldn't know. Or are you one of those American women who think there is no difference between male and female other than the obvious anatomical differences. Nope. Perhaps no significant differences in intelligence and ability to learn facts, but there are lots of emotional differences. IMHO, anyway. :-) As I read your post - this part: Hint - don't spill your coffee in your lap. Don't we all already know that??? Yes, but we aren't female you impugned the intelligence of women in that they/we may not know that it isn't a good idea to spill coffee in one's lap. This has nothing to do with emotionalism. Yes, there are emotional differences, but I believe that the poster to whom you responded meant "all" not just men. I'm not going to get into an argument about intelligence issues (math, science and so forth), but, c'mon, this is spilled coffee. I'll bet even your wife knows not to spill coffee in her lap. Ask her. ) Sue Cheers, |
#57
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 03:13:13 GMT, zadoc
wrote: On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:57:02 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 23:59:41 -0000, "tg" wrote: (snips) Had I been on the jury, they definitely would have been held liable. God it's people like you that make my skull feel like it's turning inside out. You're the epitomy of the irresponsible brat. It's always always always gotta be someone elses fault. If I had been on the jury, I would have awarded attorneys' fees to McDonald's. Of course, I doubt I will ever be on such a jury. Her error, her clumsiness, her fault, her problem. That I definitely don't agree with. Hint - don't spill your coffee in your lap. Don't we all already know that??? Yes, but we aren't female or her age, and accidents can happen to anyone. Does being old and female mean a person should expect to be protected from the results of her own failures? If she fell on a floor surface that is not unusually dangerous, because she is old and unsteady on her feet, would she be entitled to a big court judgment? And more to the point, does an occurrence which is an accident earn the person who had the accident payment from someone else who didn't cause the accident? It seems to me that this is a case of getting someone else with deep pockets to pay -- that no "ordinary citizen" should have to bear the results of her own screw up. Am sure that many of us have spilled liquids in our lap at one time or another. However, we don't expect restaurant coffee to require time in hospital. Or at least I wouldn't. There are many occurrences which I wouldn't expect to put me in a hospital -- but some just might. But if _I_ cause them, or if they are just one of those things that happen, why should someone else pay? However, everyone has their own point of view. Cases such as this one may annoy you. I am annoyed when juries reward damages to criminals. That too. -- Robert Sturgeon Summum ius summa inuria. http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/ |
#58
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 08:21:41 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote: The question then becomes how did these person(s) get into [or take] and retain their positions? This has often been a huge puzzle. Some actually worked their way up and have a clue what the firm's business is though. But how many? WHY & how were the rest aquired ???? IIRC Cheney, as an example, got to Halliburton as he was met playing golf by a board member .... -- Cliff |
#59
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
"Jan Nielsen" wrote in message
... On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 18:48:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Ed, usually you check your facts better than this... Oh, cripes, Jerry. I haven't heard or read anything about Stella for around ten years. I prefer the myth, anyway. g Have a taste your own medicine, Ed. You ruined a lot of wonderful stories over the years by bringing facts to the table. An old friend of mine, with whom I've been in discussion groups online since the late '80s, said, "Huntress, you can really kill a good conversation with all of those damned facts." g Guilty. Sometimes I should just watch. Actually, oftentimes I do just watch. -- Ed Huntress |
#60
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
... Re Wal-Mart. It is a US discounter that has gross sales larger than the GDP of 90% of the countries in the UN. It is so large that it is beyond governmental control in the normal sense. I am waiting for the U.S. Senate to ratify a treaty between the US government and Wal-Mart. Like the mob, they make you offers you can't refuse. Wal-Mart is China's eighth-largest trading partner. The other seven are countries. d8-) It is a larger trading partner with China than Australia, Russia, or Canada. However, Wal-Mart's purchases from China last year were roughly $18 billion, out of $260 billion of total Wal-Mart purchases worldwide that year. So the Chinese component of Wal-Mart's products tends to be overestimated by casual observers. -- Ed Huntress |
#61
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
Ed Huntress" wrote
Wal-Mart is China's eighth-largest trading partner. The other seven are countries. d8-) It is a larger trading partner with China than Australia, Russia, or Canada. However, Wal-Mart's purchases from China last year were roughly $18 billion, out of $260 billion of total Wal-Mart purchases worldwide that year. So the Chinese component of Wal-Mart's products tends to be overestimated by casual observers. Does that include the US suppliers that Wal-Mart forced to move production to China to meet their price? -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
#62
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:OJyuf.1546$Dh.880@dukeread04... Ed Huntress" wrote Wal-Mart is China's eighth-largest trading partner. The other seven are countries. d8-) It is a larger trading partner with China than Australia, Russia, or Canada. However, Wal-Mart's purchases from China last year were roughly $18 billion, out of $260 billion of total Wal-Mart purchases worldwide that year. So the Chinese component of Wal-Mart's products tends to be overestimated by casual observers. Does that include the US suppliers that Wal-Mart forced to move production to China to meet their price? I knew someone would ask that. g I don't know how complete the accounting is for goods made in China but sourced through US companies. And I don't want to hazard a guess. The story is more complex than many realize, however. For example, Sanyo had a TV plant in Arkansas that supplied Sears. Sears cut them off (they perfected squeezing suppliers decades before Wal-Mart got into it). Sanyo wanted to divide the plant and move part of it to Mexico, and the other part to Asia. But Wal-Mart told them they would pay more for the TV sets if they kept the plant in the US. So they did. And now that Sanyo plant in Arkansas is the world's largest producer of TVs. -- Ed Huntress |
#63
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
"Why" wrote in message
... Ed Huntress" wrote Wal-Mart is China's eighth-largest trading partner. The other seven are countries. d8-) It is a larger trading partner with China than Australia, Russia, or Canada. However, Wal-Mart's purchases from China last year were roughly $18 billion, out of $260 billion of total Wal-Mart purchases worldwide that year. So the Chinese component of Wal-Mart's products tends to be overestimated by casual observers. Does that include the US suppliers that Wal-Mart forced to move production to China to meet their price? Could be, I wonder, ED? I don't know, Dave. -- Ed Huntress |
#64
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
zadoc wrote:
Irrelevant and immaterial. Had it been served at a drinkable temperature, she wouldn't have been injured so severely. Incidentally, it would have been possible at the time to measure the temperature of the coffee served at this particular outlet and had the temperature reading witnessed by an independent observer. Does anyone know if this was done, and if so, what the temperature of the served coffee actually was? It was done by a local TV station. The McDonalds in question as well as others were simply serving the coffee at the temperature it comes out of the drip system. Same thing for all of the 7-11, Circle-K, etc. Pretty much everyone was serving coffee at 180 degF give or take a few degrees. I've never understood how the plaintiff's lawyers got away with the "unnaturally hot" line. You make coffee with boiling water. Water boils about 200 degF here in Albuquerque (about a mile up) and there's some cooling in the process, but the output temperature is pretty constant, and I don't know anyone who puts the fresh coffee away to cool before serving it. The same applies to the "50 degrees hotter than normal" lines. An unverifiable supposition. I pointed out in an earlier post that most people wouldn't be able to drink coffee that was served at a temperature high enough to cause immediate scalding. There is no way of knowing whether she would have complained had it been at a drinkable temperature of, say, 110 F or 43.33 degrees C. That's a little odd, I would presume that you don't drink coffee when it comes out of the coffee maker, nor tea when using water fresh off the stove? Why should it? A product is supposed to be inherently safe for the average user. Where the heck are you getting that idea? By that definition you'd better not get out of bed in the morning - life isn't "inherently safe". Most everything in your house isn't "inherently safe" - you can't have electricity, hot water (betcha it's about your 110 "safe" temp), heating systems, etc. Once out of the house you're going to have to face the deathmobile: the automobile, being driven on inherently unsafe roads. Gads! |
#65
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
"zadoc" wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 23:59:41 -0000, "tg" wrote: "zadoc" wrote in message news On 2 Jan 2006 09:01:00 -0800, "rigger" wrote: (sic) he had control of the coffee before she burned herself. A concealed danger she was unaware of, although McDonald's was VERY aware and gave no warnings. This must be the evidence of negligence the jury found. If you see all the facts in the correct time frame and context the jury decision seems like common sense. Just be happy it wasn't YOUR mother or grandmother that was burned. dennis in nca I totally agree. All products should be safe for consumer use, and the only possible excuse I can see for serving coffee at a dangerous temperature is that customers wouldn't have to reheat it if taking it home. However, almost everyone has a microwave today, so I see little if any justification for serving coffee at a temperature likely to cause injury. Had I been on the jury, they definitely would have been held liable. God it's people like you that make my skull feel like it's turning inside out. You're the epitomy of the irresponsible brat. It's always always always gotta be someone elses fault. Sorry, but serving coffee hot enough to cause scalding of tissue is totally irresponsible, and there is absolutely no justification for such a dangerous practice. bull****. coffee is a well known HOT beverage. Did you get that word? 'hot'? as in not cold. As in having been heated, you ****ing idiot. Being careful and responsible around heated liquids is all part of being an adult, and judging by your inclination to always blame someone else, an adult frame of thinking is something you haven't matured to yet. |
#66
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
"zadoc" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:29:47 GMT, Sue wrote: snip Perhaps no significant differences in intelligence and ability to learn facts, but there are lots of emotional differences. IMHO, anyway. :-) oh wow you're just too ****ing cool for any of us here aren't you zodac? intellectual insight after intellectual insight, you're a bottomless pit of knowledge aren't you. How did we manage before you came? It's so good we have you here to teach us all the things WE LEARNT WHEN WE WERE FIVE YEARS OLD. |
#67
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
"zadoc" wrote in message
... On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:45:23 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: So they did. And now that Sanyo plant in Arkansas is the world's largest producer of TVs. Are you sure about that? How many have they been producing? Consider the following article: It sounds like the report of TTE's volume is based on multiple plants, although it's hard to tell. Wal-Mart says that they alone have bought 50 million TV's from the Sanyo plant, as of sometime in 2005, and Sanyo sells (Sanyo and Fisher brands) to other retailers. But some of the figures conflict, so I don't know if Wal-Mart's claim is right. In any case, it's one plant in Arkansas, not Sanyo's worldwide operations. -- Ed Huntress |
#68
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
tg wrote: "zadoc" wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 23:59:41 -0000, "tg" wrote: "zadoc" wrote in message news On 2 Jan 2006 09:01:00 -0800, "rigger" wrote: (sic) he had control of the coffee before she burned herself. A concealed danger she was unaware of, although McDonald's was VERY aware and gave no warnings. This must be the evidence of negligence the jury found. If you see all the facts in the correct time frame and context the jury decision seems like common sense. Just be happy it wasn't YOUR mother or grandmother that was burned. dennis in nca I totally agree. All products should be safe for consumer use, and the only possible excuse I can see for serving coffee at a dangerous temperature is that customers wouldn't have to reheat it if taking it home. However, almost everyone has a microwave today, so I see little if any justification for serving coffee at a temperature likely to cause injury. Had I been on the jury, they definitely would have been held liable. God it's people like you that make my skull feel like it's turning inside out. You're the epitomy of the irresponsible brat. It's always always always gotta be someone elses fault. Sorry, but serving coffee hot enough to cause scalding of tissue is totally irresponsible, and there is absolutely no justification for such a dangerous practice. bull****. coffee is a well known HOT beverage. Did you get that word? 'hot'? as in not cold. As in having been heated, you ****ing idiot. Being careful and responsible around heated liquids is all part of being an adult, and judging by your inclination to always blame someone else, an adult frame of thinking is something you haven't matured to yet. sorry to pop in at the middle of a pecker contest here but 1) the coffee was unusually hot....as in way hotter than would be expected when ordering "hot" coffee, and 2) The penalty to McDonald's was the equivalent of one days profits from coffee sales for that particular district. It was not out of line to judge that there is such a thing as coffee that is served "too" hot, as the cups soften and are more likely to seal poorly at the high end of the liquid water spectrum. Although most of us would tend not to put the cup between our thighs, the proximal cause of the damage was the excessive heat of the coffee as well as poor lid sealing due to that heat. The judgement was not out of line either as it didn't highly penalize the offender but was enough to give a warning that care should be taken with a potentially dangerous item. Just for the record, I'm a bleeding liberal nutcase that believes the court systems should have an idiot clause...if the cause of an injury was related specifically to your own idiocy, then there is no blame assigned to other party...no 60% your fault/40% their fault ruling. You shouldn't benefit from your own stupidity. There are much better examples of people getting awards for their own stupidity than the McDonald's case. That case has just been exploited and distorted more than most on right-wing talk shows so people tend to gravitate toward it as an example. Focus on the really stupid cases like the guy who set a ladder on a manure pile and was awarded because the instructions didn't say not to set it on unstable manure and similar if you really want to show that courts can get out of hand. Examples are all over on the web with references to the court testimony. Koz |
#69
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
zadoc wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:06:14 GMT, Sue wrote: On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 07:05:56 GMT, zadoc wrote: On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:29:47 GMT, Sue wrote: On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 03:13:13 GMT, zadoc wrote: On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:57:02 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 23:59:41 -0000, "tg" wrote: (snips) Had I been on the jury, they definitely would have been held liable. God it's people like you that make my skull feel like it's turning inside out. You're the epitomy of the irresponsible brat. It's always always always gotta be someone elses fault. If I had been on the jury, I would have awarded attorneys' fees to McDonald's. Of course, I doubt I will ever be on such a jury. Her error, her clumsiness, her fault, her problem. That I definitely don't agree with. Hint - don't spill your coffee in your lap. Don't we all already know that??? Yes, but we aren't female Harumph!!! A sexist are you? Sue Is there any male who isn't, to a degree at least? I wouldn't know. Perhaps you haven't been paying enough attention? :-) Or are you one of those American women who think there is no difference between male and female other than the obvious anatomical differences. Nope. Perhaps no significant differences in intelligence and ability to learn facts, but there are lots of emotional differences. IMHO, anyway. :-) As I read your post - this part: Hint - don't spill your coffee in your lap. Don't we all already know that??? Yes, but we aren't female you impugned the intelligence of women in that they/we may not know that it isn't a good idea to spill coffee in one's lap. This has nothing to do with emotionalism. True. I should just have mentioned the victims age, which probably was a factor. Yes, there are emotional differences, but I believe that the poster to whom you responded meant "all" not just men. I'm not going to get into an argument about intelligence issues (math, science and so forth), but, c'mon, this is spilled coffee. I'll bet even your wife knows not to spill coffee in her lap. Ask her. ) Sue We all know better, but accidents do happen. If the coffee hadn't been served too hot, the damage wouldn't have been so severe. SO? If she had ordered a Coke instead, there would havebeen no damage. Cheers, -- "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 |
#70
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
In article , zadoc
wrote: On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:45:23 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: The story is more complex than many realize, however. For example, Sanyo had a TV plant in Arkansas that supplied Sears. Sears cut them off (they perfected squeezing suppliers decades before Wal-Mart got into it). Sanyo wanted to divide the plant and move part of it to Mexico, and the other part to Asia. But Wal-Mart told them they would pay more for the TV sets if they kept the plant in the US. So they did. And now that Sanyo plant in Arkansas is the world's largest producer of TVs. Are you sure about that? How many have they been producing? Consider the following article: As you indicate, Sanyo is way down on the list. As the Sanyo.com site itself says, combining the Tijuana plant with the Arkansas plant yields only 3 million t.v. sets annually. Way down on the list. Besides a bunch of very large Korean and Japanese factories, there are new factories in China and India, each with production over 3 million sets per year. Sanyo says: "This new "Super Line" alone will increase production by over 2000 televisions per day. SANYO Manufacturing Corporation's two facilities in Forrest City, Arkansas and Tijuana, Mexico are both ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certified. Together the two plants capacity is over 3 million televisions annually." http://www.sanyo.com/aboutsanyo/corp_pro_man_smc.cfm This probably means the Arkansas operation is not even in the top 10 worldwide site. UPDATED: 11:15, July 30, 2004 World's largest TV manufacturer starts operation font size ZoomIn ZoomOut The new company will have more than 20,000 sales terminals around the world and plans to sell 20 million color TV sets in 2004, Zhao said. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --Tim May |
#71
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
"zadoc" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:03:35 -0600, dazed and confuzzed wrote: zadoc wrote: On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:06:14 GMT, Sue wrote: [Snip] you impugned the intelligence of women in that they/we may not know that it isn't a good idea to spill coffee in one's lap. This has nothing to do with emotionalism. True. I should just have mentioned the victims age, which probably was a factor. Yes, there are emotional differences, but I believe that the poster to whom you responded meant "all" not just men. I'm not going to get into an argument about intelligence issues (math, science and so forth), but, c'mon, this is spilled coffee. I'll bet even your wife knows not to spill coffee in her lap. Ask her. ) Sue We all know better, but accidents do happen. If the coffee hadn't been served too hot, the damage wouldn't have been so severe. SO? If she had ordered a Coke instead, there would havebeen no damage. True, which is what I usually order. Alternatively, grog shops are often located nearby so can walk over and get a nice cold can of beer to drink with a meal.:-) Ever make Beer battered shrimp? recipes right here I have to head out to the kitchen shortly, deep frying some jumbo sized shrimp and onion rings. http://www.cooks.com/rec/search/0,1-...frying,FF.html 1. FRIED SHRIMP AND ONION RINGS John |
#72
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:59:34 GMT, zadoc wrote:
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Australia can be a pretty hazardous country. Been there. I agree. Far too many drive on the wrong side of the road. -- Cliff |
#73
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:25:26 GMT, zadoc wrote:
New houses, or rewired old houses You stopped using surplus wool to insulate homes, right? -- Cliff |
#74
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:25:26 GMT, zadoc wrote:
The same requirement applies to mandatory smoke detectors. These are mains operated with battery backup. I saw a motel in the US State of Connecticut catch fire (I was staying in it at the time) when one of those caught on fire in a vacant room & dropped to the bed below .... -- Cliff |
#75
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
"zadoc" wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:59:10 -0600, "John Scheldroup" wrote: [snip] Ever make Beer battered shrimp? recipes right here I have to head out to the kitchen shortly, deep frying some jumbo sized shrimp and onion rings. No, afraid not. Grew up in the US pretty far from the coast, and never developed a taste for seafood. Will stick to beef, pork, 'roo, etc.:-) Tasteful and Nutritious Eats, Do you have an rotisserie and a meat thermometer ? if so I have a pretty recipe for the sirloin pork roast. Been meaning to get around posting that one but haven't had time to do so thus far. I'll get around to posting that one and a couple others for the rotisserie including whole chicken soon as I can. John |
#76
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:12:52 -0000, "tg"
wrote: oh wow you're just too ****ing cool for any of us here aren't you zodac? The educational system downunder, compared to the one in the US (which allows little wingers to escape), seems quite good. -- Cliff |
#77
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 02:41:22 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Lew
Hartswick quickly quoth: Do you want that hot or cold? The next blurb for McDonalds clerks to learn. :-) Yeah, "Ya want hot, tepid, or cold coffee, you idiot?" Of course, smarter folks would have put the cup on the dash or floor while removing a sticky lid. I doubt there's a person alive who regularly drinks coffee who hasn't burnt their fingers or other body parts on it. I know VERY few people who can drink it HOT, straight out of the pot. AND Of course, smart folks would have instantly pulled their sweat pants down and blown on the wet area to instantly cool it off. Most folks would rather be a bit embarrassed than to be badly scalded after their idiotic maneuver. But noooooo... I'd have awarded McD's their attorney fees less the cost of Brilliant Stella's initial ER visit since they didn't lower the temp of their coffee after being warned earlier. But that's it. Anyone with an IQ of double digits+ knows that coffee is hot. Go into any restaurant and you'll hear people warning folks about the food, the plates, or the coffee/tea being hot. You'll overhear that at every single meal at EVERY restaurant EVERY day, fer chrissake. No mercy. One other question bears mentioning: Should the kid be held liable since he allowed her to burn the **** out herself? I refer to the driver, of course, not to McD's little drone. -- REMEMBER: First you pillage, then you burn. --- http://diversify.com NoteSHADES(tm) laptop privacy/glare guards |
#78
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 06:10:49 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, zadoc
quickly quoth: On the other hand, it is an interesting example of how big corporations are willing to try to deny justice to their customers, even when it isn't in their long term interest. Perhaps as an Aussie, you don't grasp the assinine trend in US courts. If a corporation pays off one claim, they set precedent and all claims against them from then on are stronger and more easily won. With that knowledge, do you suppose the long term interest changes? -- REMEMBER: First you pillage, then you burn. --- http://diversify.com NoteSHADES(tm) laptop privacy/glare guards |
#79
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 12:49:25 -0700, Russ Kepler wrote:
(piggybacking) zadoc wrote: (snip) Why should it? A product is supposed to be inherently safe for the average user. Yeah, in Australia they'll probably stop selling sharp knives pretty soon, as well as anything to sharpen them with, since sharp knives are inherently unsafe for the "average" Australian(as well as the average person like Stella Liebeck). Where the heck are you getting that idea? From his government, AKA Nanny State. By that definition you'd better not get out of bed in the morning - life isn't "inherently safe". Bingo! Most everything in your house isn't "inherently safe" - you can't have electricity, hot water (betcha it's about your 110 "safe" temp), heating systems, etc. Once out of the house you're going to have to face the deathmobile: the automobile, being driven on inherently unsafe roads. Gads! Indeed. His government is working on that for him. They've already taken care of those dangerous GUNS! Next they'll get the other dangerous things, like bubblegum, paperclips, sheets of paper, pieces of string, sharp pencils, fingernail clippers, and whatever other hazards they deem dangerous for their subjects. |
#80
Posted to alt.machines.cnc,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Stella
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:03:35 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote: (snip) "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 Then sues MacDonalds to make them pay for the consequences of their stupidity. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|