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

In article ,
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

Do they have as much money as McDonalds?

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article ,
Nick Hull wrote:

In article ,
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

Do they have as much money as McDonalds?

More or less.

Joe Gwinn

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


I doubt anyone will sue.

However, will you, now knowing the coffee is hot enough to quickly
scald, serve your grandmother a fresh, full, covered styrofoam cup?
When she's used to cooler coffee? Especially when you know the top of
the cup sticks? As she's getting into a car? And not warn her?

Only an asshole would do such a thing, right?

Is it different if it's not YOUR grandmother?

Is this understandable by the average, prudent person?

dennis
in nca

I personally don't want coffee that is less than 180. It just isn't coffee
if it's anything less.

When I purchase a new coffee maker, I will test the temp. and return it for
a different brand if it isn't 180. So far Mr. Coffee has been returned and I
don't remember the make of another. Right now I'm using a Proctor Sylex and
it is the best in temp and ease of operation for the programmable
clock/timer. BTW, I got it at a Thrift Store for a couple bucks, just needed
a pot which I found on the next shelf for another couple bucks. And sure
enough, the gal at the counter offered to exchange it if it didn't get hot
enough.

Can't complain and now I'm spoiled by a $5 bargain..

Steve

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
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

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? 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.

Uncle George

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.


Dan

On 15 Jan 2006 16:03:36 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "rigger"
quickly quoth:

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


I doubt anyone will sue.

However, will you, now knowing the coffee is hot enough to quickly
scald, serve your grandmother a fresh, full, covered styrofoam cup?
When she's used to cooler coffee? Especially when you know the top of
the cup sticks? As she's getting into a car? And not warn her?

Uh, yeah. We have all seen the HOT warning on every cup. I figure
she's been around enough to know that coffee is hot enough to burn
her. She's been brewing it for OVER 60 YEARS NOW, riggy. We've
-all- been burned by hot coffee before and we're cautious.


Only an asshole would do such a thing, right?

If so, the majority of us are assholes.


Is it different if it's not YOUR grandmother?

No. Why should it be? It's common sense.


Is this understandable by the average, prudent person?

Hey, if some scatterbrained old biddy came into the room and
clearly didn't have any sense of presense, we'd ALL have given
her extra care instructions. But that evidently didn't happen.
She ****ed up multiple times, first by trying that, second by
not reacting at all to the spill (like pulling the hot cloth
off her body parts. Sweatpants DO have a lot of room in them,
they DO come down quickly, and blowing on hot cloth cools it
very rapidly. She evidently did none of that. C'est la vie.

NEXT!


----------------------------------------------
Never attempt to traverse a chasm in two leaps
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
================================================== =========

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:36:41 -0800, "Steve" wrote:

I personally don't want coffee that is less than 180. It just isn't coffee
if it's anything less.

The US Navy (which buys, roasts, and grinds its own beans) says hold
coffee at 160 degF. The oils in coffee breakdown rapidly above that
temp. I've had Navy coffee- it's great.

-Carl

On 15 Jan 2006 19:45:31 -0800, the renowned "
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.


Dan

I drink coffee (usually bought) and hot tea (usually made). I just
measured a cup of tea after making it and removing the bag, in the
cup. 202°F on my digital thermocouple meter.

As to coffee, I expect to be able to buy it 1/2 hour before gametime,
take it to a hockey arena and still have it at a drinkable temperature
at least through the first period. Or for it to stay hot through
reading the Sunday newspaper. Lukewarm food and drink should be
limited to infants and others who are unable to take care of
themselves.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

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.

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


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.

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.

For comparison, an average of 82 people per year are killed by lightning
[CDC].

In other words, the adult entire population is being treated like
children because one in ten million is childish.


By the same token, no civilian should be permitted to possess or use
metalworking equipment -- after all, people have been maimed or even
killed by such equipment, and the incidence is orders of magnitude
higher than one in ten million metalworkers.


Joe Gwinn



Refs:

[Lawyers] http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

[CDC]
http://aepo-xdv-www.epo.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0052833/m0052833.asp

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/coffee/history.htm

In article ,
Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
Nick Hull wrote:

In article ,
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

Do they have as much money as McDonalds?

More or less.

What counts is the public perception of wealth; people see McDonalds
everywhere (even though most are not corporate owned) but who has seen a
Krups sign?

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

If your referring to coffee in the enlisted crews Mess, I have to
respectfully disagree.

I did 23 years in the US Navy and 10 of that was as an enlisted man,
suffering with that horrible mess deck coffee. The best thing about moving
to the Chiefs Mess and eventually to the Ward Room was the much improved
coffee.

I believe their problem was that steam was used to provide the heat and once
it was brewed, the steam jacket around the pot continued at too high a temp.
It always tasted like it had been scorched, similar to leaving a coffee pot
on the burner all day (old days).

I don't know what the actual temp of Auxiliary Steam is but I know the Navy
cooks use it to heat water to boiling temp in the kettles. It could be that
coffee temp is going much higher than 160 degrees. Or even the 180 that I
prefer.

However, I could always find a good cup of coffee in the private messes and
work shops. Same coffee grounds but made in a one gallon or so percolator
pot.

Or if you work real hard and are an officer or a chief, you might get coffee
in one of these messes that is brewed in smaller pots on a hot plate. The
same type as in a restaurant.

Sorry Carl, I just can't agree. It's been 29 years since I retired and I
still have the nasty taste in my mouth and coffee stains on my teeth.

--
My experience and opinion, FWIW

Steve
CWO2 US Navy (retired)


"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:36:41 -0800, "Steve" wrote:

I personally don't want coffee that is less than 180. It just isn't coffee
if it's anything less.

The US Navy (which buys, roasts, and grinds its own beans) says hold
coffee at 160 degF. The oils in coffee breakdown rapidly above that
temp. I've had Navy coffee- it's great.

-Carl

Maybe not ready for taking
big gulps, but coffee is something to be sipped and savored.

My point exactly. I love to just "Sip and Savor". It the coffee is at a
lower temp. I seem to gulp it down and never seem to enjoy it.

Steve

Larry Jaques wrote:
On 15 Jan 2006 16:03:36 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "rigger"
quickly quoth:

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


I doubt anyone will sue.

However, will you, now knowing the coffee is hot enough to quickly
scald, serve your grandmother a fresh, full, covered styrofoam cup?
When she's used to cooler coffee? Especially when you know the top of
the cup sticks? As she's getting into a car? And not warn her?

Uh, yeah. We have all seen the HOT warning on every cup. I figure
she's been around enough to know that coffee is hot enough to burn
her. She's been brewing it for OVER 60 YEARS NOW, riggy. We've
-all- been burned by hot coffee before and we're cautious.


Only an asshole would do such a thing, right?

If so, the majority of us are assholes.


Is it different if it's not YOUR grandmother?

No. Why should it be? It's common sense.


Is this understandable by the average, prudent person?

Hey, if some scatterbrained old biddy came into the room and
clearly didn't have any sense of presense, we'd ALL have given
her extra care instructions. But that evidently didn't happen.
She ****ed up multiple times, first by trying that, second by
not reacting at all to the spill (like pulling the hot cloth
off her body parts. Sweatpants DO have a lot of room in them,
they DO come down quickly, and blowing on hot cloth cools it
very rapidly. She evidently did none of that. C'est la vie.

NEXT!


----------------------------------------------
Never attempt to traverse a chasm in two leaps
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
================================================== =========

Hey, if some scatterbrained old biddy came into the room and
clearly didn't have any sense of presense, we'd ALL have given
her extra care instructions. But that evidently didn't happen.
She ****ed up multiple times, first by trying that, second by
not reacting at all to the spill (like pulling the hot cloth
off her body parts. Sweatpants DO have a lot of room in them,
they DO come down quickly, and blowing on hot cloth cools it
very rapidly. She evidently did none of that. C'est la vie.

NEXT!

Ok Larry, how about an experiment? You wait until you get to your mid
70s and instruct someone to, unexpectedly, throw some scalding coffee
onto your lap. Then we see how well you do. Perhaps in the (usually)
very cramped back seat of the car?

No, just kidding.

How about this? Is this what you mean??? Death and distruction to
anyone too old, too infirm, not intelligent enough, or with
disabilities that slow them down. Let them burn. Who needs them if
they can't take care of themselfs. Let them stay home, out of our way.
Why make allowances on things like crossing time at intersections? If
they can't keep-up let them suffer. Take back all of the handicaped
parking. HORRAY for poor old McDonalds.

Is this what you had in your mind? Or perhaps something closer to
Soylant Green.

dennis
in nca

Joseph Gwinn pointed out:

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.

For comparison, an average of 82 people per year are killed by lightning
[CDC].

In other words, the adult entire population is being treated like
children because one in ten million is childish.

So then you would agree with the Ford Motor Company in their original
accessment of the Pinto "situation" right? No need to improve safety
as long as the people (and families) being burned up were a "small"
number and it wouldn't have a big negative affect on finances. No need
to actually "WARN" anyone their car (whether full of children?) had
defects. The wonderful executives at Ford wouldn't want anyone to feel
they were being "childish", right?

By the same token, no civilian should be permitted to possess or use
metalworking equipment -- after all, people have been maimed or even
killed by such equipment, and the incidence is orders of magnitude
higher than one in ten million metalworkers.

Do you *really* think this is the same as putting the average citizen
(man, woman, child, handicapped, etc.) in harms way?

Perhaps a better analogy?

dennis
in nca

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

You probably don't serve it in styrofoam cups -- at least I hope you
don't. Just pouring it into a non-preheated mug will chill it well
below 180. You probably also don't use snap-top lids.

I make tea in the microwave for that reason. The water in my mug is
boiling when I take it out of the nuke and drop in the tea infuser --
which has very little thermal mass.

On 16 Jan 2006 08:53:42 -0800, "rigger" wrote:

By the same token, no civilian should be permitted to possess or use
metalworking equipment -- after all, people have been maimed or even
killed by such equipment, and the incidence is orders of magnitude
higher than one in ten million metalworkers.

Geez, don't give 'em any ideas espcially in nca!

To feed the fire, I often make WMD's with my metalworking equipment.
(Widgets of Muddled Design)

On 16 Jan 2006 08:53:42 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "rigger"
quickly quoth:

So then you would agree with the Ford Motor Company in their original
accessment of the Pinto "situation" right? No need to improve safety
as long as the people (and families) being burned up were a "small"
number and it wouldn't have a big negative affect on finances. No need
to actually "WARN" anyone their car (whether full of children?) had
defects. The wonderful executives at Ford wouldn't want anyone to feel
they were being "childish", right?

Show me a car manufacturer who states that their cars are safe under
any and all (seen and unforseen) conditions and I'll give you that
one. But I doubt you'll find one.


By the same token, no civilian should be permitted to possess or use
metalworking equipment -- after all, people have been maimed or even
killed by such equipment, and the incidence is orders of magnitude
higher than one in ten million metalworkers.

Do you *really* think this is the same as putting the average citizen
(man, woman, child, handicapped, etc.) in harms way?

Nobody put people in harm's way, Dennis. IMHO, what happens to a car
during or after a collision is up to fate.

You Liberals want to make everything which happens in life to be safe
and you want to use OUR money to do it. I disagree and feel that what
you promote is not right, just, or fair. Tell you what, let's make 2
different sets of rules. Those of you who want everything safe and
cozy can have it for yourselves and YOU pay for it.

The rest of us will _party_on_, living much happier (though possibly
shorter) lives. We'd much rather be living happy daily lives vs. being
cocooned in banal shells devoid of any interesting happenings, thanks.
BTW, not too many of you Libs will be able to afford your ideal life
without all of our hard-earned money. So sorry.

P.S: With those attitudes, you should move from aol to webtv.

This sig's for you:

--
"I'm sick and tired of having to rearrange my life
because of what the STUPIDEST people *might* do or
how they *might* react."
-- Bill Maher

Don Foreman 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


You probably don't serve it in styrofoam cups -- at least I hope you
don't. Just pouring it into a non-preheated mug will chill it well
below 180. You probably also don't use snap-top lids.

I make tea in the microwave for that reason. The water in my mug is
boiling when I take it out of the nuke and drop in the tea infuser --
which has very little thermal mass.


Well, ok for tea, I suppose, but I really dislike microwaved coffee...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:20:32 GMT, the renowned Richard Lamb
wrote:

Don Foreman 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


You probably don't serve it in styrofoam cups -- at least I hope you
don't. Just pouring it into a non-preheated mug will chill it well
below 180. You probably also don't use snap-top lids.

I make tea in the microwave for that reason. The water in my mug is
boiling when I take it out of the nuke and drop in the tea infuser --
which has very little thermal mass.


Well, ok for tea, I suppose, but I really dislike microwaved coffee...

I don't think it's okay for tea, but I don't use an infuser. Bags seem
to froth up all over the place because of the air in the water. The
kettle (a 'Kenmore Elite' Euro-style type, but with our inferior 120V
power it takes longer to heat) boils the air out so you get nice still
tea with no froth. Instant coffee froths up too.

Wifey got suckered into buying this automated coffee thingie which
takes little cartridges for espresso, hot chocoloate, tea etc. Reads a
bar code and prepares the beverage accordingly. The inkjet printer
principle brought to coffeemakers. 8-(


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On 16 Jan 2006 08:36:42 -0800, "rigger" wrote:


================================================== =========

Hey, if some scatterbrained old biddy came into the room and
clearly didn't have any sense of presense, we'd ALL have given
her extra care instructions. But that evidently didn't happen.
She ****ed up multiple times, first by trying that, second by
not reacting at all to the spill (like pulling the hot cloth
off her body parts. Sweatpants DO have a lot of room in them,
they DO come down quickly, and blowing on hot cloth cools it
very rapidly. She evidently did none of that. C'est la vie.

NEXT!

Ok Larry, how about an experiment? You wait until you get to your mid
70s and instruct someone to, unexpectedly, throw some scalding coffee
onto your lap. Then we see how well you do. Perhaps in the (usually)
very cramped back seat of the car?

No, just kidding.

How about this? Is this what you mean??? Death and distruction to
anyone too old, too infirm, not intelligent enough, or with
disabilities that slow them down. Let them burn. Who needs them if
they can't take care of themselfs. Let them stay home, out of our way.
Why make allowances on things like crossing time at intersections? If
they can't keep-up let them suffer. Take back all of the handicaped
parking. HORRAY for poor old McDonalds.

Is this what you had in your mind? Or perhaps something closer to
Soylant Green.

dennis
in nca


Possibly more along the lines of:- So, she spilled the hot coffee and scalded
herself? So what! Accidents happen and this was an accident. It doesn't need a
lawyer to sort it out.


Mark Rand
RTFM

Things may have changed since then. 29 years ago percolators were
more common than drip pots.

Steve wrote:

Sorry Carl, I just can't agree. It's been 29 years since I retired and I
still have the nasty taste in my mouth and coffee stains on my teeth.

Larry Jaques's evaluation follows:

snip
Show me a car manufacturer who states that their cars are safe under
any and all (seen and unforseen) conditions and I'll give you that
one. But I doubt you'll find one.

So you think that way, huh? How about a ladder manufacturer whose
ladders fail to support the average person & fail when you're at the
top because it was CHEAPER to manufacturer? How about if they KNEW
this would happen, from time to time. Is this the type of
manufacturer/person YOU are? I didn't think so. If you DID make an
honest mistake would you try to compensate a person hurt by your
intensional or unintensional oversite? I hope so and I think this is
what most here would do. Why should it be different for Ford or anyone
else, for that matter? Please try, at least mentally if not online, to
answer all the questions.

Nobody put people in harm's way, Dennis. IMHO, what happens to a car
during or after a collision is up to fate.

Unless it's the manufacturer of the Ford Pinto (and some others). I
suggest you do some research first before making such statements.

You Liberals want to make everything which happens in life to be safe
and you want to use OUR money to do it. I disagree and feel that what
you promote is not right, just, or fair. Tell you what, let's make 2
different sets of rules. Those of you who want everything safe and
cozy can have it for yourselves and YOU pay for it.

Liberal??? Because I care about people? Show me your NRA card and
I'll show you mine.
A seperate set of rules? Why don't you just move somewhere else? I'm
sure some
other countries (I'm assuming you're in the US) share your views more
closely.

The rest of us will _party_on_, living much happier (though possibly
shorter) lives

Speak for yourself. Go skydiving more. That's OK. But don't inflict
your attitude on others.
The important thing is peoples lives, not your money and fun.

We'd much rather be living happy daily lives vs. being
cocooned in banal shells devoid of any interesting happenings........

snip

"Interesting happenings", huh.....hmmm. I understand, when ancient
Chinese would curse an enemy, they would say "May your children grow-up
in interesting times" because they knew "interesting times" meant
troubled times. Perhaps your idea of interesting means "fiery crash of
car full of people"? This the kind of thing you like?

snip snip snip

P.S: With those attitudes, you should move from aol to webtv.

My aol has been free for many years, soon to change. But tell me,
would the color of my skin make any difference to you? Start thinking
for yourself.

Larry, it works like this: Look around you. See there are
unscrupulous people who would like to part you from your money
regardless of the consequences to you or anyone else. Some of these
people may even be sociopath's (look it up) who care NOTHING about
human pain, misery or life as long as they get theirs (I KNOW that's
not you, right?). There are laws which protect people against
sociopath's or perhaps you think people should only have protection in
case of direct physical attack and no other? Perhaps you're one people
should be cautious purchasing from or contracting with? No, your hand
is your bond? I like that but there are those who take advantage of
this. Not convinced? Look around some more.

If you thought you'd been wronged by a large company you'd do nothing?
Or, like John Wayne, would you go punch them in their corporate mouth?
Not enough money for legal fees? Too bad; unless there are laws to
protect you against this type of business practice. Even on this
newsgroup people have mentioned being taken advantage of by others.
However this is NOT the Wild West or even a video game; these are real
people.

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

"There's a sucker born every minute". P.T. Barnum (I think). You
like? If you think this suits you better feel free to add it after
your signature.

dennis
in nca

In article . com,
"rigger" wrote:

Larry Jaques's evaluation follows:

We'd much rather be living happy daily lives vs. being
cocooned in banal shells devoid of any interesting happenings........

snip

"Interesting happenings", huh.....hmmm. I understand, when ancient
Chinese would curse an enemy, they would say "May your children grow-up
in interesting times" because they knew "interesting times" meant
troubled times. Perhaps your idea of interesting means "fiery crash of
car full of people"? This the kind of thing you like?

Methinks you're ignoring the point in order to pick at nits. What Larry
appears to be saying (Definitely jump in and correct me if I'm wrong,
Larry) is the same way I feel: True, the world is full of morons,
losers, idiots, and incompetents. But wrapping everybody in padding,
locking them in a nice safe box, and putting them up on a high shelf in
order to prevent them from injuring themselves is *NOT* the way to cope
with the problem. Stupidity *SHOULD* be painful, in direct proportion to
the level of stupid being exhibited, up to and including death. Look out
for yourself, and let the other idiots cope with their own lives. (and
possibly mistakes)

I don't need (or want) "them", whoever that might be, "protecting" me
from things that *MIGHT* happen. Protecting me from some *POSSIBLE* harm
is not "them's" job. It's *MINE*. Nobody - *ABSOLUTELY NOBODY* - is
better qualified to do that job than me. Not you, not the preacher, not
the congress-critter I tried to vote out of office at the last election,
not *ANYBODY*, under *ANY* circumstances, *EVER*.

And yes, I object vehemently to anyone attempting to appoint themselves
"custodian of safety" in my life. As the old line goes, I'm "free,
white, and 21". If I want to drive a Pinto, then by god, it's my right
to do so, regardless of how dangerous you, or Ralph Nader, or anybody
else thinks that choice might be to my continued well-being. It isn't
Ford's fault that I got turned into a briquet. It's mine for choosing to
drive the darn thing in the first place, and to a leser extent, the
imbecile who hit me from behind.

It's a little concept called "personal responsibility for your actions"
- You make the choice to insert activity here, YOU take the
consequences of that activity, whatever they might be. What? You lost an
arm? Too bad, so sad. Betcha you aren't going to do that again anytime
soon are you? You died while doing said activity? Oh well. Out of the
gene-pool, stupid. Your problem, not mine, or Ford's, or the
government's. YOURS.

In other words, *BUTT OUT*, and suck up a dose of responsibility for
yourself. It's my life, my hide, my responsibility, and my decision -
Not yours, or any elected representative's, or Ralph Nader's, or anybody
else's.

--
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 t,
Richard Lamb wrote:

Don Foreman 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


You probably don't serve it in styrofoam cups -- at least I hope you
don't. Just pouring it into a non-preheated mug will chill it well
below 180. You probably also don't use snap-top lids.

Right. No styrofoam at home. I'll have to measure the temp just after
pouring, for curiosity.

At work, we have paper cups, and these are too hot to carry. So, I
double-cup them if I will carry coffee in hand. If I'm staying in the
cafeteria I put some ice in the cup before pouring, and carry it on the
tray, so it'll be right for immediate consumption.

As I said before, if I did anything, it would be to improve the cups.

Or give people their choice. This is the key issue. Do we deprive a
hundred million people because one in ten million cannot handle such a
choice?


I make tea in the microwave for that reason. The water in my mug is
boiling when I take it out of the nuke and drop in the tea infuser --
which has very little thermal mass.

Well, ok for tea, I suppose, but I really dislike microwaved coffee...

My wife, the tea drinker, doesn't like microwave-heated water for tea
either. She boils the water in a teakettle on the stove.

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

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.

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.

Uncle George

In article . com,
"rigger" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn pointed out:


In other words, the adult entire population is being treated like
children because one in ten million is childish.

So then you would agree with the Ford Motor Company in their original
accessment of the Pinto "situation" right? No need to improve safety
as long as the people (and families) being burned up were a "small"
number and it wouldn't have a big negative affect on finances. No need
to actually "WARN" anyone their car (whether full of children?) had
defects. The wonderful executives at Ford wouldn't want anyone to feel
they were being "childish", right?

All accidents that hurt or kill people are horrible, even if the person
happens to be line for a Darwin Award.

You wouldn't happen to have an authoritative source for the relative
incidence? This is the key - there is only so much time and money in
the world, and we should look for the biggest pile of bodies and start
there, not with trivial risks. Why? Because if we spend the time and
energy on trivia, we won't ever quite get around to real risks, and the
total number of significant accidents will be far higher than need be.


By the same token, no civilian should be permitted to possess or use
metalworking equipment -- after all, people have been maimed or even
killed by such equipment, and the incidence is orders of magnitude
higher than one in ten million metalworkers.

Do you *really* think this is the same as putting the average citizen
(man, woman, child, handicapped, etc.) in harms way?

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.

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.

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.

Joe Gwinn

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:17:56 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

You Liberals


Gunner..wiping Mt. Dew off the monitor....


"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

Don Bruder offers:

Methinks you're ignoring the point in order to pick at nits. What Larry
appears to be saying (Definitely jump in and correct me if I'm wrong,
Larry) is the same way I feel: True, the world is full of morons,
losers, idiots, and incompetents.

I see you highly value your fellow citizens. Nothing like a crippled
moron joke, right Don?
Anyone not, at least, your equal deserves your scorn, right? If they
can't keep up, let them suffer, right?
I guess your quote (Stupidity *SHOULD* be painful,) is your motto
right? Would this thought be somehow included in your religous
convictions? If so perhaps you'll share that information with us.
snip

"protecting" me .....Protecting me.....It's *MINE*. .....than me.....I tried.....

We're not talking about YOU. Don't you ever think of others? Have
parents? Kids? Give a damn if they are preyed on?

If I want to drive a Pinto, then by god, it's my right
to do so, regardless of how dangerous you, or Ralph Nader, or anybody
else thinks that choice might be to my continued well-being. It isn't
Ford's fault that I got turned into a briquet. It's mine for choosing
to
drive the darn thing in the first place, and to a leser extent, the
imbecile who hit me from behind.

I agree you would be silly to do such a thing NOW. But no one expected
it THEN. I don't imagine, if something went wrong with your NEW car
you'd even bother to complain. Please take a moment to investigate
before you make-up your mind.
Recently I purchased a car that had brake and instrumentation problems
the new car dealer couldn't resolve (electronics), but because the
problems were intermittant the dealer claimed there was nothing wrong
(ever heard that before?). Thanks to the "Lemon Law" here in CA the
manufacturer was forced to take it back. What would YOU have done?

It's a little concept called "personal responsibility for your actions"

Exactly. We're discussing CORPORATE responsibility. Same thing, NO?

You make the choice to insert activity here, YOU take the
consequences of that activity, whatever they might be. What? You lost
an
arm? Too bad, so sad. Betcha you aren't going to do that again anytime
soon are you? You died while doing said activity? Oh well. Out of the
gene-pool, stupid. Your problem, not mine, or Ford's, or the
government's. YOURS.

No such thing then as CORPORATE responsibility?

You fire a handgun and it goes KABOOM in your face because of a double
charge of powder in your commercial ammo; you just grin and bear it?
You're driving on the freeway on a hot day and because of the tires
and/or new vehicle you flip and your entire family is killed; you just
smile and say "I did it my way"?

It's a little concept called "personal responsibility for your actions"

So give us an example of how you've done this. REAL examples please.
H
And while you're at it how about examples of how you've done something
for someone else (which according to your ethics you never would do).
No examples; I'm not suprised (or am I?).

In other words, *BUTT OUT*, and suck up a dose of responsibility for
yourself. It's my life, my hide, my responsibility, and my decision -
Not yours, or any elected representative's, or Ralph Nader's, or
anybody
else's.

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.

dennis
in nca

You wouldn't happen to have an authoritative source for the relative
incidence? This is the key - there is only so much time and money in
the world, and we should look for the biggest pile of bodies and start
there, not with trivial risks. Why? Because if we spend the time and
energy on trivia, we won't ever quite get around to real risks, and the

total number of significant accidents will be far higher than need be.

If you're interested go look up the information. But, using your
logic, we shouldn't have prisons because each inmates actions only
affect a few, right; why waste the money, right? Or maybe you can see
the slippery slope that puts little kids back in the coal mines. Or
can you?

Sure. Any damn fool can buy machine tools.

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.

So are you saying this was a good or bad thing as it seems your
company/government was taking the place of your parents. Are there
fewer "factory people....... getting themselves chopped up"? I hope
so; even if they felt demeaned somehow.

dennis
in nca

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?

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

In article .com,
"rigger" wrote:

Don Bruder offers:

Methinks you're ignoring the point in order to pick at nits. What Larry
appears to be saying (Definitely jump in and correct me if I'm wrong,
Larry) is the same way I feel: True, the world is full of morons,
losers, idiots, and incompetents.

I see you highly value your fellow citizens. Nothing like a crippled
moron joke, right Don?

A joke is a joke, and I could basically care less whether the "victim"
is a crippled moron, , a pot-bellied pig, or a bearded white male. Grow
a hide and lose the PC bull****. It offends me.

Anyone not, at least, your equal deserves your scorn, right? If they
can't keep up, let them suffer, right?

Absolutely.

I guess your quote (Stupidity *SHOULD* be painful,) is your motto
right?

Actually, if I'm going to claim a "motto", I think it would probably be
"think of it as evolution in action" (tosses a nickel each to Larry
Niven and Jerry Pournelle)

Would this thought be somehow included in your religous
convictions? If so perhaps you'll share that information with us.

The closest thing I have to a religious conviction is that religion is
for people who are too weak to stand up and face the fact that they were
born, they're gonna die, and that's the end of it, so they need an
imaginary playmate named "god" to blame their problems on, and a fantasy
of some sort of afterlife to keep them from feeling like the
insignificant specks that they are. In other words, you want religion?
Have at it. Just keep it out of my face unless you want me to tell you
point-blank what kind of stupid I think you are for following it. What I
don't see/hear about, I don't tend to comment on, so religious types and
me generally get along quite well until/unless they decide I need to be
"saved" and persist beyond the point of the first "I'm not interested, I
don't do religion." At which point they get an earful of exactly what I
think of their beliefs.

snip

"protecting" me .....Protecting me.....It's *MINE*. .....than me.....I
tried.....

We're not talking about YOU.

Actually, we ARE talking about me. Me and my right to decide for myself
what is or isnt' safe, without the interference of some busybody in
Sacramento or Washington who thinks that since (s)he can't do activity
X safely, it needs to be illegal for ANYBODY to attempt it.

Don't you ever think of others?

Give me a reason to. AKA "Show me the money".

Have parents?

Don't we all? I understand some have warmer feeling toward their set
than I can muster for mine, but yeah, I've got 'em.

Kids?

God forbid... I've dodged that bullet so far, and with any luck, I'll
manage to continue dodging for as long as I draw breath.

Give a damn if they are preyed on?

In a word? No. Nobody that I'm aware of thinks anything of my
well-being, and I don't much worry about the well-being of others,
figuring, quite reasonably, that it's THEIR problem to make sure it's at
whatever level they think is right.

snip irrelevance

It's a little concept called "personal responsibility for your actions"

Exactly. We're discussing CORPORATE responsibility. Same thing, NO?

Correct, except for the punctuation. For me to evaluate it as "true", it
would need to read "Same thing? NO."

Personal responsibility is about looking out for your own well being,
not blaming your own stupidity on someone else. What? You dumped that
180 degree cup of coffee in your lap and cooked yourself sterile? Guess
what? *YOU* were the dumbass that dumped it in your lap, *NOT* the crew
of the Mickey-D's that you asked to hand it to you in exchange for
money. Their responsibility ended when they handed it out the window to
you. According to my view of the world, after that point, any problems
that come of having that cup of coffee - drowning in it, burning your
genitals completely off, shorting out your car's A/C blower, making your
cat go blind and your house burn down, or *ANYTHING* else that doesn't
involve that cup of coffee being poisoned by one of the folks inside the
restaurant, are *YOUR* responsibility. (Clue that most 4 year olds have
already picked up on: Coffee is hot. Don't pour it in your lap or you'll
get burned!)

You make the choice to insert activity here, YOU take the
consequences of that activity, whatever they might be. What? You lost
an
arm? Too bad, so sad. Betcha you aren't going to do that again anytime
soon are you? You died while doing said activity? Oh well. Out of the
gene-pool, stupid. Your problem, not mine, or Ford's, or the
government's. YOURS.

No such thing then as CORPORATE responsibility?

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. Corporations are, by my lights, indeed
one of the main evils of today's society, but despite that, I say that
the ludicrous lawsuits (and even more ludicrous jury awards) that are
bleeding them dry are out of place, and nothing more than shirking one's
responsibility to look out for one's self. It's religion all over again,
only the god being worshipped is "someone else to take care of me"

Nobody at "Acme Inc." held a gun to your head and said "strap on these
new Coyote-Go Mark VI jet-propelled skisTM or I'll blow your head
off". *YOU* chose to strap them on and punch the "go" button. Maybe they
*ARE* a bit hot, and yeah, that tree sure did do a real fine job of
rearranging your face, but you should have taken that into consideration
before you trundled your "bunny" self out to the 4-diamond slope. Part
of self-preservation and personal responsibility is knowing what your
skills and limitations are. Your inability to estimate your abilities
isn't the concern of the outfit that made the skis that *YOU* chose to
strap on. Neither is the responsibility for the 37 plastic surgeries
you're going to need to rearrange your face into something that bears
enough resemblance to human that you can eat something stiffer than
pudding. Unless the skis broke or otherwise failed to perform as
claimed, then it's *ALL* *ON* *YOU*. You piling into the tree at Mach 4
an estimated 1.6 seconds after punching the "go" button is operator
error, not Acme's screwup. They're rocket-propelled skis, after all, you
dummy! OF COURSE they go like a bat out of hell! Which part of that
wasn't clear when you read the directions? What? You didn't read the
directions? Well, that explains things... Definitely operator error.
Judgement for the defendant. Bailiff, call the next case. This one's
over.

You fire a handgun and it goes KABOOM in your face because of a double
charge of powder in your commercial ammo; you just grin and bear it?

You appear to lack the realization that "gross negligence" (attempting
to properly operate something in the generally approved manner, that
*SHOULD*, based on all previous experience, work in "this" particular
fashion, only to have it fail catastrophically due to a massive ****up
on the part of the maker) and "an idiot that ****ed up" (Someone dumping
coffee in their lap) just don't get anywhere near equating to each other.

That being the case, I won't bother to debate this point any further.

No examples; I'm not suprised (or am I?).

Rather than disappoint you, I'll not bother to give any. Not that doing
so would be relevant to anything in this discussion to begin with.

In other words, *BUTT OUT*, and suck up a dose of responsibility for
yourself. It's my life, my hide, my responsibility, and my decision -
Not yours, or any elected representative's, or Ralph Nader's, or
anybody
else's.

You, you, you. Can't YOU turn it off for a minute?

Yes, me, me, me. No. I won't "turn it off". I see absolutely no reason
to do so. If I don't look out for me, nobody else is going to, so I'd be
a raving idiot to *NOT* put me at the top of the heap. Anyone who would
willingly put the responsibility for their own well-being into someone
else's hands is a damned fool in my eyes, and deserves whatever comes of
their stupidity in doing so.

Who protects the children

Their parents. They aren't mine (see comment above) and they aren't my
problem. Quite frankly, I'd have to work at it to care any less about
them than I do.

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.

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". If you've
got a problem with that... shrug Suck it up, bubba. It's YOUR problem
to deal with, not mine.

--
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 ,
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?

I was under the impression that's exactly what I was saying...

The government - *ANY* government - is not my mommy. I don't need or
want it "protecting" me from the big-bad world. I'm a big boy now - old
enough to make my own decisions regarding what is or isn't too dangerous
for me to be doing, thank you very much. I'm also the *ONLY* human being
on the planet qualified to judge whether something is or isn't too
dangerous for me to attempt. Not the government, not Joe Blow down the
street, not *ANYBODY* but me has the qualifications to be making that
decision for me.

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

Gawd, ain't THAT the truth...

--
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

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!

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'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.

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?

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

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.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:58:16 -0800, Don Bruder
wrote:

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:

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



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?

I was under the impression that's exactly what I was saying...

I was too but I wanted to check.

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.

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.

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.


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

That is absurd. There are many responsible corporations, some of
which ( often privately held) place employee welfare as job 1. A
corp must profit to survive just as an individual tradesman must, and
they're able to do that with competence and fair business practice
without compromise of job 1.

The evil is where there is acceptance that "greed is good", which is
no different from the "me first" attitude you embrace, is also
practiced by corporate management. They're just better at it than
you are. Much better. Invest in them or work for them, lose yer
ass, eatyerhawrt out tough**** GI. Pick yer pony, take yer ride,
whine when your "me first" gets stomped by the bigger dog.


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?

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".

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.

On 16 Jan 2006 15:59:00 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "rigger"
quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques's evaluation follows:

snip
Show me a car manufacturer who states that their cars are safe under
any and all (seen and unforseen) conditions and I'll give you that
one. But I doubt you'll find one.

So you think that way, huh? How about a ladder manufacturer whose
ladders fail to support the average person & fail when you're at the
top because it was CHEAPER to manufacturer? How about if they KNEW
this would happen, from time to time. Is this the type of
manufacturer/person YOU are? I didn't think so. If you DID make an
honest mistake would you try to compensate a person hurt by your
intensional or unintensional oversite? I hope so and I think this is
what most here would do. Why should it be different for Ford or anyone
else, for that matter? Please try, at least mentally if not online, to
answer all the questions.

Now you want to fault laddder manufacturers for stupid people tricks?
Ladders have a rating that I see exceeded all the time. The ladder
labels (they need labels?) say "DON'T STAND HERE" on the top. That is
often covered by both feet of the Darwinian Candidate.

If a ladder fails to support the rated weight, the mfgr is at fault
and they should pay the price. BUT, have you seen the stupid crap
people try on ladders? They don't clean the junk beneath the feet of
the ladder, put them on inclines, put extension ladders too vertical,
don't open a-frames fully and lock the stays, etc. It's ridiculous.
The American (world) people and manufacturers shouldn't have to pay
for that type of injury. Let Darwin have these fools.


Nobody put people in harm's way, Dennis. IMHO, what happens to a car
during or after a collision is up to fate.

Unless it's the manufacturer of the Ford Pinto (and some others). I
suggest you do some research first before making such statements.

I was smack dab in the middle of that at the time, Dennis. I worked
for a Ford dealer at the tie and actually installed some of those
nylon guards. Later, after an accident while using a tow truck dolly
system, I had to give up my Scout and get into a smaller car with
power steering and auto trans. I ended up in a little Pinto which
never crashed and burned.


You Liberals want to make everything which happens in life to be safe
and you want to use OUR money to do it. I disagree and feel that what
you promote is not right, just, or fair. Tell you what, let's make 2
different sets of rules. Those of you who want everything safe and
cozy can have it for yourselves and YOU pay for it.

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

Liberal ideas, then.


A seperate set of rules? Why don't you just move somewhere else? I'm
sure some
other countries (I'm assuming you're in the US) share your views more
closely.

Because I don't want to live elsewhere. I want to live here in the USA
under sane laws, not nanny laws like the EU is ending up with. Eek!
You want us to adopt those. Why don't YOU move? You'd love it there
where it's impossible to hurt yourself. g


The rest of us will _party_on_, living much happier (though possibly
shorter) lives

Speak for yourself. Go skydiving more. That's OK. But don't inflict
your attitude on others.
The important thing is peoples lives, not your money and fun.

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. If you want tighter
rules which "keep you safe", do it on your own time and money, _not_
_ours_! Get people to buy a frackin' clue!



But tell me, would the color of my skin make any difference to you?
Start thinking for yourself.

Where'd that come from? No, skin color makes no difference to me.
I dislike that type of Liberal thinking no matter the color of the
person's skin.


Larry, it works like this: Look around you. See there are
unscrupulous people who would like to part you from your money
regardless of the consequences to you or anyone else. Some of these
people may even be sociopath's (look it up) who care NOTHING about
human pain, misery or life as long as they get theirs (I KNOW that's
not you, right?).

Yes, those are bad people.


There are laws which protect people against
sociopath's or perhaps you think people should only have protection in
case of direct physical attack and no other? Perhaps you're one people
should be cautious purchasing from or contracting with? No, your hand
is your bond? I like that but there are those who take advantage of
this. Not convinced? Look around some more.

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. Our legal environment
provided the rest. A legal system spurred on by people like you, who
think that people should be safeguarded from themselves at everyone
else's expense. I believe in people taking personal responsibility.
We'll doubtless ever agree, but I couldn't let your statements go by
unhindered.


If you thought you'd been wronged by a large company you'd do nothing?
Or, like John Wayne, would you go punch them in their corporate mouth?
Not enough money for legal fees? Too bad; unless there are laws to
protect you against this type of business practice. Even on this
newsgroup people have mentioned being taken advantage of by others.
However this is NOT the Wild West or even a video game; these are real
people.

Well, I got screwed on a paint job by Ford. The primer was bad and
they wouldn't repaint the whole thing, just the top. The dealership
said it would cost another $800 to do the vertical surfaces. The
average cost of paint jobs back then was $400 for a complete. I'd like
to punch their corporate mouths for the thinking behind that. I wrote
letters instead...to no avail. C'est la guerre, non?


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

"There's a sucker born every minute". P.T. Barnum (I think). You
like? If you think this suits you better feel free to add it after
your signature.

Not even close. G'night, Gracie. (This sig fits me.


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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:57:31 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, Don
Bruder quickly quoth:

In article . com,
"rigger" wrote:

Larry Jaques's evaluation follows:

We'd much rather be living happy daily lives vs. being
cocooned in banal shells devoid of any interesting happenings........

snip

"Interesting happenings", huh.....hmmm. I understand, when ancient
Chinese would curse an enemy, they would say "May your children grow-up
in interesting times" because they knew "interesting times" meant
troubled times. Perhaps your idea of interesting means "fiery crash of
car full of people"? This the kind of thing you like?

Methinks you're ignoring the point in order to pick at nits. What Larry
appears to be saying (Definitely jump in and correct me if I'm wrong,
Larry)

You're right on the money, Don.


is the same way I feel: True, the world is full of morons,
losers, idiots, and incompetents. But wrapping everybody in padding,
locking them in a nice safe box, and putting them up on a high shelf in
order to prevent them from injuring themselves is *NOT* the way to cope
with the problem. Stupidity *SHOULD* be painful, in direct proportion to
the level of stupid being exhibited, up to and including death. Look out
for yourself, and let the other idiots cope with their own lives. (and
possibly mistakes)

I don't need (or want) "them", whoever that might be, "protecting" me
from things that *MIGHT* happen. Protecting me from some *POSSIBLE* harm
is not "them's" job. It's *MINE*. Nobody - *ABSOLUTELY NOBODY* - is
better qualified to do that job than me. Not you, not the preacher, not
the congress-critter I tried to vote out of office at the last election,
not *ANYBODY*, under *ANY* circumstances, *EVER*.

And yes, I object vehemently to anyone attempting to appoint themselves
"custodian of safety" in my life. As the old line goes, I'm "free,
white, and 21". If I want to drive a Pinto, then by god, it's my right
to do so, regardless of how dangerous you, or Ralph Nader, or anybody
else thinks that choice might be to my continued well-being. It isn't
Ford's fault that I got turned into a briquet. It's mine for choosing to
drive the darn thing in the first place, and to a leser extent, the
imbecile who hit me from behind.

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.


It's a little concept called "personal responsibility for your actions"
- You make the choice to insert activity here, YOU take the
consequences of that activity, whatever they might be. What? You lost an
arm? Too bad, so sad. Betcha you aren't going to do that again anytime
soon are you? You died while doing said activity? Oh well. Out of the
gene-pool, stupid. Your problem, not mine, or Ford's, or the
government's. YOURS.

In other words, *BUTT OUT*, and suck up a dose of responsibility for
yourself. It's my life, my hide, my responsibility, and my decision -
Not yours, or any elected representative's, or Ralph Nader's, or anybody
else's.

AMEN!

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