On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:32:56 -0700, TDKozan
wrote:

(snips)

Well, I've had my say and it's been fun typing with you. If nothing
else, this conversation demonstrates the reasoning behind the
annecdotes about lawyers being quick to exclude people with experience
in the matter being tried from their juries.

I've been reading Twain's "Roughing It" and his opinion of
the legal system, as stated in the book, are still right on
target. People with experience, and brains, and common
sense are kept OFF juries. The fact that the jury in this
case found for the plaintiff isn't proof that the defendant
was wrong; it's proof that the system is broken.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 08:18:03 -0800, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"TDKozan" wrote in message
...
Crap, if you're going to steal someone else's work and present it as
your own, at least steal from someone who has a passing familiarity
with the material they're trying to fob off as fact.

Number one, I didn't "steal someone else's work." Accounts of the trial
and
surrounding events are widely available, and are the source for the
alleged
facts that were developed at trial. Number two, if you have a problem
with
the trial record, try to confine yourself to that, instead of engaging in
smears of those who describe it. Number three, your amateur kitchen lab
experiments notwithstanding, I'm sure the trier of fact had plenty of
opportunity to hear from actual qualified experts on both sides, plus
rebuttals and arguments, and they were able to draw their own
conclusions.
In fact, if a juror had played kitchen scientist, it would be juror
misconduct leading to a mistrial. I'm sure McDonald's did all they could
to
disprove Liebeck's experts, but apparently could not do so.

Anyone with ANY familiarity with the American legal system knows it's not
a
matter of disproving the experts. It's a matter of swaying the jury
through ANY
means possible. Whatever goes(within the rules of the game and the judge
will
allow).

The "rules of the game" are chiefly aimed at excluding things intended to
sway the jury more than they are intended to prove some fact or element of
the case. Such things will lead to a prompt objection by opposing counsel
on grounds such as that their prejudicial effect outweighs their probative
value, argues facts not established by credible evidence, or many other
bases. It really isn't a game at all, it is serious business, and judges
and litigators aren't stupid, and, believe it or not, juries usually aren't
either.

Jeff

On 4 Jan 2006 10:43:43 -0800, "rigger" wrote:

You can rant all you want but the following is indisputable:
McDonalds is a careful company well experienced in defending law suits.
A jury, who was present through all phases of the trial found in favor
of the plaintiff.

and what is also indisputable is what i've been trying to say: the
temperature issue so dominant in the liebeck case has been
successfully refuted in every single similar suit since then. these,
too, were jury trials. the apparent difference was the credible
expert testimony of a recognized coffee expert (who, btw, iirc, is a
chemical engineer, not a lawyer), which seems to have been lacking in
the liebeck case.

fwiw, the temperature standards for coffee brewing, etc, were largely
developed by the coffee brewing center and the coffee brewing
institute in the 1950s and 1960s, long before stella spilled her
coffee. you know, back when people knew coffee was hot.

the temperature "standards" information presented by plaintiff in the
liebeck trial was just plain inaccurate, and mcd's failed to rebutt.
perhaps you know better where to assign fault for that omission, but,
to me, it looks like defense counsel didn't do their homework.

stella may have still prevailed on other issues.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Russ Kepler" wrote in message
...

Why don't you stick a thermometer in the output of your coffee maker and
test the primary part of the story here - that McDonalds is selling
coffee at a dangerous temperature?


Ok, but not tonight. But I consider my coffee maker to be a little cold and
I only use it when I'm in a hurry. Normally I boil water on the stove and
pour it immediately through a coffee-filled cone filter. It ain't gourmet,
but that gives me a much better flavor and fragrance than any coffee maker
I've tried.

That might be because the coffee maker is designed to run
lower-than-boiling water through the coffee, this to reduce the chance
that some of the more bitter compounds come out of the ground. I'd be
interested in the temperature of both if you have a chance.

"TDKozan" wrote in message
...
Jeff McCann wrote:

snip

Still with the accusations of plagiarism, eh? I wrote what I posted
some
years ago, actually.

Large portions your post was copied verbatum from Lectlaw and/or
Consumer Attorneys of California. Granted, you threw in your opinion
here and there as well but claiming it as your own is a stretch.
Unless you're the one who wrote the piece for CAC?

There was a widely circulated (amongst lawyers) bullet lists of key points
of the case to aid lawyers in answering the inevitable public questions
lawyers always get asked about such well publicized cases. I've seen
several essays extremely similar to mine. I suppose most drew on the same
root sources as me and I doubt any actually participated in or read the
record of the trial. Indeed, I have seen my post substantially copied
elsewhere as well as others making all the same points. Lawyers' writings
tend to sound pretty similar, especially when they are relying on the same
sources. Ever read 30 student summaries of the same case? It gets pretty
redundant, as did several of the internet references I just reviewd from a
cursory internet search that I just did.

Oh well, that's not my point and it really doesn't matter.

snip


I'd prefer to rely on the facts produced in open court, subject to
vigorous
cross-examination, by qualified experts, rather than you in your kitchen
with your meat thermometer. Sorry. I've learned that the "facts" can
be
complex things, especially where humans are involved.

snip

And there, sir is the point I was hoping to reach and the point, I
feel, of the "Stella Awards". Facts and truth in the physical world
are usually quite simple things; it is only when they run headlong
against a legal system where "truth" and "fact" are whatever a
hand-picked pool of jurors can be convinced of that they become
complex. The point of today's recreational discussion is, court
findings notwithstanding, that McDonald's was conforming to
established standards with their coffee's temperature.

If it were all that simple, I'm sure McDonald's could have shown that and
defeated the negligence claim. But since that didn't happen, apparently
there's more to the story.

Granted that Ms Liebeck's case is an egregious exception and most
lawsuits do not torture reality to anywhere near this degree, but
you'd be more convincing if you didn't repeat easily debunked claims
about facts and standards, to say nothing of your bit of hyperbole
about the "victim" being "gagged".

Take it up with the experts, not me. As for being "gagged," Liebeck had
the choice of further years of appellate proceedings, during which she might
well die at her advanced aged, or take a settlement and not reveal the
terms. This is commonly known as "gagging." Don't confuse jargon with
hyperbole. When a judge prevents the parties from talking, it's called a
"gag ruling." As for "victim," that's what the verdict established she was:
the victim of negligence by McDonald's. .

Well, I've had my say and it's been fun typing with you. If nothing
else, this conversation demonstrates the reasoning behind the
annecdotes about lawyers being quick to exclude people with experience
in the matter being tried from their juries.

It bears directly on the issue of impartiality. It is a panel of jurors,
not a panel of investigators. The jury's job is to weigh the credibility
and probative value of the evidence and restimony presented at trial, and
certainly not to rely on their own, unknown, untestable, unexaminable and
unchallangeable "experience" in the matter. Lots of people "know" stuff
that just ain't so. The only proper role for "experience" is in the common
sense judgment the juror applies in weighing the credibility and probative
value of the evidence and restimony presented at trial.

Jeff

Jeff McCann wrote:
snip

. . . This is commonly known as "gagging." Don't confuse jargon with
hyperbole. When a judge prevents the parties from talking, it's called a
"gag ruling." As for "victim," that's what the verdict established she was:
the victim of negligence by McDonald's. .


snip

Jeff


I was done with this thread and will (REALLY!) drop it after this but
in the spirit of never leaving well-enough alone:

If you aren't *willing* to be misunderstood, *don't* use jargon. It's
fine if you're shooting the bull with your buddies after a hard day on
the job but, using it on anyone else is an invitation to be taken out
of context at best, or as patronising in the worst case. And yah, I
know how hard it is too, it's always tempting to throw in a little
flavor to enhance your credibility but, if I can keep the chemical
cant, medical jargon, and IT argot out of my conversations, /anybody/ can.

Thanks though for explaining your usage.

TK

--
Cogito ergo bibo

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Russ Kepler" wrote in message
...

Why don't you stick a thermometer in the output of your coffee maker and
test the primary part of the story here - that McDonalds is selling
coffee at a dangerous temperature?

Ok, but not tonight. But I consider my coffee maker to be a little cold
and I only use it when I'm in a hurry. Normally I boil water on the stove
and pour it immediately through a coffee-filled cone filter. It ain't
gourmet, but that gives me a much better flavor and fragrance than any
coffee maker I've tried.

Actually, Ed, it _is_ gourmet. A single cup cone filter can produce quite
excellent coffee. Most drip machines don't get the water hot enough.

--
Ed Huntress

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 06:16:52 -0700, TDKozan wrote:

My Krups holds its coffee at 167° F and
Mr. Coffee at 174° F.

"Holds"?
What is it *in the cup*?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 07:47:23 -0700, TDKozan wrote:

In case your newsfeed missed it, it's
ANSI/AHAM CM-1-2005 and it calls for a temperature of 170-205F.

That's the trouble with facts, they don't allow much wiggle room for
opinion.

Don't confuse brewing temp *in the grounds* with serving temp.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 11:07:50 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

It was "frivolous" for the simple reason that McD was serving coffee at the
temperatures recommended by coffee experts and included in international
standards and was found to have done wrong for following those standards
primarily on the basis of a comparison with other sellers of coffee who
were _not_ in compliance with those standards.

You have confused brewing temps with serving.
You are ALSO removing the crosspost list so that replies will not
be seen. Naughty, naughty.
Are you a winger?
--
Cliff

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.

They served it at the temperature called for by the relevant international
technical standards and by the recommended practices of the SCAA and the
NCA. If you think that that temperature is excessive I suggest you take
the matter up with those organizations.

All of the coffee makers in my kitchen put coffee in the cup at a
temperature higher than you would allow, Starbucks does, Dunkin Donuts
does, Burger King does, I'm sorry, but your argument falls flat to anyone
who knows anything at all about coffee.


Cheers,



--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:20:12 GMT, zadoc wrote:

However, God designed us that way.

Nope.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:15:33 GMT, Sue wrote:

The obvious differences between males and females include the "fact"
that females don't know to not spill hot coffee in their laps?

Perhaps it was a mechanical problem with the lid & creamer.
--
Cliff

zadoc wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:49:38 -0000, "tg"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:16:41 -0800, Stuart Grey
wrote:

rigger wrote:

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.

Are you sure?

That it happened in a drive thru compounds the injury as McDonald's
ought to have been aware that the manipulation of a coffee container
in a vehicle is more likely to cause a spillage then in other
situations. IOW McDonald's could anticipate the risk.

what utter bull****.
If I give you a cup of hot coffee and then you decide to put it in your
lap and drive off then I'm not going to take any blame if you spill it
while you're driving. The slightest thought that I should be responsible
is insanity.

Be that as it may, it doesn't matter a damn what you, or even I,
think. It is what the courts and juries think.

And given that the stupid old bat's lawyers, having pulled a miracle and won
the trial, told her to accept a settlement with a secrecy clause that
prevented her from going on the talk show circuit it seems pretty clear
what they thought would be their chances on appeal.

Cheers,


Geez, if you're typical of what lives in Oz these days God help you.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

The Watcher wrote:

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.

Tatoo a big red "S" on her cheeks, and tell her it's for "supergrandma".

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

zadoc wrote:

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.

So is it your contention that coffee should never be served at a temperature
in excess of 100F, the highest temperature, according to the American Burn
Association, at which third degree burns will never occur?

At the 135 degrees F that the counsel for the plaintiff claimed to be
appropriate they occur in less than 15 seconds.

Perhaps your skull is actually turning inside out? It might improve
your appearance, but I doubt that the phenomenon would be compatible
with life. However, if it happens, will you leave instructions for
your head to be donated to medical science?

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.

Posting from misc.survivalism,

Cracks me up that a self-proclaimed "survivalist" is afraid of hot coffee.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:33:40 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm, Russ
Kepler quickly quoth:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Russ Kepler" wrote in message
...

Why don't you stick a thermometer in the output of your coffee maker and
test the primary part of the story here - that McDonalds is selling
coffee at a dangerous temperature?


Ok, but not tonight. But I consider my coffee maker to be a little cold and
I only use it when I'm in a hurry. Normally I boil water on the stove and
pour it immediately through a coffee-filled cone filter. It ain't gourmet,
but that gives me a much better flavor and fragrance than any coffee maker
I've tried.

That might be because the coffee maker is designed to run
lower-than-boiling water through the coffee, this to reduce the chance
that some of the more bitter compounds come out of the ground. I'd be
interested in the temperature of both if you have a chance.

I just checked my Mr. Coffee machine with an old candy/deep fry
thermometer and it first came out at 150, slowly raising to 185°F
(out of the drip basket, not the heated carafe) after a couple
minutes. (Caution: kids, don't try this at home.)

Someone tell Stella. Here's another hot, deep-pocketed lawsuit victim
just _waiting_ to be sued!


--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:20:12 GMT, zadoc wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:49:22 GMT, Sue wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:51:16 GMT, 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.

You did include age, but you said "but we aren't female or her age".
Please note the "or". IMO you just shouldn't have put in anything
about her being female. Shame on ya.

I apologize for mentioning the obvious differences between the male
and female sexes. However, God designed us that way. Apparently He
thought it would be nice?

So, God designed women to not know that it can be dangerous to spill
hot liquids in their laps? Then God should have been sued and not
McDonald's.
Sue

"Russ Kepler" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Russ Kepler" wrote in message
...

Why don't you stick a thermometer in the output of your coffee maker and
test the primary part of the story here - that McDonalds is selling
coffee at a dangerous temperature?


Ok, but not tonight. But I consider my coffee maker to be a little cold
and
I only use it when I'm in a hurry. Normally I boil water on the stove
and
pour it immediately through a coffee-filled cone filter. It ain't
gourmet,
but that gives me a much better flavor and fragrance than any coffee
maker
I've tried.

That might be because the coffee maker is designed to run
lower-than-boiling water through the coffee, this to reduce the chance
that some of the more bitter compounds come out of the ground. I'd be
interested in the temperature of both if you have a chance.

Well, I can tell you right now the temp. of the water from the teapot: 212
deg. F. g

Damn, this all reminds me that I broke my mercury lab thermometer last
summer, and I'm stuck with a meat thermometer to measure the temp. of
coffee-maker water. I'll get to it.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Well, I can tell you right now the temp. of the water from the teapot: 212
deg. F. g

True unless you're up in the mountains.

You don't realize this until you have to eat crunchy
baked potatoes.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Well, I can tell you right now the temp. of the water from the teapot:
212
deg. F. g

True unless you're up in the mountains.

You don't realize this until you have to eat crunchy
baked potatoes.

Yeah, I worked at Vail one winter -- 8200 feet, IIRC. Most things we baked
really sucked.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:49:12 GMT, zadoc wrote:

Cracks me up that a self-proclaimed "survivalist" is afraid of hot coffee.

I didn't say I was "afraid" of it,

Probaby someone thinking of shooting it ....
And they tried to trick by removing the crossposting ...
"Followup-To: alt.machines.cnc"
--
Cliff

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 12:21:54 -0800, "Jeff McCann" wrote:

(snip)
It bears directly on the issue of impartiality. It is a panel of jurors,
not a panel of investigators. The jury's job is to weigh the credibility
and probative value of the evidence and restimony presented at trial, and
certainly not to rely on their own, unknown, untestable, unexaminable and
unchallangeable "experience" in the matter. Lots of people "know" stuff
that just ain't so. The only proper role for "experience" is in the common
sense judgment the juror applies in weighing the credibility and probative
value of the evidence and restimony presented at trial.

You mean like the juror in the Michael Jackson trial who told the reporter after
the trial was over how she voted to acquit because she didn't like the way the
accuser's mother kept "gesturing" toward the jury when she was testifying?

Now THAT sounds like some good "common sense" experience thinking to apply when
deciding guilt or innocence in a trial. :/

zadoc wrote:

Why should it? A product is supposed to be inherently safe for the
average user.



YOU said a mouthfull there. AVERAGE. Some folks are a tad less.:-)
...lew...

Cliff wrote:

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.


Cliffy you finally got a good one .
...lew...

The Watcher wrote:

I think every fast food place should now have 2 coffee dispensers, one for
normal people and one for the STUPID people. The normal people's coffee can be
as hot as they want it and the STUPID people's coffee will be served at room
temperature(just like their IQ). It should be plainly labeled, so they won't get
confused(yeah, right, I mean so they won't get any more confused than they
already are).

Wonderfull idea. Next time I order a cup of coffee I'm going to ask if
this is from the "stupid peoples" pot or is it HOT ? :-)
...lew...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Russ Kepler" wrote in message
...

Why don't you stick a thermometer in the output of your coffee maker and
test the primary part of the story here - that McDonalds is selling
coffee at a dangerous temperature?


Ok, but not tonight. But I consider my coffee maker to be a little cold and
I only use it when I'm in a hurry. Normally I boil water on the stove and
pour it immediately through a coffee-filled cone filter. It ain't gourmet,
but that gives me a much better flavor and fragrance than any coffee maker
I've tried.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed. I use instant and get the water to a roiling boil before pouring
in into the cup with the instant and an artificial sweetner already
in the cup and with a stir or two start to sip it. So it must be
cloase to 190 or 200 here at a touch over 5300 ft (Abq NM).
...lew...

Ed Huntress wrote:

Yeah, I worked at Vail one winter -- 8200 feet, IIRC. Most things we baked
really sucked.

--
Ed Huntress

Coffee at that altitude, you could bathe in safely. :-)
...lew...

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:32:56 -0700, TDKozan
wrote:

(snips)


Well, I've had my say and it's been fun typing with you. If nothing
else, this conversation demonstrates the reasoning behind the
annecdotes about lawyers being quick to exclude people with experience
in the matter being tried from their juries.


I've been reading Twain's "Roughing It" and his opinion of
the legal system, as stated in the book, are still right on
target. People with experience, and brains, and common
sense are kept OFF juries. The fact that the jury in this
case found for the plaintiff isn't proof that the defendant
was wrong; it's proof that the system is broken.


Ding, ding, ding!

There's the problem techies have relating to lawyers:

Impartiality # Ignorance.


TK

--
Cogito ergo bibo

J. Clarke wrote:
Jeff McCann wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
. ..

snip &c, &c, &c. . .

May I ask a favor?

When we're all wasting our time with one of Cliffie's multi-group
trolls to the usual suspects, would you mind not changing the
follow-ups? It makes it easier to figure out who said what and follow
the conversation when we're not all hanging out in a.m.c.

TIA,

TK

--
Cogito ergo bibo

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
ink.net...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Russ Kepler" wrote in message
...

Why don't you stick a thermometer in the output of your coffee maker and
test the primary part of the story here - that McDonalds is selling
coffee at a dangerous temperature?


Ok, but not tonight. But I consider my coffee maker to be a little cold
and
I only use it when I'm in a hurry. Normally I boil water on the stove
and
pour it immediately through a coffee-filled cone filter. It ain't
gourmet,
but that gives me a much better flavor and fragrance than any coffee
maker
I've tried.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed. I use instant and get the water to a roiling boil before pouring
in into the cup with the instant and an artificial sweetner already
in the cup and with a stir or two start to sip it. So it must be
cloase to 190 or 200 here at a touch over 5300 ft (Abq NM).

INSTANT!! AAAaahhh...

Infidel. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
ink.net...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Yeah, I worked at Vail one winter -- 8200 feet, IIRC. Most things we
baked
really sucked.

--
Ed Huntress

Coffee at that altitude, you could bathe in safely. :-)

The cakes looked like brownies. The chocolate ones looked like fudge.

Jeez, it was frustrating. I couldn't even get the beans in bean soup to
soften up, until I bought a pressure cooker.

--
Ed Huntress

TDKozan wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:32:56 -0700, TDKozan
wrote:

(snips)


Well, I've had my say and it's been fun typing with you. If nothing
else, this conversation demonstrates the reasoning behind the
annecdotes about lawyers being quick to exclude people with experience
in the matter being tried from their juries.


I've been reading Twain's "Roughing It" and his opinion of
the legal system, as stated in the book, are still right on
target. People with experience, and brains, and common
sense are kept OFF juries. The fact that the jury in this
case found for the plaintiff isn't proof that the defendant
was wrong; it's proof that the system is broken.


Ding, ding, ding!

There's the problem techies have relating to lawyers:

Impartiality # Ignorance.

No, the problem we have is that to lawyers the law is not about justice but
is instead has become a game.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 01:50:49 GMT, Lew Hartswick
wrote:

The Watcher wrote:

I think every fast food place should now have 2 coffee dispensers, one for
normal people and one for the STUPID people. The normal people's coffee can be
as hot as they want it and the STUPID people's coffee will be served at room
temperature(just like their IQ). It should be plainly labeled, so they won't get
confused(yeah, right, I mean so they won't get any more confused than they
already are).

Wonderfull idea. Next time I order a cup of coffee I'm going to ask if
this is from the "stupid peoples" pot or is it HOT ? :-)
...lew...

I've already discussed it with a few fast food places, the option of them
setting up two dispensers-one for normal people and one for idiots like Stella
Liebeck. Of course, they should both be clearly labeled. One could be clearly
labeled "HOT coffee, Buy at Your Own Risk".(Yeah, I know, stupid people would
still buy it, burn themselves and still want to sue over it :/).
The other could be clearly labeled "Stupid People Coffee". It would be served at
room temperature. Yeah, I know it would still be a choking hazard, since the
stupid people could still swallow it and have it go down the wrong pipe, but
life is like that. Maybe they could take a chance and live dangerously.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:45:45 GMT, Lew Hartswick
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

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.


Cliffy you finally got a good one .

When I got back I found myself doing it too.
Briefly. Good thing the road was deserted.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:36:08 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

The other could be clearly labeled "Stupid People Coffee".

I'm opposed to separate-but-equal coffee for wingers.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:45:45 GMT, Lew Hartswick
wrote:


Cliff wrote:


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.


Cliffy you finally got a good one .


When I got back I found myself doing it too.
Briefly. Good thing the road was deserted.

And this is what can happen when Americans drive in countries like
Australia/UK/New Zealand and 'forget' which side to drive on.

These guys were hurrying to get to a meeting, their religion didn't save
them - or the innocent NZ'er in the other car...

We seem to get a lot of this in New Zealand - tourists who forget to
drive on the left, to the extent that you will see arrows painted on the
road in the left-hand lane just after intersections, picnic stops etc.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3532345a11,00.html
Bob

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:02:59 -0800, "Jeff McCann" wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 12:21:54 -0800, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

(snip)
It bears directly on the issue of impartiality. It is a panel of jurors,
not a panel of investigators. The jury's job is to weigh the credibility
and probative value of the evidence and restimony presented at trial, and
certainly not to rely on their own, unknown, untestable, unexaminable and
unchallangeable "experience" in the matter. Lots of people "know" stuff
that just ain't so. The only proper role for "experience" is in the
common
sense judgment the juror applies in weighing the credibility and
probative
value of the evidence and restimony presented at trial.

You mean like the juror in the Michael Jackson trial who told the reporter
after
the trial was over how she voted to acquit because she didn't like the way
the
accuser's mother kept "gesturing" toward the jury when she was testifying?

Now THAT sounds like some good "common sense" experience thinking to apply
when
deciding guilt or innocence in a trial. :/

Didn't see it, but maybe it was a reason to doubt the honesty of her
testimony, i.e., that she was playing to the jury?

Maybe it was, but this stupid woman juror wasn't saying in the interview that
she doubted the honesty of the testimony. She was saying that she didn't LIKE
the accuser's mother, and that was why she voted for acquittal.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 06:00:32 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:36:08 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

The other could be clearly labeled "Stupid People Coffee".

I'm opposed to separate-but-equal coffee for wingers.

Maybe Cliffie finally gets a clue, since this coffee could be sold to
LEFT-wingers AND RIGHT-wingers.

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 12:21:54 -0800, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

(snip)
It bears directly on the issue of impartiality. It is a panel of jurors,
not a panel of investigators. The jury's job is to weigh the credibility
and probative value of the evidence and restimony presented at trial, and
certainly not to rely on their own, unknown, untestable, unexaminable and
unchallangeable "experience" in the matter. Lots of people "know" stuff
that just ain't so. The only proper role for "experience" is in the
common
sense judgment the juror applies in weighing the credibility and
probative
value of the evidence and restimony presented at trial.

You mean like the juror in the Michael Jackson trial who told the reporter
after
the trial was over how she voted to acquit because she didn't like the way
the
accuser's mother kept "gesturing" toward the jury when she was testifying?

Now THAT sounds like some good "common sense" experience thinking to apply
when
deciding guilt or innocence in a trial. :/

Didn't see it, but maybe it was a reason to doubt the honesty of her
testimony, i.e., that she was playing to the jury?

Jeff