On 5/17/2014 12:06 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 9:22 AM, Leon wrote:

There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that
the temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.

??

Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.

No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
anticipated or ever even suggested.

Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider
is a proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to
the reality of the situation.

When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you
change those questionable business practices.

As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

End of story...

Not so much the end of the story Karl. By your own admission, you prefer
your coffee at exactly the same temperature that McD served their coffee at.
It would be safe to assume that a large majority of America does so,
likewise - or else they would have served at a temperature more in keeping
with American tastes. You can't say on one hand that said temperature is
extreme while on the other hand you say that you prefer your coffee at
exactly that temperature; I think you are seriously contradicting your own
position on this matter.

Charitably speaking, is possible that you interposed what you thought
onto what I actually said, and in the context I said it in?

In short, be careful what you think is "safe to assume".

Here's a simplified version to clear up your misunderstanding:

I DO take exception to the ignorant MYTH fostered by the media
surrounding the incident; as well as the complete disregard by the
media, and the ignorant public, for the actual facts of the case.

EVERYTHING I have stated thus far is in reference to, and based on, said
actual FACTS, and even quoted as same as a matter of record.

Including the FACT that I prefer my coffee at a higher temperature ...
which, offered as an aside, has the impact of a fart in a hurricane on
the reality of the final outcome of the case.

Provably injurious is a fairly meaningless term. It seems to work when we
want to present a statement, but civil cases do no prove anything. They
result more in the emotional appeal to the jury - and that is no proof of
anything. Your very own contradictions in this thread would disquqlify
either postion you have taken - just based on the fact that you contradict
yourself. To whit... you want coffee at 180 degrees but you have gone on
record as stating the this very temperature is beyond the level at which
people can safely consume it.

Again, it makes no difference what I, or you, like or feel:

When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you
change those questionable business practices.

As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

Once again ... end of story. Fait accompli. What you feel, or how hot I
like my coffee, has no bearing on the reality of the outcome.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 12:11 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
On 5/17/2014 10:23 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote:

I would rather take care of myself rather than some bureaucrat in
Washington tell me how to live. Unless the widget was being used as
designed and didn't malfunction (particularly in a previously known
manner), I should be on my own, thank you.

Thank you sir. Regardless of the thoughts on either side of this and
similar topics, IMHO it should always come back to this singular
point. But then again - that would require some level of
responsibility...

Point well taken with respect to some of the comments, but not with respect
to my position.

LOL Did you not just do that above?


--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 12:35 PM, Leon wrote:

Maybe there should be a Coffee Stop. ;~)

No need ... the outcome of the lawsuit, whether we like it or not, has
the exact same effect.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 11:37 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 9:22 AM, Leon wrote:

There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that the
temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.

??

Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.

I know, tomato, tomaato.... The government was still involved in
allowing the proceedings.


Sorry, I should have said that the government run court room oversaw
the proceedings brought to it and a government appointed judge guided
those proceedings according to law.


No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
anticipated or ever even suggested.

Was the court room a private building or a public government building?
Was the judge that overruled some of the damages and over saw the
proceedings according to law hired by the attorneys or appointed by a
government entity?



I guess the point I am trying to make here is that many sided with the
lady that did not insure against spilling coffee on herself and most of
those have admitted that they don't care for McDonald's and or
McDonald's doesn't give a rat's ass about the consumers safety.

On a similar point a lot of people like Ryobi, many here promote their
good experiences with the product. I used to have a great AP-10 Ryobi
planer. When the flooring guy cut his digit off because he was not
careful, the fact that he won the suite against Ryobi for his own
carelessness was about the most ridiculous thing any of us had heard of.

Now if the same guy had overridden the safety stop and done the same
with the SawStop i think many here may have sided with the idiot because
of the past tactics used by SawStop to bring their product to market.


Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider is a
proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to the
reality of the situation.

When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you change
those questionable business practices.

Yes you do, But where do you draw the line? Should restraints risk
loosing 99.990% of their customers to protect against the possibility of
the other .001% harming themselves?

If I burned my self by spilling coffee made in my correctly operating
coffee maker, sued the manufacturer, and won, would you expect for that
manufacturer to recall your coffee maker and readjust it so that it no
longer heated water hotter than a 130 degrees, which will cause 3rd
degree burns, instead of the 187~192 degrees that it operates at now?







As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

End of story...

On 5/17/2014 8:55 AM, Leon wrote:
Your new coffee machine brews at between 187 and 192 degrees, depending
on which setting you chose.

Don't know how accurate that is because strangely enough, and according
to this supposedly highly accurate digital medical thermometer used in
chemotherapy applications, the coffee had a range of 138.4 to 128.8F
temperature as it hits the cup:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...t=d irectlink

The coffee grounds, immediately after brewing, read 142F.

Focused on the stream of water, on the "Hot Water" setting, held a
steady 164.8F:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...t=d irectlink

Cool thermometer ... I have requisitioned it from the "cold cap" box of
goodies we give out to chemo patients to keep them from losing their
hair. There is a very narrow range they must achieve to keep their scalp
from frost bite, so these things are extremely accurate.

Also been known to use it to test AC vents for the proper temperature.


IMHO this conversation is starting to sound like the law suite brought
against Ryobi by the guy that cut his finger off because he did not use
the equipment properly.

Or the civil lawsuits against the car manufacturers regarding seat belts
and rear end collisions; or tire manufacturers, or ... ad infinitum.
g,d &r

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 10:15 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
dadiOH wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message


I confess I've come into work and microwaved the coffee that was
leftover from yesterday!

gag

Even more gag! That just ain't right!



I have raised a "one of many floater" office coffee cups and saw
something floating and growing in there before actually taking a sip....

On 5/17/2014 1:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 8:55 AM, Leon wrote:
Your new coffee machine brews at between 187 and 192 degrees, depending
on which setting you chose.

Don't know how accurate that is because strangely enough, and according
to this supposedly highly accurate digital medical thermometer used in
chemotherapy applications, the coffee had a range of 138.4 to 128.8F
temperature as it hits the cup:

I think a more accurate reading might be gotten with the thermometer
sitting inside a fresh brewed Styrofoam cup. You are getting a surface
temp exposed to the ambient temp. I used to develop my own slide film.
It evolved a large glass thermometer as the water temp in the sink had
to be darn close to what was called for. I had to warm the sink for
quite a while to get a consistent temp reading and IIRC the thermometer
instructions wanted a 3~4 minute submerfed exposure to give an accurate
reading. I think you are going to need a probe to submerge in the
coffee to get a true overall temperature reading.





https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...t=d irectlink


The coffee grounds, immediately after brewing, read 142F.


Focused on the stream of water, on the "Hot Water" setting, held a
steady 164.8F:


Hotter still. But again, surface temperature.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...t=d irectlink

I used a temp probe.

Tap water, and farking hot.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/14020397679/

Brewed Water

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb112...n/photostream/






Cool thermometer ... I have requisitioned it from the "cold cap" box of
goodies we give out to chemo patients to keep them from losing their
hair. There is a very narrow range they must achieve to keep their scalp
from frost bite, so these things are extremely accurate.

I have a voltage meter with a temp probe. should I bring it tonight? LOL




Also been known to use it to test AC vents for the proper temperature.


IMHO this conversation is starting to sound like the law suite brought
against Ryobi by the guy that cut his finger off because he did not use
the equipment properly.

Or the civil lawsuits against the car manufacturers regarding seat belts
and rear end collisions; or tire manufacturers, or ... ad infinitum.
g,d &r

On 5/17/2014 12:41 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 12:35 PM, Leon wrote:

Maybe there should be a Coffee Stop. ;~)

No need ... the outcome of the lawsuit, whether we like it or not, has
the exact same effect.



Exactly..

On 5/17/2014 12:31 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 05/17/2014 07:01 AM, Leon wrote:



You develop a tolerance for the heat in your mouth, The body adapts
areas that are repeatedly subject to high temp. Work with your hands
and get calluses. If I pick up a hot french fry and it burns my fingers
my first thought is to put it in my mouth. My mouth is much more
tolerant to heat than my hands. Perhaps if I ate with my hands vs using
a fork my hands would become accustomed to the heat too.

AND I am not suggesting that you eat all our meals with your fingers.
;~)

If you do a lot of cooking, your hands and fingers will become heat
tolerant as the accumulated burns destroy the nerve endings. You still
burn hands and fingers, but it doesn't hurt as much.


Absolutely agree, a tolerance has been developed. And while I agree
that a chef/cook probably gets burned quite often I'm certain those
burns are not as numerous or severe as those gotten when he began
cooking/burning himself. ;~) I am sure calluses too over the years
offer a layer of protection which perhaps a person near his or her
crotch may or may not have developed. ;~)

Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 12:11 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
On 5/17/2014 10:23 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote:

I would rather take care of myself rather than some bureaucrat in
Washington tell me how to live. Unless the widget was being used
as designed and didn't malfunction (particularly in a previously
known manner), I should be on my own, thank you.

Thank you sir. Regardless of the thoughts on either side of this
and similar topics, IMHO it should always come back to this
singular point. But then again - that would require some level of
responsibility...

Point well taken with respect to some of the comments, but not with
respect to my position.

LOL Did you not just do that above?

Perhaps - but I'll lay claim to a quick response. I'd have hoped that my
previous comments would have made my position clear - but maybe not;

--

-Mike-

Leon wrote:
On 5/17/2014 10:16 AM, Baxter wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 5/16/2014 1:39 PM, dadiOH wrote:

4. In order to drink the undrinkably hot coffee, one has to remove
the top. Which is what she was trying to do.

Do you often place hot liquids served in squishy styrofoam cup
between your legs to open them?

She was trying to add cream & sugar.

Actually she was removing the lid.




For the real story:
http://segarlaw.com/blog/myths-and-f...ds-hot-coffee-
case/
http://tinyurl.com/lx7r6g7

from your link,

After their order was completed, her grandson pulled the car forward
out of the drive-through lane and stopped again to allow Stella to
add cream and sugar to her coffee. Stella placed the coffee between
her knees so she could use both hands to open the lid and add her
sugar. While removing the lid the cup tipped over and poured the
entire cup of 190 degree coffee all over her sweatpants, which
absorbed the hot liquid and held it against her skin.




Do note:
"Stella Liebeck's lawsuit was turned into a punch-line as many news
outlets overlooked the critical facts of the case including the
nearly 700 other complaints that McDonalds had received about their
hot coffee."

Actually the details of these 700 complaints were covered in a more
complete article where many of those 700 complaints mentioned burns
that were received to parts of the body that coffee is not intended
to be administered.

https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=Mc...offeeCaseFacts

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many
receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs,
and buttocks;




And:
"Fact: Stella suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind of
burns) over her lap, which included large portions of her inner
thighs and other sensitive areas. She was hospitalized for 8 days
and endured several very painful procedures to clean her wounds. She
required skin grafts and suffered serious and permanent
scarring."

This happens pretty often when you pour scalding liquids on yourself.

Try pouring a cup of scalding hot water from you kitchen sink, which
is approximately 35% cooler than a normal cup of coffee onto your
crotch.

On 5/17/2014 1:47 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/17/2014 1:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 8:55 AM, Leon wrote:
Your new coffee machine brews at between 187 and 192 degrees, depending
on which setting you chose.

Don't know how accurate that is because strangely enough, and according
to this supposedly highly accurate digital medical thermometer used in
chemotherapy applications, the coffee had a range of 138.4 to 128.8F
temperature as it hits the cup:

I think a more accurate reading might be gotten with the thermometer
sitting inside a fresh brewed Styrofoam cup. You are getting a surface
temp exposed to the ambient temp.


I used to develop my own slide film.
It evolved a large glass thermometer as the water temp in the sink had
to be darn close to what was called for. I had to warm the sink for
quite a while to get a consistent temp reading and IIRC the thermometer
instructions wanted a 3~4 minute submerfed exposure to give an accurate
reading. I think you are going to need a probe to submerge in the
coffee to get a true overall temperature reading.

On the other hand:

Using your argument, the vessel itself, being cooler than the hot water,
will have cooled the water slightly at lower levels in my measurements.

The hot water stream as it enters the cup will indeed be somewhat
effected by your "ambient" air temperature on the way down to the
surface, but, without an additional source of heat, and until the vessel
reaches an equilibrium temperature with the liquid as your sink did, the
temperature of the water stream at the entry point will still be at its
highest temperature ... and that point of entry is not within the
scientific definition of "surface temperature" of a liquid.

IIRC my physics classes, "surface temperatures" are not necessarily
lower than at lower depths, quite common in boiling water with the
nucleate film effect that vapor causes.



--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 1:47 PM, Leon wrote:

I have a voltage meter with a temp probe. should I bring it tonight? LOL

Depends upon where you are planning on sticking it? LOL!

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:53:48 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/17/2014 9:37 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:22:15 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/16/2014 1:39 PM, dadiOH wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
message
wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:58:35 -0500, Swingman
wrote:
Not to mention you're on the wrong side of the
historical, already accomplished, facts of the issue.

Yup, and so am I apparently. I guess the biggest fault
here wasn't that McDonalds was serving hot coffee, but
the fact that they didn't accede to here original
claims for compensation. Guess they were afraid of the torrent of new
claims
that would follow. So, either way, they were going to
have to pay. That means, that you're right, there
coffee was too hot. Not INHO that it was undrinkable,
but that it's hotness left them open for being sued.

Or that a law-suit-i'm-not-responsible society was
gaining ground in America.

Let me see...

1. McDonalds wants their coffee to be really, REALLY hot. Undrinkably hot.

Define undrinkably hot. Would you serve a drink to a five year old at
the same temperature that you might drink it?


2. They serve it in a squishy styrofoam cup.

3. They put a lid on that cup (maybe just for take out, don't know, I don't
go to McDonalds)

4. In order to drink the undrinkably hot coffee, one has to remove the top.
Which is what she was trying to do.

Do you often place hot liquids served in squishy styrofoam cup between
your legs to open them?




McDonalds knows all about #1 - #3 or - if they don't - they are incredibly
stupid. Not to hard to foretell what happened to her. It seems to me that
McD just doesn't give a rat's ass which is one reason I don't go there (the
main reason is that their burgers suck, ditto BurgerKing).

This is not directed at you. I avoid both establishment too, not
because of the temperature of their products but because the products
them selves long term are more harmful than any thing else.


Most wood working tool manufacturers turned down the opportunity to sell
a safer saw and continue to sell saws that are more dangerous to operate
than other brands. Do they not give a rat's ass about our safety should
we attempt to use them in an unsafe manner? ;~)

There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that the
temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.

So does that mean that we don't want the government to do something to
protect us to begin with, SawStop, and that we would rather sue later if
we are harmed doing something that we should not have been doing in the
first place, opening hot coffee between our legs?

I would rather take care of myself rather than some bureaucrat in
Washington tell me how to live. Unless the widget was being used as
designed and didn't malfunction (particularly in a previously known
manner), I should be on my own, thank you.



Agreed, but I was making the comparison to many here thinking that MD
should be punished for those not wanting to take responsibility for
opening the coffee in an unsafe manner.

But you also brought up SawStop. ;-)

On Sat, 17 May 2014 13:11:47 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 10:23 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote:

I would rather take care of myself rather than some bureaucrat in
Washington tell me how to live. Unless the widget was being used as
designed and didn't malfunction (particularly in a previously known
manner), I should be on my own, thank you.

Thank you sir. Regardless of the thoughts on either side of this and
similar topics, IMHO it should always come back to this singular
point. But then again - that would require some level of
responsibility...

Only if you guys insist on continuing to miss the point that this was
a civil lawsuit and was NOT a case of "...some bureaucrat in
Washington..." telling you how hot your coffee can be served.

... at least not yet.

Point well taken with respect to some of the comments, but not with respect
to my position. I have not commented on government intervention - I have
only commented on the civil aspects of this case. As that relates to krw's
comment to which I replied - yes... I allowed my comment to extend beyond
my point up to that date. But - I agree in principle with what he is is
saying. Personal responsibility should supercede the ability to simply sue,
simply because you can, and ultimately generate mindless agreement based on
nothing.

Without government's (both federal and state) help, the civil system
would be far different. That's the point.

Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 12:06 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 9:22 AM, Leon wrote:

There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think
that the temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and
that the government getting involved to prosecute the provider is
OK.

??

Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.

No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
anticipated or ever even suggested.

Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider
is a proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to
the reality of the situation.

When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you
change those questionable business practices.

As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL
legal system punished a questionable, and provably injurious,
business practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

End of story...

Not so much the end of the story Karl. By your own admission, you
prefer your coffee at exactly the same temperature that McD served
their coffee at. It would be safe to assume that a large majority of
America does so, likewise - or else they would have served at a
temperature more in keeping with American tastes. You can't say on
one hand that said temperature is extreme while on the other hand
you say that you prefer your coffee at exactly that temperature; I
think you are seriously contradicting your own position on this
matter.

Charitably speaking, is possible that you interposed what you thought
onto what I actually said, and in the context I said it in?

In short, be careful what you think is "safe to assume".

Here's a simplified version to clear up your misunderstanding:

I DO take exception to the ignorant MYTH fostered by the media
surrounding the incident; as well as the complete disregard by the
media, and the ignorant public, for the actual facts of the case.


Somewhere in this interchange. I think something either got mixed up or it
got twisted upon itiself. I was sure that you had made the abosolute
statement that it was unecessary to serve coffee that was so hot it could
not be drunk. But then you said you drink your coffee at the same
temperature that McD served theis at. I got lost in your point, at that
point. I seem to recall you saying that it was unnecessary to serve coffee
at the very temperatures that you desire your own coffee at. But like I
say - I may have lost track of things in this conversation. I can do that
you know...


EVERYTHING I have stated thus far is in reference to, and based on,
said actual FACTS, and even quoted as same as a matter of record.

I agree - I don't think there has been any real discouse on the facts of the
case - they pretty much are what they are. Frankly, I think everyone who
has participated in this thread has done a pretty good job of sticking to
the facts of the case.


Including the FACT that I prefer my coffee at a higher temperature ...
which, offered as an aside, has the impact of a fart in a hurricane on
the reality of the final outcome of the case.

Except that that simple fact makes you totally unbelieveable - just like my
wife. There's just got to be something wrong with people who can do that...


When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you
change those questionable business practices.

As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL
legal system punished a questionable, and provably injurious,
business practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

Once again ... end of story. Fait accompli. What you feel, or how hot
I like my coffee, has no bearing on the reality of the outcome.

That is absolutely correct. The discussion was not so much about the
outcome of the case as it was about statements that the coffee was served
too hot for anyone to consume - which is proven wrong by your own preferred
temperature for coffee. And - was not agreed to even by people like me who
don't like pipng hot coffee.

--

-Mike-

On Sat, 17 May 2014 11:37:35 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 5/17/2014 9:22 AM, Leon wrote:

There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that the
temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.

??

Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.

No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
anticipated or ever even suggested.

So you're saying that civil law is outside the purview of the
government? Odd. Really odd.

Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider is a
proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to the
reality of the situation.

When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you change
those questionable business practices.

So anything a jury wants to do is just peachy? No rules apply? The
government doesn't make the rules?

As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

End of story...

No, it's not the end of the story. Bring it up again in a month and
see. ;-)

On 5/17/2014 2:43 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

Except that that simple fact makes you totally unbelieveable - just like my
wife. There's just got to be something wrong with people who can do that...

LOL Ya got me there.

That is absolutely correct. The discussion was not so much about the
outcome of the case as it was about statements that the coffee was served
too hot for anyone to consume - which is proven wrong by your own preferred
temperature for coffee. And - was not agreed to even by people like me who
don't like pipng hot coffee.

Fair enough... assuming pipng is a Vietnamese relative of luke. g,d&r

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 8:55 AM, Leon wrote:
Your new coffee machine brews at between 187 and 192 degrees,
depending on which setting you chose.

Don't know how accurate that is because strangely enough, and
according to this supposedly highly accurate digital medical
thermometer used in chemotherapy applications, the coffee had a range
of 138.4 to 128.8F temperature as it hits the cup:

Very interesting. All of the manufacturers I've taken any time to look at
tell that they brew at ~190. This is a very interesting little bit of
information.

So now I have to wonder if home units brew at the same temperature as
commercial units. There sure is a lot of information out there that
supports the notion of brewing coffee at ~190 - commercially, at least.

Maybe I should feel like I'm getting ripped off with my home unit...

--

-Mike-

On 5/17/2014 2:43 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 11:37:35 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 5/17/2014 9:22 AM, Leon wrote:

There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that the
temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.

??

Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.

No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
anticipated or ever even suggested.

So you're saying that civil law is outside the purview of the
government? Odd. Really odd.

Nope, it is you "saying that".

Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider is a
proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to the
reality of the situation.

When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you change
those questionable business practices.

So anything a jury wants to do is just peachy? No rules apply? The
government doesn't make the rules?

Again, there is no one other than you "saying that".

As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

End of story...

No, it's not the end of the story. Bring it up again in a month and
see. ;-)

Be my guest. Please direct us to a source that states the trial is not
over, that a settlement was not reached, and that it is not unarguably
and irrevocably concluded.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 2:21 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 1:47 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/17/2014 1:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 8:55 AM, Leon wrote:
Your new coffee machine brews at between 187 and 192 degrees, depending
on which setting you chose.

Don't know how accurate that is because strangely enough, and according
to this supposedly highly accurate digital medical thermometer used in
chemotherapy applications, the coffee had a range of 138.4 to 128.8F
temperature as it hits the cup:

I think a more accurate reading might be gotten with the thermometer
sitting inside a fresh brewed Styrofoam cup. You are getting a surface
temp exposed to the ambient temp.


I used to develop my own slide film.
It evolved a large glass thermometer as the water temp in the sink had
to be darn close to what was called for. I had to warm the sink for
quite a while to get a consistent temp reading and IIRC the thermometer
instructions wanted a 3~4 minute submerfed exposure to give an accurate
reading. I think you are going to need a probe to submerge in the
coffee to get a true overall temperature reading.

On the other hand:

Using your argument, the vessel itself, being cooler than the hot water,
will have cooled the water slightly at lower levels in my measurements.

Yes. And you had a vessel that will change temperatures more slowly as
it absorbed the heat from the liquid. Styrofoam cups like the ones MD
uses are designed to not absorb heat rather to contain the heat.




The hot water stream as it enters the cup will indeed be somewhat
effected by your "ambient" air temperature on the way down to the
surface, but, without an additional source of heat, and until the vessel
reaches an equilibrium temperature with the liquid as your sink did, the
temperature of the water stream at the entry point will still be at its
highest temperature ... and that point of entry is not within the
scientific definition of "surface temperature" of a liquid.

I think the problem here is that your sensor "spot" focused on the water
from the faucet and or coffee maker was in a disrupted stream. I I
don't think that the spot focus was always hitting water rather an
airreated water air mix and you were probably getting some type of average.



IIRC my physics classes, "surface temperatures" are not necessarily
lower than at lower depths, quite common in boiling water with the
nucleate film effect that vapor causes.

Yes, the surface temp is not going to be cooler or hotter than other
points. However the surface whether it be the bottom or top is where
the transference of heat is going to take place which ever direction it
is transferring in. In this case the transference of the heat is from
the liquid top surface to the air which will have a cooling effect.
Below the surface the temperature is ever changing and more so when
exposed to different temp surfaces.
The surface reading, where the heat is escaping to a much cooler
atmosphere, is going to be cooler.

Did you look at my probe readings??? ;~)

I got much closer to predicted/expected temp readings using the probe
away from the outer surface.

On 5/17/2014 2:31 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 1:47 PM, Leon wrote:

I have a voltage meter with a temp probe. should I bring it tonight?
LOL

Depends upon where you are planning on sticking it? LOL!



where ever you like! LOL. Ill bring it. You may gave a dysfunctional
coffee maker.

On 5/17/2014 2:50 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 8:55 AM, Leon wrote:
Your new coffee machine brews at between 187 and 192 degrees,
depending on which setting you chose.

Don't know how accurate that is because strangely enough, and
according to this supposedly highly accurate digital medical
thermometer used in chemotherapy applications, the coffee had a range
of 138.4 to 128.8F temperature as it hits the cup:

Very interesting. All of the manufacturers I've taken any time to look at
tell that they brew at ~190. This is a very interesting little bit of
information.

So now I have to wonder if home units brew at the same temperature as
commercial units. There sure is a lot of information out there that
supports the notion of brewing coffee at ~190 - commercially, at least.

Maybe I should feel like I'm getting ripped off with my home unit...

I would not discount the fact that, for quality control purposes, there
is a range of acceptable parameters and that not all units are at the
higher end of that temperature range.

Appears, and depending the accuracy of Leon and my respective
thermometers, that my unit does not serve up water as hot as Leon's.

Then again, the same could be applicable to thermometers.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Sat, 17 May 2014 14:51:51 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 5/17/2014 2:43 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 11:37:35 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 5/17/2014 9:22 AM, Leon wrote:

There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that the
temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.

??

Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.

No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
anticipated or ever even suggested.

So you're saying that civil law is outside the purview of the
government? Odd. Really odd.

Nope, it is you "saying that".

You deny government's involvement ("No "government involvement" at
all"). That *is* what you're saying.

Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider is a
proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to the
reality of the situation.

When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you change
those questionable business practices.

So anything a jury wants to do is just peachy? No rules apply? The
government doesn't make the rules?

Again, there is no one other than you "saying that".

That is what you said. I just changed the words, not your conclusion.

As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

End of story...

No, it's not the end of the story. Bring it up again in a month and
see. ;-)

Be my guest. Please direct us to a source that states the trial is not
over, that a settlement was not reached, and that it is not unarguably
and irrevocably concluded.

Oh, good grief.

On 5/17/2014 2:55 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/17/2014 2:31 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 1:47 PM, Leon wrote:

I have a voltage meter with a temp probe. should I bring it tonight?
LOL

Depends upon where you are planning on sticking it? LOL!



where ever you like! LOL. Ill bring it.

Please don't ... bad enough getting our asses whipped with estrogen
fueled dominoes, AND having to run scientific experiments on top of
that. Sheeeeesh!!

ITMT, just enjoying the arguing while waiting for that inevitable ass
whipping.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 2:34 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:53:48 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/17/2014 9:37 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:22:15 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/16/2014 1:39 PM, dadiOH wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
message
wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:58:35 -0500, Swingman
wrote:
Not to mention you're on the wrong side of the
historical, already accomplished, facts of the issue.

Yup, and so am I apparently. I guess the biggest fault
here wasn't that McDonalds was serving hot coffee, but
the fact that they didn't accede to here original
claims for compensation. Guess they were afraid of the torrent of new
claims
that would follow. So, either way, they were going to
have to pay. That means, that you're right, there
coffee was too hot. Not INHO that it was undrinkable,
but that it's hotness left them open for being sued.

Or that a law-suit-i'm-not-responsible society was
gaining ground in America.

Let me see...

1. McDonalds wants their coffee to be really, REALLY hot. Undrinkably hot.

Define undrinkably hot. Would you serve a drink to a five year old at
the same temperature that you might drink it?


2. They serve it in a squishy styrofoam cup.

3. They put a lid on that cup (maybe just for take out, don't know, I don't
go to McDonalds)

4. In order to drink the undrinkably hot coffee, one has to remove the top.
Which is what she was trying to do.

Do you often place hot liquids served in squishy styrofoam cup between
your legs to open them?




McDonalds knows all about #1 - #3 or - if they don't - they are incredibly
stupid. Not to hard to foretell what happened to her. It seems to me that
McD just doesn't give a rat's ass which is one reason I don't go there (the
main reason is that their burgers suck, ditto BurgerKing).

This is not directed at you. I avoid both establishment too, not
because of the temperature of their products but because the products
them selves long term are more harmful than any thing else.


Most wood working tool manufacturers turned down the opportunity to sell
a safer saw and continue to sell saws that are more dangerous to operate
than other brands. Do they not give a rat's ass about our safety should
we attempt to use them in an unsafe manner? ;~)

There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that the
temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.

So does that mean that we don't want the government to do something to
protect us to begin with, SawStop, and that we would rather sue later if
we are harmed doing something that we should not have been doing in the
first place, opening hot coffee between our legs?

I would rather take care of myself rather than some bureaucrat in
Washington tell me how to live. Unless the widget was being used as
designed and didn't malfunction (particularly in a previously known
manner), I should be on my own, thank you.



Agreed, but I was making the comparison to many here thinking that MD
should be punished for those not wanting to take responsibility for
opening the coffee in an unsafe manner.

But you also brought up SawStop. ;-)


Yeah, it was entered more to prove an emotional response that affects
decision making.

We think that the lady should have been protected from McDonald's, which
few like, and a few dislike like SawStop which is providing a product
that does protects us.

I suspect that most would believe that the lady got what she deserved
had she first gone to congress to get mandated a low temperature
regulators on all coffee makers before she was burned.


Both the lady being burned with the McDonald's coffee and the guy
cutting his digit off using a Ryobi saw were more at fault than the
provider of the instrument of mass destruction. Yet there seems to be
almost equal opposition against McDonalds and the saw operator.

Emotion is the guiding factor.

On 5/17/2014 2:43 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 12:06 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 9:22 AM, Leon wrote:

There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think
that the temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and
that the government getting involved to prosecute the provider is
OK.

??

Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.

No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
anticipated or ever even suggested.

Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider
is a proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to
the reality of the situation.

When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you
change those questionable business practices.

As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL
legal system punished a questionable, and provably injurious,
business practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

End of story...

Not so much the end of the story Karl. By your own admission, you
prefer your coffee at exactly the same temperature that McD served
their coffee at. It would be safe to assume that a large majority of
America does so, likewise - or else they would have served at a
temperature more in keeping with American tastes. You can't say on
one hand that said temperature is extreme while on the other hand
you say that you prefer your coffee at exactly that temperature; I
think you are seriously contradicting your own position on this
matter.

Charitably speaking, is possible that you interposed what you thought
onto what I actually said, and in the context I said it in?

In short, be careful what you think is "safe to assume".

Here's a simplified version to clear up your misunderstanding:

I DO take exception to the ignorant MYTH fostered by the media
surrounding the incident; as well as the complete disregard by the
media, and the ignorant public, for the actual facts of the case.


Somewhere in this interchange. I think something either got mixed up or it
got twisted upon itiself. I was sure that you had made the abosolute
statement that it was unecessary to serve coffee that was so hot it could
not be drunk. But then you said you drink your coffee at the same
temperature that McD served theis at. I got lost in your point, at that
point. I seem to recall you saying that it was unnecessary to serve coffee
at the very temperatures that you desire your own coffee at. But like I
say - I may have lost track of things in this conversation. I can do that
you know...


EVERYTHING I have stated thus far is in reference to, and based on,
said actual FACTS, and even quoted as same as a matter of record.

I agree - I don't think there has been any real discouse on the facts of the
case - they pretty much are what they are. Frankly, I think everyone who
has participated in this thread has done a pretty good job of sticking to
the facts of the case.


Including the FACT that I prefer my coffee at a higher temperature ...
which, offered as an aside, has the impact of a fart in a hurricane on
the reality of the final outcome of the case.

Except that that simple fact makes you totally unbelieveable - just like my
wife. There's just got to be something wrong with people who can do that...

Noooooooooooo, not unbelievable. There is always one in the family that
wears the pants. :~)

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:15:58 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/17/2014 2:34 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:53:48 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/17/2014 9:37 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:22:15 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/16/2014 1:39 PM, dadiOH wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
message
wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:58:35 -0500, Swingman
wrote:
Not to mention you're on the wrong side of the
historical, already accomplished, facts of the issue.

Yup, and so am I apparently. I guess the biggest fault
here wasn't that McDonalds was serving hot coffee, but
the fact that they didn't accede to here original
claims for compensation. Guess they were afraid of the torrent of new
claims
that would follow. So, either way, they were going to
have to pay. That means, that you're right, there
coffee was too hot. Not INHO that it was undrinkable,
but that it's hotness left them open for being sued.

Or that a law-suit-i'm-not-responsible society was
gaining ground in America.

Let me see...

1. McDonalds wants their coffee to be really, REALLY hot. Undrinkably hot.

Define undrinkably hot. Would you serve a drink to a five year old at
the same temperature that you might drink it?


2. They serve it in a squishy styrofoam cup.

3. They put a lid on that cup (maybe just for take out, don't know, I don't
go to McDonalds)

4. In order to drink the undrinkably hot coffee, one has to remove the top.
Which is what she was trying to do.

Do you often place hot liquids served in squishy styrofoam cup between
your legs to open them?




McDonalds knows all about #1 - #3 or - if they don't - they are incredibly
stupid. Not to hard to foretell what happened to her. It seems to me that
McD just doesn't give a rat's ass which is one reason I don't go there (the
main reason is that their burgers suck, ditto BurgerKing).

This is not directed at you. I avoid both establishment too, not
because of the temperature of their products but because the products
them selves long term are more harmful than any thing else.


Most wood working tool manufacturers turned down the opportunity to sell
a safer saw and continue to sell saws that are more dangerous to operate
than other brands. Do they not give a rat's ass about our safety should
we attempt to use them in an unsafe manner? ;~)

There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that the
temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.

So does that mean that we don't want the government to do something to
protect us to begin with, SawStop, and that we would rather sue later if
we are harmed doing something that we should not have been doing in the
first place, opening hot coffee between our legs?

I would rather take care of myself rather than some bureaucrat in
Washington tell me how to live. Unless the widget was being used as
designed and didn't malfunction (particularly in a previously known
manner), I should be on my own, thank you.



Agreed, but I was making the comparison to many here thinking that MD
should be punished for those not wanting to take responsibility for
opening the coffee in an unsafe manner.

But you also brought up SawStop. ;-)


Yeah, it was entered more to prove an emotional response that affects
decision making.

We think that the lady should have been protected from McDonald's, which
few like, and a few dislike like SawStop which is providing a product
that does protects us.

I don't "like" either. I like choice and am actually capable of
figuring out for myself that coffee is hot (or that my table saw can
bite).

I suspect that most would believe that the lady got what she deserved
had she first gone to congress to get mandated a low temperature
regulators on all coffee makers before she was burned.

Not sure I follow that. She deserved? Burns or a megabuck? Even if
she had warned them in a certified letter that coffee was hot, how
would that have changed anything? There is a difference between
"deserved" and "is responsible for".

Both the lady being burned with the McDonald's coffee and the guy
cutting his digit off using a Ryobi saw were more at fault than the
provider of the instrument of mass destruction. Yet there seems to be
almost equal opposition against McDonalds and the saw operator.

I think you're 100% right. Both are responsible for damaging
themselves. IMO, no one else is even 1% culpable. ...besides,
*maybe* her son.

Emotion is the guiding factor.

Of course but I suppose it's emotional to reject all unnecessary
government intervention in my life, too. I rather like liberty but
also understand you can't have liberty without at least as much
responsibility.

On 05/17/2014 11:58 AM, Leon wrote:
On 5/17/2014 12:31 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 05/17/2014 07:01 AM, Leon wrote:



You develop a tolerance for the heat in your mouth, The body adapts
areas that are repeatedly subject to high temp. Work with your hands
and get calluses. If I pick up a hot french fry and it burns my fingers
my first thought is to put it in my mouth. My mouth is much more
tolerant to heat than my hands. Perhaps if I ate with my hands vs using
a fork my hands would become accustomed to the heat too.

AND I am not suggesting that you eat all our meals with your fingers.
;~)

If you do a lot of cooking, your hands and fingers will become heat
tolerant as the accumulated burns destroy the nerve endings. You still
burn hands and fingers, but it doesn't hurt as much.


Absolutely agree, a tolerance has been developed. And while I agree
that a chef/cook probably gets burned quite often I'm certain those
burns are not as numerous or severe as those gotten when he began
cooking/burning himself. ;~) I am sure calluses too over the years
offer a layer of protection which perhaps a person near his or her
crotch may or may not have developed. ;~)

Perhaps practitioners of the oldest occupation develop callouses there ;-)

On 5/17/2014 3:15 PM, Leon wrote:

Both the lady being burned with the McDonald's coffee and the guy
cutting his digit off using a Ryobi saw were more at fault than the
provider of the instrument of mass destruction. Yet there seems to be
almost equal opposition against McDonalds and the saw operator.

Emotion is the guiding factor.

Arguably, the "guiding factor" in both cases is actually the "Mother of
all guiding factors":

Threat of (losing) litigation.

Due to litigation, the temperature of coffee served in McDonald's is now
lower, and as a result arguably safer for the drinker overall.

And, the increasing acceptance of SawStop by both corporations and
consumers, while not as mature, is unequivocally due in part to
litigation, as well as being safer overall for an operator.

Both cases where the destination is arguably more important than the
journey.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 3:01 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 14:51:51 -0500, Swingman wrote:


As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

End of story...

No, it's not the end of the story. Bring it up again in a month and
see. ;-)

Be my guest. Please direct us to a source that states the trial is not
over, that a settlement was not reached, and that it is not unarguably
and irrevocably concluded.

Oh, good grief.


IOW, case closed, end of story.


--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 2:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 2:50 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 8:55 AM, Leon wrote:
Your new coffee machine brews at between 187 and 192 degrees,
depending on which setting you chose.

Don't know how accurate that is because strangely enough, and
according to this supposedly highly accurate digital medical
thermometer used in chemotherapy applications, the coffee had a range
of 138.4 to 128.8F temperature as it hits the cup:

Very interesting. All of the manufacturers I've taken any time to
look at
tell that they brew at ~190. This is a very interesting little bit of
information.

So now I have to wonder if home units brew at the same temperature as
commercial units. There sure is a lot of information out there that
supports the notion of brewing coffee at ~190 - commercially, at least.

Maybe I should feel like I'm getting ripped off with my home unit...

I would not discount the fact that, for quality control purposes, there
is a range of acceptable parameters and that not all units are at the
higher end of that temperature range.

Appears, and depending the accuracy of Leon and my respective
thermometers, that my unit does not serve up water as hot as Leon's.

Then again, the same could be applicable to thermometers.



I am thinking the right tool for the job in this case. You are taking a
2 dimensional reading and I am taking a 3 dimensional reading. I have
not noticed a difference in the temp of coffee you serve than what mine
puts out according to my tongue.

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:37:15 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 5/17/2014 3:01 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 14:51:51 -0500, Swingman wrote:


As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

End of story...

No, it's not the end of the story. Bring it up again in a month and
see. ;-)

Be my guest. Please direct us to a source that states the trial is not
over, that a settlement was not reached, and that it is not unarguably
and irrevocably concluded.

Oh, good grief.


IOW, case closed, end of story.

If you really believed that, you wouldn't be in this conversation. ;-)

On 5/17/2014 3:02 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 2:55 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/17/2014 2:31 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 1:47 PM, Leon wrote:

I have a voltage meter with a temp probe. should I bring it tonight?
LOL

Depends upon where you are planning on sticking it? LOL!



where ever you like! LOL. Ill bring it.

Please don't ... bad enough getting our asses whipped with estrogen
fueled dominoes, AND having to run scientific experiments on top of
that. Sheeeeesh!!

ITMT, just enjoying the arguing while waiting for that inevitable ass
whipping.



I was thinking to my self earlier, but was was interrupted by a convoy
of 18 wheelers headed south from here, I wonder how much Karl was
getting done on the cabinets this after noon while yielding his mighty
sword at the keyboard?

Kim got home 30 minutes ago and needed help bringing in groceries. I
opened the trunk of her car and the mystery of where the trucks were
headed was solved. Kroger needed to be restocked.

On 5/17/2014 3:28 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 05/17/2014 11:58 AM, Leon wrote:
On 5/17/2014 12:31 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 05/17/2014 07:01 AM, Leon wrote:



You develop a tolerance for the heat in your mouth, The body adapts
areas that are repeatedly subject to high temp. Work with your hands
and get calluses. If I pick up a hot french fry and it burns my fingers
my first thought is to put it in my mouth. My mouth is much more
tolerant to heat than my hands. Perhaps if I ate with my hands vs
using
a fork my hands would become accustomed to the heat too.

AND I am not suggesting that you eat all our meals with your fingers.
;~)

If you do a lot of cooking, your hands and fingers will become heat
tolerant as the accumulated burns destroy the nerve endings. You still
burn hands and fingers, but it doesn't hurt as much.


Absolutely agree, a tolerance has been developed. And while I agree
that a chef/cook probably gets burned quite often I'm certain those
burns are not as numerous or severe as those gotten when he began
cooking/burning himself. ;~) I am sure calluses too over the years
offer a layer of protection which perhaps a person near his or her
crotch may or may not have developed. ;~)

Perhaps practitioners of the oldest occupation develop callouses there ;-)


That was on my mind but I was not going to go there. LOL

On 5/17/2014 3:50 PM, Leon wrote:

I wonder how much Karl was getting done on the cabinets this after noon
while yielding his mighty sword at the keyboard?

Worked hard all week, It's Saturday, went on strike.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 3:52 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 3:50 PM, Leon wrote:

I wonder how much Karl was getting done on the cabinets this after noon
while yielding his mighty sword at the keyboard?

Worked hard all week, It's Saturday, went on strike.



Probably that 2 hour search for room tired you all out. ;~)

DAYUM!

An argument rages on the wRec, and with nothing stronger than a "Good
grief", and an "Oh brother."??

WTF's with that?



ITMT, I'm gonna go take a nap and get ready for my weekly ass whipping,
by either my wife, or Leon's.

Enjoyed the arguments one and all, learned something, hope no hard/hot
feelings left on the coffee table.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 3:54 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/17/2014 3:52 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 5/17/2014 3:50 PM, Leon wrote:

I wonder how much Karl was getting done on the cabinets this after noon
while yielding his mighty sword at the keyboard?

Worked hard all week, It's Saturday, went on strike.



Probably that 2 hour search for room tired you all out. ;~)

Just the thought of it...


--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message

Swingman wrote:

Including the FACT that I prefer my coffee at a higher temperature ...
which, offered as an aside, has the impact of a fart in a hurricane on
the reality of the final outcome of the case.

Except that that simple fact makes you totally unbelieveable - just like
my wife. There's just got to be something wrong with people who can do
that...

Just a theory but perhaps they have a heigtened olfactory sense...the aroma
of the steaming hot coffee causes them to salivate profusely and the saliva
de\ilutes the coffee to drinkable temperaure. Pavlov would be proud

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net