On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:07:58 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Don
Foreman quickly quoth:

The conundrum here is who decides who needs protecting from whom, who
decides that, and how might that be done without encroaching on the
liberty of competent contributors. Getting this right would at
least require the arbiter to consistently and correctly discriminate
between the truely needful and artful parasites. The gummint is
demonstrably poor at this and tort litigators demonstrably don't
care either way as long as they get their third of the action.

With expenses, it's closer to -half- the action.


Social responsibility starts with what you give, not with what you
exhort others to give or aspire for power to take from them to
give to others as you see fit.

Bravo, Don.

So, do you think we'll see a list from Dennis? (Well, Dennis?)
My social responsibility starts with telling or showing folks how to
do something safer when they're doing "stupid people things." and
saying "Do as I say, not as I do." when I pull 'em myself.


--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
================================================== ==========

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

snip
It's 700 claims over ten years, or 70 per year [Lawyers]. McDonalds
serves a billion cups of coffee per year, so the incidence is not large:
10^2/10^9= 10^-7, or one every ten million cups of coffee.
snip
That's not 700 injuries, that's 700 claims, i.e. the people were
p****d off enough and injured enough to sue, and who the lawyers,
who were most likely working on a contingency basis, thought had
a "slam dunk" case. The actual number of injuries is much
[although how much is unknown] higher.

Even if it's a factor of ten higher (the usual rule of thumb), it's
still one per million cups.


It is one thing to have A problem rise up and "bite you in the
a**." It is quite another when you knowingly allow YOUR problem
to bite one person after another in the a**. This is like
keeping a dog you know is vicious and prone to biting, because he
had done it several times before, in your home where you are
running a day care center. Think pit bulls.

Hmm. This isn't the example I would have chosen if I were you. The
problem rate with Pit Bulls is *far* higher than one in ten million, and
(unlike coffee cups) Pit Bulls actively go for the kill. So far, there
have been no reports of a coffee cup slipping the leash and mauling some
passing innocent.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:25:01 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:



Sure. Any damn fool can buy machine tools. All it takes is money, and
nobody makes them prove that they have taken a bunch of safety courses
and passed some license tests and gotten a pretty bit of parchment.
Unlike Stationary Engineers (steam plants) and Professional and/or Civil
Engineers (construction). Etc.

So I should have to take a course and get a license to buy a
chainsaw? Thanks a lot!

I sure hope not, but I think you see my point.

I'm not suggesting that such licensing would be a good idea.
Basically, I'm saying that we should be careful about what we pray for.


If someone buys more machine than they can handle and manages to hurt
themself, they are likely to sue alleging that the tool is unreasonably
dangerous, and/or that in all those the pages of warnings in the manual,
there was nothing that *exactly* fit the specifics.

Jurys tend to feel sorry for the poor slob, and often find for the
plaintiff because the defendent is seen as a big rich company that can
clearly spare the money, even if the plaintiff is clearly an idiot.

If this happened only rarely, it wouldn't have much of a general effect.
But what's happening is that companies across the board are stopping
making things deemed too dangerous for the average citizen, or selling
only to industry, because a sympathetic jury doesn't really care about
the facts or the law.

That's been going on for years. A person smart enough to use stuff
safely is also smart enough to figure out a (legal) way to buy it at
a fair to good price. One method I use is to appear in person to
make the purchase. They seem to quickly become comfortable that I
know what I'm doing well enough to use the product responsibly.
They ask friendly helpful questions. I do my homework if any is
indicated. If I don't know an answer, I'm honest about that: "tell
me more about that, please!" That in itself indicates a responsible
attitude. If I really didn't have a clue, I wouldn't blame them for
throwing me out; I'd do the same if I were they.

I agree.


I've been buying stuff for years from "industry only" distributors.
I bought a device just last week that three dealers told me were only
available to licensed ... uh...users. Fooey. I don't need a
license to apply it for my own use, and there's no way I'd install one
for somone else without having applicable liability insurance -- which
is part of why a "licensed user" would mark it up significantly.

Ditto. And I've bought my share of industrial-only stuff.


I can assure you that the cost of that litigious crap is already
built into the prices. I've read that half the cost of a ladder is
for legal contingency. I know -- but won't quote sources -- that
the cost-to-distributors of a propane valve nearly identical to a
similar n.g. valve is significantly higher. Guess why?

Cost in dollars is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is when
useful things become unavailable because the liability risk makes it
unprofitable to manufacture the item. The unpredictability of such
judgments causes the insurance companies to price liability insurance
very dear.


Welding suppliers now charge haz mat fees on nearly everything,
including oxygen. (I wonder if hospitals get charged hazmat on oxy?)

I bet they do. An oxygen-fed fire is pretty fierce.


At my company, we have precisely such a training and exam system,
because too many factory people were getting themselves chopped up, and
these are mostly full time employees with experience. Suits weren't the
issue, because Workman's Compensation applies, but still the injury rate
was too high, so everybody in the company was sent in for mandatory
safety training.

Responsible management and a good idea. Better management would have
done that before people were getting hurt.

Agree. What happened was that some years ago we got a new CEO who came
from a different industry, and he knew from that industry that our
injury rates were higher than necessary. So he fixed the problem.

Joe Gwinn

Don Bruder explains all: (paraphrased)

Me good, me big, go away with your higher ideals. Me don't need them,
me big. Others small, maybe get eaten. That good. Me no share food.

Did I get that right? Did I miss anything? Oh, what the heck, one
more "me big" for good luck.

How much we know at 20. Maybe time will make a difference.

dennis
in nca

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:35:45 -0800, Don Bruder
wrote:



Let's get something out in the open: I'm anti-corporation right from the
git-go - I believe that corporations should have *NO* legal standing
whatsoever beyond paying taxes.

That's rather naive. If they had no legal standing they would not
have to pay taxes. Corps are simply legal entities that do business
as an individual or partnership might do while separating the
business identity from the personal identities of any particular
individuals.

Which I find wrong due to the fact that the "artificial person" that is
the company has (or does a damn good job of appearing to have) more
rights than actual "natural humans". It is my considered opinion that
such fictitious entities should be stripped of *ALL* of the advantages
they are currently given over individual "real people", and left only
the responsibilities - Exactly the opposite of what appears to be the
current situation.

Corporations are, by my lights, indeed
one of the main evils of today's society,

That is absurd.

What's absurd is the fact that the pseudo-person called "Company X"
consistently appears to have more rights than me, and consistently gets
handed a slap on the wrist for stuff that would put me behind bars for
years if I were to attempt even *HALF* of what they get away with.

There are many responsible corporations, some of
which ( often privately held) place employee welfare as job 1.

That would be one man's opinion. One which I've seen preious little
evidence of outside "Mom's Diner" level operations.

As I said, there's nobody else looking out for me, so I'm damn well
gonna remain at the top of my list of "who I look out for".

So how are you different from the corporations you villify other than
you're not nearly as good at it?

*I* am an actual human being that can be spoken to face to face. They
are an artificial construction of greed, bull****, political favor, and
wind that's impossible to get a handle on, let alone an answer from, yet
have, or at least appear to, more rights and fewer responsibilities than
an actual person.

However, we're veering from the initial premise, which is/was "who
decides what's safe, and for whom?".

To get back to that concept from our little side-excursion to
digression-ville, my stance is that the only person qualified to decide
what is or isn't too dangerous/unsafe is the person doing the deciding.
NOt the government, not Ralph Nader, not anybody or anything other than
the person contemplating the activity.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

In article .com,
"rigger" wrote:

Don Bruder explains all: (paraphrased)

Me good, me big, go away with your higher ideals. Me don't need them,
me big. Others small, maybe get eaten. That good. Me no share food.

Cute. Pointless, but cute. The lip-flapping did create a nice breeze,
though.

How much we know at 20. Maybe time will make a difference.

Heh... A hint, wise-guy... I look back at 40 with fond remembrance
nowdays.

I *WISH* I was only 20 - Again! On second thought, no, I don't...
19-23-ish was rough times for me, what with the whole state of
Michigan's economy in the toilet, unemployment at an all time high in
ALL sectors, everybody and his dog laying off rather than hiring, and (I
**** you not) literal billboards on the southbound side of I-75 at the
Michigan/Ohio border that read "Will the last one out of Michigan please
turn off the lights?". The "mini-depression" that we enjoyed back then
was a real fun ride for a lot of folks, lemme tell ya...

And you better believe nothing says "prosperity" like having the choice
between ramen noodles and rabbit stew twice a day for weeks at a stretch.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

Don Bruder wrote:


So how are you different from the corporations you villify other than
you're not nearly as good at it?

*I* am an actual human being that can be spoken to face to face. They
are an artificial construction of greed, bull****, political favor, and
wind that's impossible to get a handle on, let alone an answer from, yet
have, or at least appear to, more rights and fewer responsibilities than
an actual person.


--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

Don,

Corporations are run by people. So just like people there are all
sorts of corporations. Some are run by greedy people that use bull****
and political favor. But some are run by people just as responsible as
you or I.

A great example of a corporation that you should look at is Nucor.
Back about 1960 it was known as Nuclear Corporation of America and was
run by a president that was not responsible. It came very close to
bankruptcy. The president walked away. One of the executives was
persuaded to take over the company. He looked at what the company had
and changed the direction of the company. They started making bar
joists. The corporation gave bonuses to the employees based on
production. They started making money. They expanded by starting a
mini steel mill, melting scrap to make the rebar and angle for the bar
joists. Made more money. They still pay a wage and a bonus based on
production. Sometimes the bonus can be as big as the wages.

To make a long story short, Nucor is now the second largest steel
producer in the US. In 2004 in addition to their normal pay and
bonuses, they paid all employees two additional bonuses of $1000. In
addition they have a plan where the workers get stock.
Their corporate headquarters is in Charlotte, North Carolina on the
second floor over a restaurant. The number of people in the corporate
office is less than the number of plants they own.

Their web site is www.nucor.com and their telephone number is 704
366 7000.

Dan

Don Bruder said:

What's absurd is the fact that the pseudo-person called "Company X"
consistently appears to have more rights than me, and consistently gets

handed a slap on the wrist for stuff that would put me behind bars for
years if I were to attempt even *HALF* of what they get away with.

Then Don Bruder said:

To get back to that concept from our little side-excursion to
digression-ville, my stance is that the only person qualified to decide

what is or isn't too dangerous/unsafe is the person doing the deciding.

NOt the government, not Ralph Nader, not anybody or anything other than
the person contemplating the activity.

So who is to determine the "responsibilities" of these corporate
entities? You indicate they can't be trusted (in many cases at least)
to responsibly manage themselves (I agree).

If you get into a car not knowing the manufacturer's cost-cutting has
created a dangerous vehicle how can you make an informed decision? If
the car explodes who's responsible? You?

You see the problem but you hesitate to voice the solution.

dennis
in nca

Larry Jaques remembers:

Nader got the Corvair off the road and left much more unstable VW bug
on the road. Great going, Ralph. I'm surprised the insurance companies
haven't responded to that one. VW bugs and buses burn up all the time
WITHOUT an accident causing it, yet 'they' go after the Pinto.

And you would have preferred what?

Personal note: I'm driving Lake Shore Drive in Chicago and am going
around "dead man's curve" (think they've straightened it out now) in my
1 year old '63 Corvair, and my left rear axle snaps off. This with
about 400# of passangers on-board. Never had that happen with my
"bug". Even had the steering wheel and column unscrew right up into my
hands when I was making a left turn one time. Bug never did that
either.

dennis
in nca

Larry Jaques offered:

Liberal??? Because I care about people? Show me your NRA card and
I'll show you mine.

Liberal ideas, then.

Please clarify. According to your definition people who care about
others are "liberal" and those who don't are.......what? So if you
care about others only a "little" then it's OK? Or does that "little"
bit make you "all" liberal?

But tell me, would the color of my skin make any difference to you?

Where'd that come from? No, skin color makes no difference to me.

Sorry if I'm off-base but it sure seemed you were attempting to
denigrate me because of my "aol.com" address. In your mind is this
inherently different?

Not convinced, and I'm quite aware, thanks. So, you're saying that you
would have caught the original engineering oversight in the Pinto? An
oversight (problems caused by 35+ mph rear-end collisions don't figure
into the engineering drawings) is just that.

Me, catch an engineering oversite missed by professionals, HAHAHA. But
you miss the point: It was readily shown Ford was AWARE of the defect
and, rather than recall or at least temporarily stop production or make
changes, calculated the cost of these measures against money projected
to be lost in "wrongfull death" lawsuits and chose to continue killing
people. All the information is on-line if you care enough to look.

Well, I got screwed on a paint job by Ford.
I'd like to punch their corporate mouths for the thinking behind that.

And how would you accomplish that by yourself?
Sorry you got screwed over.

I wrote letters instead...to no avail. C'est la guerre, non?

A properly fatalistic attitude, sometimes. And usually when YOU have a
choice in the matter. Sounds like you didn't have a choice.

Although I like your sig perhaps you'll like this one better?

Sorry for the last sig. How's this? This might be a universal major
corp sig:
"Never give a sucker an even break". Of course everyone else is you
and me.

dennis
in nca

In article , Larry Jaques says...

That's the idea I was trying to get across to you. Do your own thing
and don't **** up other people's lives with it.

Too bad jeff skilling and kenny boy didn't follow those rules.

Jim


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

For a more in-depth discussion see
http://www.mcduffee-associates.us/di...tion/big-d.htm
scroll about halfway down and download corp.pdf

Many people don't realize that several of the 13 original
colonies were in effect corporations, and their activities could
have helped provoke the revolutionary war.

For something that has no physical existence and is strictly a
legal fiction, corporations seem to have gotten out of hand
*AGAIN*. If I don't want a "planned economy" from Washington,
why should I want one from the corporate boardrooms? CEOs put
their pants on one leg at a time just like everyone else. Power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

My pet cure would be a fixed 50 year charter, after which the
corporation would have to be liquidated and their equity returned
to the stockholders, with no more than 10% of their existing
assets going to any one person or entity.

Uncle George



On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:04:58 -0800, Don Bruder
wrote:

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:35:45 -0800, Don Bruder
wrote:



Let's get something out in the open: I'm anti-corporation right from the
git-go - I believe that corporations should have *NO* legal standing
whatsoever beyond paying taxes.

That's rather naive. If they had no legal standing they would not
have to pay taxes. Corps are simply legal entities that do business
as an individual or partnership might do while separating the
business identity from the personal identities of any particular
individuals.

Which I find wrong due to the fact that the "artificial person" that is
the company has (or does a damn good job of appearing to have) more
rights than actual "natural humans". It is my considered opinion that
such fictitious entities should be stripped of *ALL* of the advantages
they are currently given over individual "real people", and left only
the responsibilities - Exactly the opposite of what appears to be the
current situation.

Corporations are, by my lights, indeed
one of the main evils of today's society,

That is absurd.

What's absurd is the fact that the pseudo-person called "Company X"
consistently appears to have more rights than me, and consistently gets
handed a slap on the wrist for stuff that would put me behind bars for
years if I were to attempt even *HALF* of what they get away with.

There are many responsible corporations, some of
which ( often privately held) place employee welfare as job 1.

That would be one man's opinion. One which I've seen preious little
evidence of outside "Mom's Diner" level operations.

As I said, there's nobody else looking out for me, so I'm damn well
gonna remain at the top of my list of "who I look out for".

So how are you different from the corporations you villify other than
you're not nearly as good at it?

*I* am an actual human being that can be spoken to face to face. They
are an artificial construction of greed, bull****, political favor, and
wind that's impossible to get a handle on, let alone an answer from, yet
have, or at least appear to, more rights and fewer responsibilities than
an actual person.

However, we're veering from the initial premise, which is/was "who
decides what's safe, and for whom?".

To get back to that concept from our little side-excursion to
digression-ville, my stance is that the only person qualified to decide
what is or isn't too dangerous/unsafe is the person doing the deciding.
NOt the government, not Ralph Nader, not anybody or anything other than
the person contemplating the activity.

snip
Welding suppliers now charge haz mat fees on nearly everything,
including oxygen. (I wonder if hospitals get charged hazmat on oxy?)

I bet they do. An oxygen-fed fire is pretty fierce.
snip
Not only a chemical/fire hazzard. A full tank [any compressed
gas even argon/helium] that is knocked over so that
valve/regulator breaks off becomes an unguided missle. Will go
through cinder block and drywall/stud walls with no problem. I
can see the headlines now after one of these go through a day
school.

Uncle George

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:58:52 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


And I know at least one exiled Englishman that has a real 220-volt
teakettle, for which he had a special UK 220 volt outlet installed in
the kitchen. I recall that they work something like three times faster
than 110 volts.

Joe Gwinn

I'm not an exiled Brit, but I do have one of those kettles: T-Fal
Vitesse Gold. The UK outlet is right next to the 220 volt air
compressor. At 2750 -3000 watts it's probably not three times as fast
as a 1500 watt 110-volt kettle, but it's still pretty quick. If I
start it before grinding the coffee and loading the filter, it's
boiling when I'm ready to pour.

I use it for making "good" afternoon coffee with a Melitta filter --
"good" as differentiated from the morning "utility" coffee that is
made in a Krups coffeemaker.

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

snip
Welding suppliers now charge haz mat fees on nearly everything,
including oxygen. (I wonder if hospitals get charged hazmat on oxy?)

I bet they do. An oxygen-fed fire is pretty fierce.
snip
Not only a chemical/fire hazzard. A full tank [any compressed
gas even argon/helium] that is knocked over so that
valve/regulator breaks off becomes an unguided missle. Will go
through cinder block and drywall/stud walls with no problem. I
can see the headlines now after one of these go through a day
school.

Hospitals typically pipe oxygen at low pressure to the wards from a
central source, and most often take delivery in the form of liquid
oxygen, because it's cheaper that way.

Why would a day [care?] school have bottles of compressed gas?

Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn asked:

I can see the headlines now after one of these go through a day
school.

Why would a day [care?] school have bottles of compressed gas?

To fill helium balloons?

dennis
in nca

On 17 Jan 2006 17:11:03 -0800, "rigger" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn asked:

I can see the headlines now after one of these go through a day
school.

Why would a day [care?] school have bottles of compressed gas?

To fill helium balloons?

dennis
in nca
=============
The next door or across the street welding shop might.....

Uncle George

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:58:52 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


And I know at least one exiled Englishman that has a real 220-volt
teakettle, for which he had a special UK 220 volt outlet installed in
the kitchen. I recall that they work something like three times faster
than 110 volts.

I'm not an exiled Brit, but I do have one of those kettles: T-Fal
Vitesse Gold. The UK outlet is right next to the 220 volt air
compressor. At 2750 -3000 watts it's probably not three times as fast
as a 1500 watt 110-volt kettle, but it's still pretty quick. If I
start it before grinding the coffee and loading the filter, it's
boiling when I'm ready to pour.

So, how do you explain the UK outlet and kettle?


I use it for making "good" afternoon coffee with a Melitta filter --
"good" as differentiated from the morning "utility" coffee that is
made in a Krups coffeemaker.

I'll have to try this (but with a teakettle on the stove). The
difference has to be the water temperature.

Joe Gwinn

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 01:38:13 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:58:52 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


And I know at least one exiled Englishman that has a real 220-volt
teakettle, for which he had a special UK 220 volt outlet installed in
the kitchen. I recall that they work something like three times faster
than 110 volts.

I'm not an exiled Brit, but I do have one of those kettles: T-Fal
Vitesse Gold. The UK outlet is right next to the 220 volt air
compressor. At 2750 -3000 watts it's probably not three times as fast
as a 1500 watt 110-volt kettle, but it's still pretty quick. If I
start it before grinding the coffee and loading the filter, it's
boiling when I'm ready to pour.

So, how do you explain the UK outlet and kettle?

What's to explain? It's simply the fastest way I have at hand to
heat water for whatever purpose. It heats water RFN.


I use it for making "good" afternoon coffee with a Melitta filter --
"good" as differentiated from the morning "utility" coffee that is
made in a Krups coffeemaker.

I'll have to try this (but with a teakettle on the stove). The
difference has to be the water temperature.

I think the difference is less one of water temp than the coffee
and brewing process. I think boiling water is boiling water however
it ges boiled. Others may disagree, They're probably right.

My first-of-day getcherassingear "utility" coffee is stuff from a
can from the grocery store, brewed by Mr. Krups while I'm brushing
such teeth as I can find at zero dark hundred or only slightly past
noon, whatever.

Afternoon savor coffee is ground beans of "Velvet Hammer" blend from
Bob's. I don't know what that blend is, but I think the name is
quite descriptive and I like it. Milady does too. I present it to
her, when she's here in-country , in her favorite small cup, "ruined"
just as she likes it with sugar and cream. We enjoy that little
ritual. She does me good too. We're a small team forged over two
decades. We're each and both gentle retired folk now, the "nice old
folks that live next door".

On 17 Jan 2006 11:05:19 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "rigger"
quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques remembers:

Nader got the Corvair off the road and left much more unstable VW bug
on the road. Great going, Ralph. I'm surprised the insurance companies
haven't responded to that one. VW bugs and buses burn up all the time
WITHOUT an accident causing it, yet 'they' go after the Pinto.

And you would have preferred what?

Personal note: I'm driving Lake Shore Drive in Chicago and am going
around "dead man's curve" (think they've straightened it out now) in my
1 year old '63 Corvair, and my left rear axle snaps off. This with
about 400# of passangers on-board. Never had that happen with my
"bug". Even had the steering wheel and column unscrew right up into my
hands when I was making a left turn one time. Bug never did that
either.

And I took my '64 Corvair convertible off 4' jumps with my dirtbike
buddies and drove it 90mph on the freeway at times. No broken axles,
no spinouts, no problems. Then I let my buddy drive while my new
girlfriend and I necked in the back seat. After I stopped to tell him
to SLOW DOWN a fifth time, he spun it out and we hit a berm on the
road and came up on two wheels right next to a telephone pole. My GF
got a nasty bump on her head from the steel roof brace but we and the
car were otherwise unharmed. No broken axle, no bent wheel. We were
amazed. Needless to say, _I_ drove us home and my buddy never drove
any of my cars again. I drove it fast but never spun it out, either.
Again, the problem was that of a slight problem in the engineering
which was horribly increased due to motorist inattention to both
driving and air pressure in the fracking tires. When either or both
were taken care of, the problem simply didn't exist. Nader should have
gone after a better vehicular maintenance schedule and/or driver's ed
for EVERYONE if he wanted to reduce accidents. In Germany, it costs
thousands of dollars to GET a driver's license and certified training
to be able to drive on the Autobahn.

Shall we license coffee for seniors?


Regarding your Corvair experience, either you have -lots- of karma
debt g or you simply bought a lemon.

(BTW, nice redirection from the subject.)


P.S: Your age reveals a whole lot about your attitudes. As Churchill
never said: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no
heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have
no brain."


--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
================================================== ==========

On 17 Jan 2006 11:47:31 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "rigger"
quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques offered:

Liberal??? Because I care about people? Show me your NRA card and
I'll show you mine.

Liberal ideas, then.

Please clarify. According to your definition people who care about
others are "liberal" and those who don't are.......what? So if you
care about others only a "little" then it's OK? Or does that "little"
bit make you "all" liberal?

Liberals tell the rest of us to ante up to "fix" things which should
be covered by personal integrity/responsibility or rung up as
accidents by the less intelligent or irresponsible parties.


But tell me, would the color of my skin make any difference to you?

Where'd that come from? No, skin color makes no difference to me.

Sorry if I'm off-base but it sure seemed you were attempting to
denigrate me because of my "aol.com" address. In your mind is this
inherently different?

Google on "aol" and "me, too". And, yes, they're different. Racism is
not EVEN in the same league as newbie humor. (Hate vs. grins)


Not convinced, and I'm quite aware, thanks. So, you're saying that you
would have caught the original engineering oversight in the Pinto? An
oversight (problems caused by 35+ mph rear-end collisions don't figure
into the engineering drawings) is just that.

Me, catch an engineering oversite missed by professionals, HAHAHA. But
you miss the point: It was readily shown Ford was AWARE of the defect
and, rather than recall or at least temporarily stop production or make
changes, calculated the cost of these measures against money projected
to be lost in "wrongfull death" lawsuits and chose to continue killing
people. All the information is on-line if you care enough to look.

And you missed my point about the legal system requiring that action.
According to the speaking weasels (attorneys) the shareholders require
that they maximize profits. Some of the bigwigs should have figured
out that doing the right thing (voluntary recall immediately) would
have cost less in the long run. I'll even bet that if they had charged
Pinto owners their labor costs for the retrofit (I think we made $8-10
on the installation.) that it would have been a winning move. But that
didn't happen due to the legal climate. Owning up to something brings
on the ambulance chasers in mega-droves.


--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
================================================== ==========

F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:27:46 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:
There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.
We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.
Think someone will sue Krups?
Joe Gwinn
=============
If Krupps implies that the coffee is ready to drink as it comes
out of their machine and people were getting scalded or worse
every day, sure. People are aware that the coffee is too hot to
drink as it comes out of the maker. People are not aware that
the coffee is scalding and too hot to drink, when it is sold to
them in a cup as a ready to go drink. Why did the scalding
problem go away after McD's got their chops busted?

Because ever newspaper and TV news show in the country reported "stupid old
bat burns self with coffee" and the two other people in the world who
hadn't figured out for themselves that coffee is hot and hot things burn
you got the message?

Hint--McDonalds still serves coffee at exactly the same tempeature--the
temperature which the plaintiff claimed to have been set in the coffee
machine is in the middle of the range that the ANSI coffee machine spec
calls for. They did put up "warning, coffee is hot" signs all over the
place, instead of just on the lid where the stupid old bat should have read
it.

If you sell
food that is apparently ready to eat/drink, it had better be
ready to eat/drink, especially after you have injured literally
hundreds of people.

Who said that they had "injured literally hundreds of people"? They had had
700 complaints out of the God knows how many million cups of coffee they've
sold. All of those complaints were not of injuries. What's remarkable to
me is that they had so _few_ complaints.

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

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:27:46 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:
There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.
We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.
Think someone will sue Krups?
Joe Gwinn
=============
If Krupps implies that the coffee is ready to drink as it comes
out of their machine and people were getting scalded or worse
every day, sure. People are aware that the coffee is too hot to
drink as it comes out of the maker.

Krups implies that coffee comes out, but makes no mention of when to
drink it. One assumes that Krups thinks that the rest is obvious;
coffee has been widely consumed in Europe since the 1600s, although it
was known at least since 1000 AD in the Arabic world.

Actually, if it came out any cooler, the coffemaker wouldn't make very
good coffee, and back it would go. You simply cannot brew coffee at 135
degrees F.

And tea needs to be even hotter, just under boiling, at least 20 degrees
hotter than for coffee. The rule has always been that the water had to
be "boilin mad" before pouring onto the tea leaves.


People are not aware that
the coffee is scalding and too hot to drink, when it is sold to
them in a cup as a ready to go drink. Why did the scalding
problem go away after McD's got their chops busted?

Because they were forced to lower it to 135 degrees F, if I recall.
That's pretty cool, so even the careless are safe.

Will cause third degree burns in 15 seconds of exposure. They didn't lower
the temperature, they put up lots and lots of warning signs and their legal
defense team presumably gathered some statistics and put some real experts
on retainer. Eventually ANSI wrote a spec.

I would have improved the coffee cups if I did anything.

The cup manufacturer got sued a while back. The judge threw it out of court
before it went to trial, like he _should_ have done with the Stupid Old
Bat.



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

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:44:39 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
Joseph Gwinn quickly quoth:

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

snip
It's 700 claims over ten years, or 70 per year [Lawyers]. McDonalds
serves a billion cups of coffee per year, so the incidence is not large:
10^2/10^9= 10^-7, or one every ten million cups of coffee.
snip
That's not 700 injuries, that's 700 claims, i.e. the people were
p****d off enough and injured enough to sue, and who the lawyers,
who were most likely working on a contingency basis, thought had
a "slam dunk" case. The actual number of injuries is much
[although how much is unknown] higher.

Even if it's a factor of ten higher (the usual rule of thumb), it's
still one per million cups.

Consider the rate of accidents in the USA: 106,000 -deaths- in 2002.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/uni...verview_UI.htm

I think coffee is damned bit safer, guys. Don't you?


--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
================================================== ==========

Don Foreman wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:47:20 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:


That's rather naive. If they had no legal standing they would not
have to pay taxes. Corps are simply legal entities that do business
as an individual or partnership might do while separating the
business identity from the personal identities of any particular
individuals.

Forgot to mention that a publicly-held corp's shares are traded
on a public market. That offers the opportunity (and risk) for
investors to buy shares in the corp to participate in the corp's
success (or failure) with no active participation or contribution
other than investment, said investor hoping for better ROI than
guaranteed ROI on bonds or bank CD's. Investment in shares
supplies capital for the corp to use for growth, rather like a
bank loan but without specified interest rate. It might also be
skimmed by greedy corp managers with a shell game re Enro and Tyco.
Those run-ups were fed by public greed that the feeders artfully
expoited. Bidness is bidness, greed is "in", tough **** if you're
tactically-deficient in this terrain yelping "me first".

This is one of the things that cracked me up about demands that universities
and other large investors divest their holdings in various politically
incorrect stocks. The demand _should_ have been that they _vote_ those
shares to bring about change.

Privately-held corps work a bit differently, but I think your hard-on
is is with large publicly-held corps so the point is moot.

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

Don Foreman wrote:

On 16 Jan 2006 18:41:21 -0800, "rigger" wrote:


You, you, you. Can't YOU turn it off for a minute? Who protects the
children, since according to you they don't deserve protection? That's
idiotic.

So why don't YOU *BUTT OUT* until you learn a little social
responsibility and start thinking of others instead of yourself all the
time.

I"m seeing a lot of "my way is righter" from both directions......

Don, how about you and the gummint and the litigators protect those
who need protecting and have no one else to protect them, and let the
rest of us do whatever the hell we want provided that it doesn't
endanger or harm another?

Well, there's the problem. We have motorcycle helmet laws because guy who
splatters his brains all over the highway "harms" the insurance company,
the EMTs, the street cleaners, etc.

Some recourse to torts should definitely exist, but we are way the
hell overboard with that in this country.

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

rigger wrote:

Larry Jaques remembers:

Nader got the Corvair off the road and left much more unstable VW bug
on the road. Great going, Ralph. I'm surprised the insurance companies
haven't responded to that one. VW bugs and buses burn up all the time
WITHOUT an accident causing it, yet 'they' go after the Pinto.

And you would have preferred what?

Actually Nader went after VW too. That was pretty much the end of him--the
Beetle was a cultural icon at the time and everybody figured out that he
was nuts.

Personal note: I'm driving Lake Shore Drive in Chicago and am going
around "dead man's curve" (think they've straightened it out now) in my
1 year old '63 Corvair, and my left rear axle snaps off. This with
about 400# of passangers on-board. Never had that happen with my
"bug". Even had the steering wheel and column unscrew right up into my
hands when I was making a left turn one time. Bug never did that
either.

dennis
in nca

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

wrote:

Coffe is ready to drink at 180 degrees F. Maybe not ready for taking
big gulps, but coffee is something to be sipped and savored. Certainly
it is not something intended to be dumped in your crotch. Cold coffee
is not something that I like. I never was a great fan of McD's, but
now their coffee too cold to enjoy.

When was the last time you had coffee at a McDonalds? Their coffee is
difficult to "enjoy" but the temperature has little to do with it. The
main problem is that the Bunn-O-Matic gets cleaned when it's so gross that
the boss can't stand to look at it anymore. And they haven't modified the
Bunn-O-Matic to add ice to the coffee after making to bring the temperature
down--it's still served at the same temperature as the coffee made with
every other Bunn-O-Matic in the known universe, which temperature is mostly
controlled by the QC weenies at Bunn.

Dan

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

Larry Jaques describes his adventures:

And I took my '64 Corvair convertible off 4' jumps with my dirtbike
buddies and drove it 90mph on the freeway at times.

WOW

Regarding your Corvair experience, either you have -lots- of karma
debt g or you simply bought a lemon.

Maybe both? This '63 was my second Corvair, the first a '61. Lot of
fun to drive.

(BTW, nice redirection from the subject.)

Hope you don't mind. It just popped into my head. We're not going to
solve the world's problems here, right?

P.S: Your age reveals a whole lot about your attitudes. As Churchill
never said: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no
heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have
no brain."

I'm not sure what you're saying. Some here have called me a liberal so
they think I'm young? And because it's obvious I'm over 35 you suggest
my views are now conservative?
Well maybe you're right. I notice bones (etc.) heal a lot slower now
and I DO take that into consideration. I'm sure I can do without 2nd
or 3rd degree crotch burns as well. I firmly believe Churchill
would have felt the same.

dennis
in nca

Larry Jaques explaines:

Liberals tell the rest of us to ante up to "fix" things which should
be covered by personal integrity/responsibility or rung up as
accidents by the less intelligent or irresponsible parties.

But most corporations don't show "personal integrity/responsibility" so
have no motivation, other than the pressure of law. And I can agree
there are such things as "accidents" or even "Acts of God". Now can
YOU agree there are such things as "criminal negligence" or is
everything always just an "unfortunate mistake"?

Google on "aol" and "me, too". And, yes, they're different. Racism is
not EVEN in the same league as newbie humor. (Hate vs. grins)

Actually the comment was "color of my skin" not about "Racism",
although I've seen people apply their brand of "humor" to the color of
peoples skin as well. However my post concerned, not racism, but a
predisposeure to making judgments based on superficial features rather
than facts).

I'll even bet that if they had charged Pinto owners their labor costs
for the retrofit (I think we made $8-10 on the installation.) that it
would have been a winning move. But that didn't happen due to the
legal climate. Owning up to something brings on the ambulance
chasers in mega-droves.

The legal climate? So you're saying if the legal climate had been
different they would not have fried all those poor people? THAT is the
EXACT reason we need laws to protect people. On the other hand you
feel protective measures were not taken because, what (?), it might
cost them some money? And so, because it might cost them some money,
admitting THEIR screw-up, this somehow justifies these poor innocent
people getting killed?
Call them "ambulance chasers" if you wish, but without attorneys who
work on contingencies there would be NO justice in a court of law for
many. If it wasn't for these companies pulling **** like this you'd
see a lot less lawyers looking for this kind of work. Same deal as the
unions. Without work conditions being as bad as they were it's
doubtful unions could have gotten where they were in such a short
period of time.

dennis
in nca

J. Clarke expounds:

Well, there's the problem. We have motorcycle helmet laws because
guy who splatters his brains all over the highway "harms" the
insurance
company, the EMTs, the street cleaners, etc.

No John, I don't believe that's exactly right; I'll tell you why.
Certainly everyone is much more "inconvenienced" by the incredible
number of auto and truck accidents and associated fatalities, hospital
costs, etc. Did you ever hear of legislation to force car and truck
drivers to wear helmets, or even double shoulder belts? If the idea
was to save lives why aren't some of our glorious politicians doing
something about it? I'll tell you why: Political expediency (votes)
and money (insurance company contributions). Try to make the "average"
person wear a helmet and they will not vote for you, period. And as
far as the money, it's simple: Even the insurance companies don't have
enough money to cause a political party to commit hara-kiri (sp?).

dennis
in nca

rigger wrote:
J. Clarke expounds:


snipped to teh point

Try to make the "average"
person wear a helmet and they will not vote for you, period.


dennis
in nca


I follow your sentiments, rigger, but came to a different conclusion.

Politics being as confusing as they are...

Actually, **** him off bad enough and the "average" person will vote

- finally -

but for the other guy...


Of course, I could be wrong.

Politics can be very confusing...

Richard

On 18 Jan 2006 10:03:48 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "rigger"
quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques describes his adventures:

And I took my '64 Corvair convertible off 4' jumps with my dirtbike
buddies and drove it 90mph on the freeway at times.

WOW

The California Highway Patrolman who sold the Corvair to me had put a
100 lb sandbag in the trunk for high-speed freeway stability. I later
told him that it was quieter and smoother on the freeway at 90 than my
mother's Lincoln Continental was. He chuckled and replied that he had
fine-tuned the convertible top for noise. 'Course, Mom's car was the
only thing to take to the drive-in movie. It slept 4.


(BTW, nice redirection from the subject.)

Hope you don't mind. It just popped into my head. We're not going to
solve the world's problems here, right?

Right you are. g


P.S: Your age reveals a whole lot about your attitudes. As Churchill
never said: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no
heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have
no brain."

I'm not sure what you're saying. Some here have called me a liberal so
they think I'm young? And because it's obvious I'm over 35 you suggest
my views are now conservative?

I could have sworn you said you were 20. And I won't answer that last
question. snicker


--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
================================================== ==========

rigger wrote:

J. Clarke expounds:

Well, there's the problem. We have motorcycle helmet laws because
guy who splatters his brains all over the highway "harms" the
insurance
company, the EMTs, the street cleaners, etc.

No John, I don't believe that's exactly right; I'll tell you why.
Certainly everyone is much more "inconvenienced" by the incredible
number of auto and truck accidents and associated fatalities, hospital
costs, etc. Did you ever hear of legislation to force car and truck
drivers to wear helmets, or even double shoulder belts? If the idea
was to save lives why aren't some of our glorious politicians doing
something about it? I'll tell you why: Political expediency (votes)
and money (insurance company contributions). Try to make the "average"
person wear a helmet and they will not vote for you, period. And as
far as the money, it's simple: Even the insurance companies don't have
enough money to cause a political party to commit hara-kiri (sp?).

You seem to be agreeing with me without understanding that you are agreeing.

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

Richard Lamb wrote:

rigger wrote:
J. Clarke expounds:


snipped to teh point

Try to make the "average"
person wear a helmet and they will not vote for you, period.


dennis
in nca


I follow your sentiments, rigger, but came to a different conclusion.

Politics being as confusing as they are...

Actually, **** him off bad enough and the "average" person will vote

- finally -

but for the other guy...

And when the other guy finally gets elected he turns out to be just as bad,
only in a different direction. Unfortunately he doesn't _fix_ what the guy
he replaced broke before he goes haring off breaking more stuff.


Of course, I could be wrong.

Politics can be very confusing...

Richard

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

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 01:38:13 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


So, how do you explain the UK outlet and kettle?

If you meant why nuke water for tea, that's so the cup is also
heated. Then the tea is added, not before. If the water was
heated in a kettle, then one should preheat the cup (or teapot) with
some hot water, dump that, then pour in boiling water for brewing.
It only takes 2 minutes to nuke a mug of water for tea.

Coffee is better if the water isn't quite at boiling temp, more
like 190 to 200F.

Larry Jaques mentioned:

I could have sworn you said you were 20.

If you'd known me in the early '60s you might have heard me say that.
Those were the days, I think.

you suggest my views are now conservative?
And I won't answer that last question. snicker

Actually I think of myself as quite conservative, just not rabid about
it and try to keep an open mind. Especially on subjects like
individual rights and state's authority vs corporate and governmental
power.

dennis
in nca

J. Clarke wrote:
rigger wrote:

J. Clarke expounds:

Well, there's the problem. We have motorcycle helmet laws because
guy who splatters his brains all over the highway "harms" the
insurance
company, the EMTs, the street cleaners, etc.

No John, I don't believe that's exactly right; I'll tell you why.
Certainly everyone is much more "inconvenienced" by the incredible
number of auto and truck accidents and associated fatalities, hospital
costs, etc. Did you ever hear of legislation to force car and truck
drivers to wear helmets, or even double shoulder belts? If the idea
was to save lives why aren't some of our glorious politicians doing
something about it? I'll tell you why: Political expediency (votes)
and money (insurance company contributions). Try to make the "average"
person wear a helmet and they will not vote for you, period. And as
far as the money, it's simple: Even the insurance companies don't have
enough money to cause a political party to commit hara-kiri (sp?).

You seem to be agreeing with me without understanding that you are agreeing.

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

You seem to be agreeing with me without understanding that you are agreeing.

I'll put it another way so you can disagree with me as needed.
The helmet laws may, in part, be due to insurance lobbies (money
greases the wheels, right) but the deciding factor is always votes
because the payoff for staying in office is what it's all about.
Motorcyclists don't have enough "pull" and the politicians think they
look good by picking at this issue and feel they gain more votes than
they lose. If this was your point I obviously agree.

dennis
in nca

rigger wrote:


I'll put it another way so you can disagree with me as needed.
The helmet laws may, in part, be due to insurance lobbies (money
greases the wheels, right) but the deciding factor is always votes
because the payoff for staying in office is what it's all about.
Motorcyclists don't have enough "pull" and the politicians think they
look good by picking at this issue and feel they gain more votes than
they lose. If this was your point I obviously agree.

dennis
in nca


Didn't work out that way here is Texas.
I guess we have bigger bikers...

If you are over 21 and have medical insurance (!?)
you can chose to wear a helmet or not.

Now me, I wear one. I don't know if that's because I've
had enough trama to the head to learn better, or haven't
had enough yet to not care.

Richard

rigger wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
rigger wrote:

J. Clarke expounds:

Well, there's the problem. We have motorcycle helmet laws because
guy who splatters his brains all over the highway "harms" the
insurance
company, the EMTs, the street cleaners, etc.

No John, I don't believe that's exactly right; I'll tell you why.
Certainly everyone is much more "inconvenienced" by the incredible
number of auto and truck accidents and associated fatalities, hospital
costs, etc. Did you ever hear of legislation to force car and truck
drivers to wear helmets, or even double shoulder belts? If the idea
was to save lives why aren't some of our glorious politicians doing
something about it? I'll tell you why: Political expediency (votes)
and money (insurance company contributions). Try to make the "average"
person wear a helmet and they will not vote for you, period. And as
far as the money, it's simple: Even the insurance companies don't have
enough money to cause a political party to commit hara-kiri (sp?).

You seem to be agreeing with me without understanding that you are
agreeing.

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

You seem to be agreeing with me without understanding that you are
agreeing.

I'll put it another way so you can disagree with me as needed.
The helmet laws may, in part, be due to insurance lobbies (money
greases the wheels, right) but the deciding factor is always votes
because the payoff for staying in office is what it's all about.
Motorcyclists don't have enough "pull" and the politicians think they
look good by picking at this issue and feel they gain more votes than
they lose. If this was your point I obviously agree.

It's never quite that simple--if you think it is you are very naive.

It's not "votes" per se--most people couldn't care less about motorcycle
helmets and don't have a clue who voted for or against such legislation.
It's the marketing that can be bought with the money donated that gets the
votes.

dennis
in nca

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