M
measekite
TRY HILILGHTING THE PRINT AND IT SMEARS. BUT THE HP WITH AN INTEGRATEDEd said:
PRINT HEAD IN THE CART IS A GOOD ALTERNATIVE FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT
PRINT VERY MUCH.
PRINT HEAD IN THE CART IS A GOOD ALTERNATIVE FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT
PRINT VERY MUCH.
I
ian lincoln
George E. Cawthon said:
Isn't it about time you guys went metric?
G
GEO Me
But some errors are funnier than others. Just my opinion, not how
the 'pubic' feels
Geo
G
George E. Cawthon
Silliness because you have no substance? StillBurt said:
can't spell my name correctly, but that's what I
would expect.
M
measekite
George said:
I SECOND THAT
BUT HE HAS A NEW GIRL
ME TOO
G
George E. Cawthon
zakezuke said:
Lots of people spoon coffee when they first get a
cup. That was fairly common when I was growing
up. People expected coffee to be hot.
Of course you would, that is what any reasonable
person would do when someone laughed at them.
Unless, one was convinced a large money
compensation was possible by a lawyer.
The amount depth of burn is related to the length
of time the skin is in contact with the hot fluid.
Heavy cloth will hold that heat and increase the
depth of the burn. The woman in question was
burned badly because she sat in staturated clothes
and in a pool of coffee. The fact that she
couldn't get up and out of the car is not the
responsibility of McDonalds.
Whoa, now you say 180F coffee is nice, but at the
beginning you indicated it was "bloody hot" and
would produce 3rd degree burns in 10 seconds.
Yeah I'm looking for inconsistencies and I found
one. But I don't believe anyone can possibly
serve coffee that arrives at 210 in your cup.
But I don't believe that you can receive coffee in
a cup that is 195 degrees either. Since I live at
about 2700 feet, the maximum coffee temperature is
well below 212F.
M
measekite
George said:
ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO LOOK HARD
Z
zakezuke
Actually if you really want to know, I might complain in writing... too
However, we are not talking about sueing someone because they laughed
at them. We are talking about coffee servered at temps 195F plus.
Coffee not fit for human consumption, coffee designed to not be fit for
human consumption but rather to be stored for 2 hours and still be hot,
but this fact was undocumented.
We are talking about a person who offered to settle at $20,000, and
McDonnalds refused. So they went to court. She was finally awarded
$160,000 in compensatory damages, and punitive damages of $480,000.
McDonnalds refused to settle for basicly medial expences... they went
to court. This *IS* what any reasonable person would do. I'm told she
actually got much less in a settlement, but I don't have those figures.
I don't know if the lawyer is a scum bag or not, but the fact in this
case sugest that we are dealing with a reasonable person who did the
reasonable thing when a product she bought which was extra hot, so hot
it caused 3rd degree burns in a short period of time.
And the temp it was served at, which was "the" issue. The corp.
specifications called for 190F, in practice the temp was selected based
tuning the perkulator to boiling, then just a hair to the left.
It's not an issue when you pour it into cups, wait a moment, sip
slowly. But even then 10 seconds in the unlikely event you spill it on
your self is more than enough time to get a towel.
195F bad
180F damn hot coffee
180F poured into the mug, not 180F anymore *this* is likely why most
people have not experenced 3rd degree burns from home brewed coffee.
As far as 210F coffee, as I said, take the pot, make the coffee boil,
turn back just a hair, pour directly into syrofoam mug, pop a lid on
it. So hot it's still basicly boiling in the cup, and hot enough to
melt the lid. I don't know if that was the issue in this case, but
that was McDonnalds coffee... they admited the fact that their coffee
was served at a temp not fit for human consumption. No surprise. It's
rather why I bought McDonnalds coffee. They were much better than I
was at putting boiling liquid into syrofoam cups.
In a syrofoam mug, fresh from the peculator, when it's set hot enough,
sure you can.
But the real problem IMHO are people who don't know the facts in this
case who use it as some vehicel to illistrate why the American civil
court system is screwy. This was a legit case where McDonnalds made it
a choice to serve their coffee hotter than everyone else, establsihed a
set of protocals to make sure that coffee you bought was so hot it
would remain hot 2 hours later, and didn't tell anyone it was not fit
for human consumption in the resturant. My memory is rather vague but
we are talking 3rd degree burns to 6% of the body, though now I look
up the number. Allow me to quote a slightly more reliable source
---
However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She
received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating
hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of
her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two
years.
---
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
Also see this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
If you think this was a frivolous lawsuit, there is something
seriously wrong with you.
However, we are not talking about sueing someone because they laughed
at them. We are talking about coffee servered at temps 195F plus.
Coffee not fit for human consumption, coffee designed to not be fit for
human consumption but rather to be stored for 2 hours and still be hot,
but this fact was undocumented.
We are talking about a person who offered to settle at $20,000, and
McDonnalds refused. So they went to court. She was finally awarded
$160,000 in compensatory damages, and punitive damages of $480,000.
McDonnalds refused to settle for basicly medial expences... they went
to court. This *IS* what any reasonable person would do. I'm told she
actually got much less in a settlement, but I don't have those figures.
I don't know if the lawyer is a scum bag or not, but the fact in this
case sugest that we are dealing with a reasonable person who did the
reasonable thing when a product she bought which was extra hot, so hot
it caused 3rd degree burns in a short period of time.
And the temp it was served at, which was "the" issue. The corp.
specifications called for 190F, in practice the temp was selected based
tuning the perkulator to boiling, then just a hair to the left.
It's not an issue when you pour it into cups, wait a moment, sip
slowly. But even then 10 seconds in the unlikely event you spill it on
your self is more than enough time to get a towel.
195F bad
180F damn hot coffee
180F poured into the mug, not 180F anymore *this* is likely why most
people have not experenced 3rd degree burns from home brewed coffee.
As far as 210F coffee, as I said, take the pot, make the coffee boil,
turn back just a hair, pour directly into syrofoam mug, pop a lid on
it. So hot it's still basicly boiling in the cup, and hot enough to
melt the lid. I don't know if that was the issue in this case, but
that was McDonnalds coffee... they admited the fact that their coffee
was served at a temp not fit for human consumption. No surprise. It's
rather why I bought McDonnalds coffee. They were much better than I
was at putting boiling liquid into syrofoam cups.
In a syrofoam mug, fresh from the peculator, when it's set hot enough,
sure you can.
But the real problem IMHO are people who don't know the facts in this
case who use it as some vehicel to illistrate why the American civil
court system is screwy. This was a legit case where McDonnalds made it
a choice to serve their coffee hotter than everyone else, establsihed a
set of protocals to make sure that coffee you bought was so hot it
would remain hot 2 hours later, and didn't tell anyone it was not fit
for human consumption in the resturant. My memory is rather vague but
we are talking 3rd degree burns to 6% of the body, though now I look
up the number. Allow me to quote a slightly more reliable source
---
However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She
received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating
hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of
her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two
years.
---
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
Also see this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
If you think this was a frivolous lawsuit, there is something
seriously wrong with you.
B
Burt
George E. Cawthon said:
G-E-O-R-G-E E. C-A-W-T-H-O-N. Happy now, George? I would actually spell
your name Misanthrope. According to you, food-service workers are jerks,
people who might get burned in a too-hot shower are stupid, Lawyers are
scum, doctors don't know how to treat burns, and professionals don't know as
much as you. I gave you plenty of substance and your response was about
bacon grease, laughing at at people who burn their tongues on extremely hot
soup, and a short dissertation on how you like soup served (bubbled gently
for a minute or two - rather poetic). Some substance, George. Your regard
for your fellow human beings is underwhelming. If your best shot was to
wonder if I could pronounce "forte" or spell your name, you have certainly
abandoned substance. The response I chose was tongue-in-cheek. In case you
don't know what that means, George, it is "irony, or whimsical
exaggeration." A little more complex than silliness, but you can certainly
call it what you will - it's a free country!
G
George E. Cawthon
Burt said:
I would say that most personal injury lawyers are
opportunists. And certainly most class action
lawyers are opportunist. There are very few who
are really interested in teaching some corporation
an lesson in responsibility; most are just
interested in the money they will get. Teaching
irresponsible corporations and individuals a
lesson by suing them (and making a profit by that
action) is not the best way. Changing the law is
how that is done. The suing venue usually just
results in increase costs to the consumer and
doesn't change actions.
You are right polls don't make assertions, the
result of polls show how the pubic feels.
Ah, you found an error, yes, "can" was incorrect
in the tho sentences and were suppose to be
"cannot." BTW that is not a grammatical error it
is a typographic error.
That sounds like a lawyer argument. Are you sure
you are not a lawyer? Most lawyers use the
technique of deflecting the argument and never
directly address the issue when they have a weak
or unsupported stance. The point was that few
occupations are called professions. Plumbing and
other trades are not included. That does not
reflect on their value to society or on the
personal attributes.
Cavalier, possibly. But referring to an
occupation is very different from slanders of
racial or religious nature. No one really gets
upset about slandering used car salesmen as a
group. Sure, I've known a few good used car
salesmen, however, most that I have met fit and
deserve the scorn expressed by the majority of the
population. That's not prejudice that's
experience.
Sorry but your last comment shows that you have
again twisted the argument. One can develop a
criticism of a person based on their deeds without
actually knowing them. End.
G
George E. Cawthon
zakezuke said:
There was nothing reasonable about this person.
You can even say a reasonable person wouldn't go
to McDonalds. A reasonable person would not buy
coffee at McDonalds. A reasonable person would
not get coffee at the drive-in window. A
reasonable person would be very careful with a cup
of hot coffee. A reasonable person would never
try to support a hot cup of coffee in her lap.
Does that take care of reasonable?
Oh, I know, McDonalds forced her to do all of that
with its unrelenting advertising and addicting
substances it sells.
Wait a minute, just before you said the
corporation called for 195F. The URL you sited
says McDonalds sells coffee and 180-190 F
Yep, I realize there is a serious problem with me.
Otherwise, I would not be expressing an opinion
that is widely held. End.
B
Burt
George E. Cawthon said:
"Opportunism: the art, policy, or practic of taking advantage of
opportunities or circumstances especially with little regard for principles
or consequences." Webster's collegiate dictionary
George, I would say that SOME personal injury lawyers and class action
lawyers (and some people of any and all other businesses, trades,
professions, etc) are opportunists in the strictest sense of the word. You
again generalize from some to MOST - a prejudicial statement with no
foundation in fact.
You well know that how the public feels does not confer the mantle of fact
on that judgement. We can take the most obscene, illigical extension of
this issue and talk about Nazi Germany or Darfur.
So, you will agree that we are both capable of error. Welcome to the human
race.
To paraphrase the loyalty oath of the McCarthy era - I am not now, nor have
I ever been a lawyer. Looks like an interesting profession to pursue,
however.
Most lawyers use the
"Profession: ...4.a a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often
long and intensive academic preparation b: a principal calling, vocation,
or employment c: the whole body of persons engaged in a calling." Webster's
collegiate dictionary
Please note - a principal calling, VOCATION, OR EMPLOYMENT. A much broader
definition than yours. Have you ever heard of professional football
players. Not exactly the example of a learned profession as we think of it.
Generalizing from experience with a few members of a religion or race to the
majority of that religion or race is called prejudice. Generalizing from
experience (or the public's perception) with a few lawyersor car salesmen,
food sevice employees, etc) to most of the group may be socially acceptable
and not politically incorrect, but it is still prejudging the "many" based
on experience with a "few." That is the essence of prejudice, George.
The "deed" you are criticizing is effective legal representation of an
injured client. That makes the lawyer a scum? Talk about twisted
areguments! End? OK with me.
Z
zakezuke
Wait a minute, just before you said the
The manual called for 180-190 F... i'm pretty sure I said "The
temprature of the coffee was dictated in the operational manual.
195F IIRC," IIRC means If I recall correctly.
The habbit was turning the thermostat just a hair under boiling. This
is what I observed. The result that I measured because I actually
bought coffee from them at some point was coffee hotter than 190F. And
yes I said 195F, which just so happens to be the temp I measured of
their coffee at one point. The plan was to make it hotter than average
so it would be hot when you had your break at work, which they never
bothered to tell anyone.
I'd say my recall was pretty good, only 5 degrees off what the websites
say. yay me
I'm sure she just wanted some coffee... and like my self was unaware
their coffee was hotter than average, practicly boiling. Usually
coffee spilled on someone, let's say somewhere between 200ml and 400ml,
from what i've seen, does not result in 3rd degree burns, but rather at
worst second degree burns. Those heat on their own. Third degree
burns do not.
Also IIRC starbucks offers 185F lattés and 195F upon request. Since
you will be going through this responce with a fine tooth comb I will
say I don't actually know what their policy is, but I will say I
measured it as being 180F at one point, and it was damn hot coffee, but
I didn't get a blister on my tounge.
legs, the lawyer got a lot of money, the rest of
us have to live with luke warm coffee"
And I thought you were trying to think for your self.
This opinion has based on having no fact. That is the problem you see,
this is not a case of somone getting coffee on them selves and getting
a blister or two. This was a case of 3rd degree burns. Third degree
burns are NOT frivolous. These are not the type of burns that you can
dismiss away with cold water and an ice pack. And there would have
been no case if McDonnalds paid up the medial bills which I believe was
$20,000. The whole reason to go to court was because there was a
dispute between two parties, and this "is" the reasonable thing to do.
And no, the person didn't deserve to get 3rd dgree burns. I'll agree
it's a foolish thing, and i'll agree 1st or 2nd degree burns are the
usual consequence of these actions, though I don't think anyone
deserves to be turned. Heck, being hit with a hose from an overheated
radator is not something anyone deserves either... but even that is
nothing in contrast to what this woman recieved. And that's the funny
thing about nerve damage, you don't feel there is a problem anymore.
The fact remains that you actually don't know how much money she or the
lawyer got... heck I don't know. But the fact remains that the person
was willing to settle for medial expenses which I presume was
$20,000... so I don't see this as being a case of a scumbag lawyer, but
rather someone with an uninformed opinion.
The manual called for 180-190 F... i'm pretty sure I said "The
temprature of the coffee was dictated in the operational manual.
195F IIRC," IIRC means If I recall correctly.
The habbit was turning the thermostat just a hair under boiling. This
is what I observed. The result that I measured because I actually
bought coffee from them at some point was coffee hotter than 190F. And
yes I said 195F, which just so happens to be the temp I measured of
their coffee at one point. The plan was to make it hotter than average
so it would be hot when you had your break at work, which they never
bothered to tell anyone.
I'd say my recall was pretty good, only 5 degrees off what the websites
say. yay me
I'm sure she just wanted some coffee... and like my self was unaware
their coffee was hotter than average, practicly boiling. Usually
coffee spilled on someone, let's say somewhere between 200ml and 400ml,
from what i've seen, does not result in 3rd degree burns, but rather at
worst second degree burns. Those heat on their own. Third degree
burns do not.
Also IIRC starbucks offers 185F lattés and 195F upon request. Since
you will be going through this responce with a fine tooth comb I will
say I don't actually know what their policy is, but I will say I
measured it as being 180F at one point, and it was damn hot coffee, but
I didn't get a blister on my tounge.
" The woman got what she deserved, burned
legs, the lawyer got a lot of money, the rest of
us have to live with luke warm coffee"
And I thought you were trying to think for your self.
This opinion has based on having no fact. That is the problem you see,
this is not a case of somone getting coffee on them selves and getting
a blister or two. This was a case of 3rd degree burns. Third degree
burns are NOT frivolous. These are not the type of burns that you can
dismiss away with cold water and an ice pack. And there would have
been no case if McDonnalds paid up the medial bills which I believe was
$20,000. The whole reason to go to court was because there was a
dispute between two parties, and this "is" the reasonable thing to do.
And no, the person didn't deserve to get 3rd dgree burns. I'll agree
it's a foolish thing, and i'll agree 1st or 2nd degree burns are the
usual consequence of these actions, though I don't think anyone
deserves to be turned. Heck, being hit with a hose from an overheated
radator is not something anyone deserves either... but even that is
nothing in contrast to what this woman recieved. And that's the funny
thing about nerve damage, you don't feel there is a problem anymore.
The fact remains that you actually don't know how much money she or the
lawyer got... heck I don't know. But the fact remains that the person
was willing to settle for medial expenses which I presume was
$20,000... so I don't see this as being a case of a scumbag lawyer, but
rather someone with an uninformed opinion.
Z
zakezuke
I would say that most personal injury lawyers are
It looks like I need to repeat my self. The person in question was
looking to settle for medial expences, which I presume cost $20,000.
This does not sound like a opportunist to me.
It looks like I need to repeat my self. The person in question was
looking to settle for medial expences, which I presume cost $20,000.
This does not sound like a opportunist to me.
B
Burt
Thanks, Geo, for being so observant. I was so focused on some of George'sGEO said:But some errors are funnier than others. Just my opinion, not how
the 'pubic' feels
Geo
spurious generalizations that I totally missed this gem. Perhaps this was a
freudian slip on his part - an assertion that I'd hit him "below the belt",
so to speak. Amazing what the spell checker will let go through!
G
George E. Cawthon
Many thanks for spelling my name correctly, thatBurt said:
is the beginning of courtesy. I appreciate that.
May your life fill with meaning and
appreciation fill your soul.
G
George E. Cawthon
zakezuke said:
Your point? You agree you said 195F, don't you
agree the URL you sited says 180-190F.
In other words, the temperature varied, right?
That's 5-15 degrees!
Wonderful. We can still get hot coffee at Starbucks.
What does that mean? Was I thinking for you?
The seriousness of the burn has nothing to do with
who is responsible for the burn.
You are playing the same game that many do in a
court of law. The damage done to person X has
nothing to do with establishing Y's guilt or who
is responsible for the damage. How much money was
awarded to the injured woman also has nothing to
do with whether a lawyer was a scumbag or not.
You have made up your mind that McDonalds is
guilty of injuring parties, that McDonalds should
compensate the parties, that McDonalds should be
punished, and that McDonalds should stop doing
what it does that injures some parties.
You have also made up your mind that anyone who
has a different assessment is wrong and their
opinion is not informed.
That's my conclusion.
B
Burt
George E. Cawthon said:
I must say that misspelling your name was a careless misreading on my part
of the heading on your post. Kindness begets kindness. Thank you for your
good wishes. I wish you the same.
G
George E. Cawthon
Damn, and I usually look for that error sinceGEO" [email protected] said:But some errors are funnier than others. Just my opinion, not how
the 'pubic' feels
Geo
spell check won't find it.
B
Burt
George E. Cawthon said:
Got to admit that this was one of the funnier typos, George. Sure beats a
misspelled name!