Corporations can poison you and NO criminal charges?

[Moonbeam]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
What we should be asking ourselves is why does it take multiple cases and lawsuits to get something as simple as using a proper container to serve scaulding hot coffee in, etc., etc.?

Is it because upper management has it so good that they just can't take/stand any crisitism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IMO, it's nothing villainous. It's just the momentum of stupidity and the cover your ass mindset. No one likes to admit that they were wrong, especially if their mistakes caused harm to others and there's gonna have to be some kind of price to pay.
This is really just human nature. I'm sure that there are many posters here who would like to have us all believe that this is all purposeful evil inflicted with intentional glee by inhuman psychopathic followers of the Dark Side of the Force, but that's all BS.

---------------

I have told you enough information that you should be able to know by this time this has nothing to do with human nature, in any direct sense. It is nothing at all but the manifestation of hidden self hate. People cover their asses only because they were long ago humiliated and made to feel worthless and they can't stand having those feelings opened up again. You fail to realize or understand why there are some who do not act in this 'human nature' way. They do not because they have sufficient self love in some area of their being to know that to act in this way will only make them feel worse. I say that all people are born with a natural desire to act with dignity and honor and that is beaten our of us by being put down. What is human nature is to be able to take works that mean nothing and attach feelings to them. There is no good or evil except what we invent and create by our language. And as soon as the child is told he is evil that feeling is internalized and false pride covers false shame. We are running, in this life, from nothing but what we were made to feel as children. The sickness of mature adults is the residual pain of a child.

This should be obvious to you if you were not, yourself, motivated to avoid your own pain.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Let's get the facts right on the McDonald's case. I've written many posts over many years on it, and the fact it's still not understood is testament to the power of the propaganda.

The fact was that McDonalds was not keeping its coffee at an extremely hot temperature because of customer preference, and the temperature was not the one customers wanted; it was far above the 'hot' customers want, for the sole reason of it being of economic benefit to McDonalds to do so, and it was an unsafe, dangerously high temperature - and they knew it.

The way the propaganda works is to try to say that 'hot' didn't mean 'dangerous', but merely how customers want the coffee - not cold or lukewarm.

There is a known range of how customers like the hot coffee, competitors were serving it in that range, this McDonalds was not, in spite of knowing the danger.

Another bit of the propaganda is ro imply that the hot coffee that spilled on her legs merely hurt, the way you would expect hot coffee too - so she is just a whiny person for blaming McDonalds for her carelessness. That's rather than the facts of what really happened, that the skin on her thigh and groin, IIRC, was burned off and required a skin graft surgery- that's a lot hotter and more damaging than would be expected for 'hot' coffee.

The jury reviewed the issue - the range of temperatures that customers wanted, the competitors' temperatures, the McDonalds' temperature far above that, the economic incentive for McDonalds to put out the unsafe coffee, and they concluded McDonalds was mostly at fault, while the woman had some of the fault as well, as I recall. That's a perfectly reasonable verdict, and wrong behavior by McDonalds.

The courts completely disagreed with this, as I have proven here already. That's why the jury award was substantially reduced, and the case was eventually settled out of court for even less than the appellate award.
I've already posted the "known range of how customers like the hot coffee," documented by links to both court decisions and authoritative industry sources, and McD's was, by all court records, serving it within that range.
The only propaganda being spouted here is, as usual, your deluded BS.


edit: To clarify for those who may be unaware of the full details of the case, Craig's argument here is the one that the plaintiff attorneys in the case did make and rely on, and what the jury fell for in coming to their verdict, but it was factually incorrect, which is why the judgement was so substantially reduced on appeal. In the end, it was just the cups which, as Moonie pointed, required removing the lid in order to add cream and sugar, that made McD's liable, and not the temperature of the coffee, which is why all subsequent hot coffee burn cases have failed in the courts. I don't understand how this can be factually established and documented through a full page-plus of argument and links, and then some idiot can come in and call that "propaganda." Lurkers, pay heed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have told you enough information that you should be able to know by this time this has nothing to do with human nature, in any direct sense. It is nothing at all but the manifestation of hidden self hate. People cover their asses only because they were long ago humiliated and made to feel worthless and they can't stand having those feelings opened up again. You fail to realize or understand why there are some who do not act in this 'human nature' way. They do not because they have sufficient self love in some area of their being to know that to act in this way will only make them feel worse. I say that all people are born with a natural desire to act with dignity and honor and that is beaten our of us by being put down. What is human nature is to be able to take works that mean nothing and attach feelings to them. There is no good or evil except what we invent and create by our language. And as soon as the child is told he is evil that feeling is internalized and false pride covers false shame. We are running, in this life, from nothing but what we were made to feel as children. The sickness of mature adults is the residual pain of a child.

This should be obvious to you if you were not, yourself, motivated to avoid your own pain.

What of yourself, Moonie? Are you saying that you never make mistakes? Or are you saying that, when you make a mistake, your subsequent effort to avoid the full ramifications of your mistake is solely the result of your own self-hatred, and has nothing to do with your instinctual desire for self-preservation?
Of course not. Emotions are not unique to humanity. We didn't invent good and evil.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Poor, poor Vic. I just want to give you a hug right now. You're trying so hard.

No, your comparison between powerful vehicles and coffee is not accurate. There is no direct causal relationship, which is part 3 of the 4 part requirement for negligence. With more powerful engines the car has the capability to go faster, quicker. In order to do this however you would have to break already existing safety laws. This would be "misuse" as you incorrectly attempted to attribute to coffee earlier. In addition there is widespread knowledge through the fact that many of the questions asked on the drivers test indicate the dangers of excessive speed... thus requiring that drivers be aware of this fact. There is (well, was prior to this case) not a similar knowledge for coffee. How many more ignorant examples are you going to make? So far we've got power drilling through your hand, microwave popcorn, and fast cars. There are almost certainly other examples you could use to effectively combat my argument... but you don't seem to understand the basic issues and so you keep missing them. (it is pretty funny however that you complain about my lack of legal precedent when we are discussing a case that was decided in favor of my position.)

For the last time man... I don't know how to pound it into your head. McDonalds for all intents and purposes admitted negligance during the trial. It admitted that its customers were unaware of the potential hazards, and it admitted that the locations of warnings would not notify customers of this hazard. It admitted that this hazard was known to cause serious injuries, and it admitted that it was in fact the cause of those injuries. End of story.

If you think the legal definition of "negligence", which is the basis for all torts is a "legal triviality", I dont know what to tell you. My original point still stands... and you never even really disagreed with it. I agree that's why they had increased sales. That's not a bad thing, they just had an additional duty to safety that went along with that decision and they chose not to exercise it. Bad call McD's. Bad call Vic for trying to defend that.

I don't really know why I'm spending this much time on you, I really find my posts are simply repeating myself at this point, and you don't seem likely to get any smarter any time soon. Poor... poor Vic.

Wow... I've seen pussy cop-outs online before but this "poor poor Vic" is quite likely the weakest yet.
Your posts are repeating yourself because you completely failed to realize just how badly you've been pwned here, and you just look like a tool trying to wish away reality and the facts with weak personal attacks, lies, misrepresentations of how basic tort law works, and complete (and not shockingly) unsubstantiated falsehoods. It's no surprise you haven't posted a single link yet to back your windbagging.
A corporation is evil because they sell their customers what they want? Selling customers what the want, even if it has the potential to be harmful, is the same as selling harmful products contaminated in ways the customers obviously don't want?
Go 'way. You're not worth anyone's time here, troll.


edit: BTW, I'm not defending McD's. That's a weak and clueless straw man on your part, and only goes to demonstrate how little you've understood my arguments. What I am defending is my right to buy a proper hot cup of coffee without fascists like you telling me I can't have one.

You are not smart.

lmao

wow, I have seen some weak ass comebacks, but this one takes the cake. Did I really see somebody write that?

hahahahahahahahaha

 

[Vic]

That's actually the 2nd time he's made that exact same comeback to me, Genx.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic
That's actually the 2nd time he's made that exact same comeback to me, Genx.

I felt it could use repeating.

At least you read it... which is more then I can say for my other postings. (that is the reason why I stopped replying to your arguments in this thread. I can only repeat myself so many times, and you don't seem likely to get it.)

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Poor, poor Vic. I just want to give you a hug right now. You're trying so hard.

No, your comparison between powerful vehicles and coffee is not accurate. There is no direct causal relationship, which is part 3 of the 4 part requirement for negligence. With more powerful engines the car has the capability to go faster, quicker. In order to do this however you would have to break already existing safety laws. This would be "misuse" as you incorrectly attempted to attribute to coffee earlier. In addition there is widespread knowledge through the fact that many of the questions asked on the drivers test indicate the dangers of excessive speed... thus requiring that drivers be aware of this fact. There is (well, was prior to this case) not a similar knowledge for coffee. How many more ignorant examples are you going to make? So far we've got power drilling through your hand, microwave popcorn, and fast cars. There are almost certainly other examples you could use to effectively combat my argument... but you don't seem to understand the basic issues and so you keep missing them. (it is pretty funny however that you complain about my lack of legal precedent when we are discussing a case that was decided in favor of my position.)

For the last time man... I don't know how to pound it into your head. McDonalds for all intents and purposes admitted negligance during the trial. It admitted that its customers were unaware of the potential hazards, and it admitted that the locations of warnings would not notify customers of this hazard. It admitted that this hazard was known to cause serious injuries, and it admitted that it was in fact the cause of those injuries. End of story.

If you think the legal definition of "negligence", which is the basis for all torts is a "legal triviality", I dont know what to tell you. My original point still stands... and you never even really disagreed with it. I agree that's why they had increased sales. That's not a bad thing, they just had an additional duty to safety that went along with that decision and they chose not to exercise it. Bad call McD's. Bad call Vic for trying to defend that.

I don't really know why I'm spending this much time on you, I really find my posts are simply repeating myself at this point, and you don't seem likely to get any smarter any time soon. Poor... poor Vic.

Wow... I've seen pussy cop-outs online before but this "poor poor Vic" is quite likely the weakest yet.
Your posts are repeating yourself because you completely failed to realize just how badly you've been pwned here, and you just look like a tool trying to wish away reality and the facts with weak personal attacks, lies, misrepresentations of how basic tort law works, and complete (and not shockingly) unsubstantiated falsehoods. It's no surprise you haven't posted a single link yet to back your windbagging.
A corporation is evil because they sell their customers what they want? Selling customers what the want, even if it has the potential to be harmful, is the same as selling harmful products contaminated in ways the customers obviously don't want?
Go 'way. You're not worth anyone's time here, troll.


edit: BTW, I'm not defending McD's. That's a weak and clueless straw man on your part, and only goes to demonstrate how little you've understood my arguments. What I am defending is my right to buy a proper hot cup of coffee without fascists like you telling me I can't have one.

You are not smart.

You have been thoroughly spanked throughout this whole thread by Vic and thats the best that you can come up with? I would suggest just not posting anymore in this thread to try and save some face.

 

[fskimospy]

I haven't been spanked in any way whatsoever. Any person who thinks so simply doesn't understand the law. (like Vic). The aspects of it are simple, and he chose not to argue on them... but instead chose to argue a principle by relating to specifics that are in dispute. That is a poor argument at best. When asked to bring his meandering argument and incoherant, incorrectly applied examples into some sort of focus he decided not to. That's when I stopped writing back.

And you of all people (Genx87 and JD50) shouldn't be talking. I haven't ever seen a single posting out of either one of you guys that was worth reading. Not one.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I haven't been spanked in any way whatsoever. Any person who thinks so simply doesn't understand the law. (like Vic). The aspects of it are simple, and he chose not to argue on them... but instead chose to argue a principle by relating to specifics that are in dispute. That is a poor argument at best. When asked to bring his meandering argument and incoherant, incorrectly applied examples into some sort of focus he decided not to. That's when I stopped writing back.

And you of all people (Genx87 and JD50) shouldn't be talking. I haven't ever seen a single posting out of either one of you guys that was worth reading. Not one.

Human ego, have to love it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I haven't been spanked in any way whatsoever. Any person who thinks so simply doesn't understand the law. (like Vic). The aspects of it are simple, and he chose not to argue on them... but instead chose to argue a principle by relating to specifics that are in dispute. That is a poor argument at best. When asked to bring his meandering argument and incoherant, incorrectly applied examples into some sort of focus he decided not to. That's when I stopped writing back.

And you of all people (Genx87 and JD50) shouldn't be talking. I haven't ever seen a single posting out of either one of you guys that was worth reading. Not one.

No, Vic has responded with the facts of what actually happened in that case, you have ignored every point that he has made. But you'll have to excuse me, Genx87 and I will be in the corner crying because you deem us unworthy. 🙁

 

[Vic]

I don't know why eskimopie had to make this argument about the tired old McD's case anyway. Cadbury's actions in this case were clearly negligent and reprehensible, without a shred of good faith towards the consumers, and in such fashion (as I repeated so many times) clearly different from the circumstances in the McD's case. I think he brought McD's just because the case is so ignorantly partisan-divided in spite of all the facts, and he felt the need to troll some hackery.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have told you enough information that you should be able to know by this time this has nothing to do with human nature, in any direct sense. It is nothing at all but the manifestation of hidden self hate. People cover their asses only because they were long ago humiliated and made to feel worthless and they can't stand having those feelings opened up again. You fail to realize or understand why there are some who do not act in this 'human nature' way. They do not because they have sufficient self love in some area of their being to know that to act in this way will only make them feel worse. I say that all people are born with a natural desire to act with dignity and honor and that is beaten our of us by being put down. What is human nature is to be able to take works that mean nothing and attach feelings to them. There is no good or evil except what we invent and create by our language. And as soon as the child is told he is evil that feeling is internalized and false pride covers false shame. We are running, in this life, from nothing but what we were made to feel as children. The sickness of mature adults is the residual pain of a child.

This should be obvious to you if you were not, yourself, motivated to avoid your own pain.

What of yourself, Moonie? Are you saying that you never make mistakes? Or are you saying that, when you make a mistake, your subsequent effort to avoid the full ramifications of your mistake is solely the result of your own self-hatred, and has nothing to do with your instinctual desire for self-preservation?
Of course not. Emotions are not unique to humanity. We didn't invent good and evil.

I am not important. I am saying that your analysis:

"It's just the momentum of stupidity and the cover your ass mindset. No one likes to admit that they were wrong, especially if their mistakes caused harm to others and there's gonna have to be some kind of price to pay. This is really just human nature."

is shallow and non diagnostic. I am saying that when you see motivations from the point of view that people hate themselves, an entire sweep of human life that seems inexplicable and the subject of platitudes like your own, is suddenly explained. This truth can then be further and deeply confirmed by self-examination and self or psychoanalysis.

Further, my notion that language created duality, opposites that don't really exist, explains the origin of good and evil. You perhaps offer only myth. I say that man is the only animal that can and does hate himself because he is the only animal that can think in abstractions, connect with pain and pleasure, a natural phenomena, the notion of good and evil. Once the delusion that there is a good and an evil is rooted in the mind, the survival instinct is infected by that illusion and one starts to protect oneself against phantoms because one was subjected to the intensity of control and forced conformity as a child.

I am saying that to survive the concentration camp of your early years you had to die to who you were and become something unreal. Evil is the misapplication of one thing for another, the use of our huge intellect to abstract rather than be fully in the present. We are living in the past because our lives ended back there.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234
Let's get the facts right on the McDonald's case. I've written many posts over many years on it, and the fact it's still not understood is testament to the power of the propaganda.

The fact was that McDonalds was not keeping its coffee at an extremely hot temperature because of customer preference, and the temperature was not the one customers wanted; it was far above the 'hot' customers want, for the sole reason of it being of economic benefit to McDonalds to do so, and it was an unsafe, dangerously high temperature - and they knew it.

The way the propaganda works is to try to say that 'hot' didn't mean 'dangerous', but merely how customers want the coffee - not cold or lukewarm.

There is a known range of how customers like the hot coffee, competitors were serving it in that range, this McDonalds was not, in spite of knowing the danger.

Another bit of the propaganda is ro imply that the hot coffee that spilled on her legs merely hurt, the way you would expect hot coffee too - so she is just a whiny person for blaming McDonalds for her carelessness. That's rather than the facts of what really happened, that the skin on her thigh and groin, IIRC, was burned off and required a skin graft surgery- that's a lot hotter and more damaging than would be expected for 'hot' coffee.

The jury reviewed the issue - the range of temperatures that customers wanted, the competitors' temperatures, the McDonalds' temperature far above that, the economic incentive for McDonalds to put out the unsafe coffee, and they concluded McDonalds was mostly at fault, while the woman had some of the fault as well, as I recall. That's a perfectly reasonable verdict, and wrong behavior by McDonalds.

The courts completely disagreed with this, as I have proven here already. That's why the jury award was substantially reduced, and the case was eventually settled out of court for even less than the appellate award.
I've already posted the "known range of how customers like the hot coffee," documented by links to both court decisions and authoritative industry sources, and McD's was, by all court records, serving it within that range.
The only propaganda being spouted here is, as usual, your deluded BS.


edit: To clarify for those who may be unaware of the full details of the case, Craig's argument here is the one that the plaintiff attorneys in the case did make and rely on, and what the jury fell for in coming to their verdict, but it was factually incorrect, which is why the judgement was so substantially reduced on appeal. In the end, it was just the cups which, as Moonie pointed, required removing the lid in order to add cream and sugar, that made McD's liable, and not the temperature of the coffee, which is why all subsequent hot coffee burn cases have failed in the courts. I don't understand how this can be factually established and documented through a full page-plus of argument and links, and then some idiot can come in and call that "propaganda." Lurkers, pay heed.

As someone who bought a lot of McDonald's breakfasts back in that day I can tell you that NO ONE I knew liked their coffee that hot, NO ONE. I used to buy a breakfast from them every Saturday and Sunday morning to eat on my hour drive to farm. The coffee was so hot it would burn your mouth if you tried to drink it and the cup was so full that it was impossible to take the cap off (to let the coffe cool down faster) without spilling some. I would eat my whole meal and the coffee was STILL too hot to drink. I eventually switched to ordering milk instead and just brought a thermos of my own coffee with me.

I personally think that the court was bought off, all it takes is a few bogus reasons for them to have an excuse to change a jury's award. Any study on the proper temperature of serving coffee menas nothing unless the type of container it is served in is the same as the one in the lawsuit.

-------------------------------------

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
What we should be asking ourselves is why does it take multiple cases and lawsuits to get something as simple as using a proper container to serve scaulding hot coffee in, etc., etc.?

Is it because upper management has it so good that they just can't take/stand any crisitism?

IMO, it's nothing villainous. It's just the momentum of stupidity and the cover your ass mindset. No one likes to admit that they were wrong, especially if their mistakes caused harm to others and there's gonna have to be some kind of price to pay.
This is really just human nature. I'm sure that there are many posters here who would like to have us all believe that this is all purposeful evil inflicted with intentional glee by inhuman psychopathic followers of the Dark Side of the Force, but that's all BS.

Wow, your sure quick to excuse stupidity of the upper managment. I have a feeling that if a resturant employee spilled a cup of hot coffee all over your lap you wouldn't be so quick forgive their stupidity/carelessness.

 

[Vic]

Whee! Personal anecdotes not based on the actual facts, conspiracy theories, and more personal attacks! :roll:<^>

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic
Whee! Personal anecdotes not based on the actual facts, conspiracy theories, and more personal attacks! :roll:<^>

LOL, your self-hate is showing again Vic. You can lash out at me if it makes you feel better, but you'll still have to make allowances for the fact that my personal experience means more to me then what our corrupt legal system says/does.

So, why did it take a lawsuit to get get McDonanld's to change the way they served their coffee? Dance around in circles all you want, but the fact that they did change shows they knew they were wrong.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am not important. I am saying that your analysis:

"It's just the momentum of stupidity and the cover your ass mindset. No one likes to admit that they were wrong, especially if their mistakes caused harm to others and there's gonna have to be some kind of price to pay. This is really just human nature."

is shallow and non diagnostic. I am saying that when you see motivations from the point of view that people hate themselves, an entire sweep of human life that seems inexplicable and the subject of platitudes like your own, is suddenly explained. This truth can then be further and deeply confirmed by self-examination and self or psychoanalysis.

Further, my notion that language created duality, opposites that don't really exist, explains the origin of good and evil. You perhaps offer only myth. I say that man is the only animal that can and does hate himself because he is the only animal that can think in abstractions, connect with pain and pleasure, a natural phenomena, the notion of good and evil. Once the delusion that there is a good and an evil is rooted in the mind, the survival instinct is infected by that illusion and one starts to protect oneself against phantoms because one was subjected to the intensity of control and forced conformity as a child.

I am saying that to survive the concentration camp of your early years you had to die to who you were and become something unreal. Evil is the misapplication of one thing for another, the use of our huge intellect to abstract rather than be fully in the present. We are living in the past because our lives ended back there.

I don't claim to be an actual psychoanalyst, Moonie. Are you?

My issues with your argument here that (1) they're not entirely relevant to this discussion, and (2) it seems to me that you trying to the ancient "Nature or Nurture" argument solely for the Nurture side. I can't agree. If nurture was everything, you could teach calculus to a horse. If nature was everything, humans would be born knowing calculus already.
And meh, I think most people both hate and love themselves, at the same time. They're in constant conflict with themselves, between their emotions of conscience and their emotions of anger.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic
Whee! Personal anecdotes not based on the actual facts, conspiracy theories, and more personal attacks! :roll:<^>

LOL, your self-hate is showing again Vic. You can lash out at me if it makes you feel better, but you'll still have to make allowances for the fact that my personal experience means more to me then what our corrupt legal system says/does.

So, why did it take a lawsuit to get get McDonanld's to change the way they served their coffee? Dance around in circles all you want, but the fact that they did change shows they knew they were wrong.

You don't do a good job of pretending to be Moonie.

Anecdote is the height of illogic. That's why McOwen is so wrong about everything. You are but one person among billions, and your vision is clouded by your emotions and perceptions. There's a reason that police don't trust eyewitness accounts.

And once again, I am not and have not ever throughout this thread defended McD's. Read the fsckin' thread again.
People like you are very confused. You're so self-absorbed in fear that you see monsters and demons everywhere, instead of human beings, and you make up Satans to be responsible for your every perceived phantom of evil. The irony in your sig is that you did find Bin Laden, but you just call him GW Bush.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic
Whee! Personal anecdotes not based on the actual facts, conspiracy theories, and more personal attacks! :roll:<^>

LOL, your self-hate is showing again Vic. You can lash out at me if it makes you feel better, but you'll still have to make allowances for the fact that my personal experience means more to me then what our corrupt legal system says/does.

So, why did it take a lawsuit to get get McDonanld's to change the way they served their coffee? Dance around in circles all you want, but the fact that they did change shows they knew they were wrong.

You don't do a good job of pretending to be Moonie.

Anecdote is the height of illogic. That's why McOwen is so wrong about everything. You are but one person among billions, and your vision is clouded by your emotions and perceptions. There's a reason that police don't trust eyewitness accounts.

And once again, I am not and have not ever throughout this thread defended McD's. Read the fsckin' thread again.
People like you are very confused. You're so self-absorbed in fear that you see monsters and demons everywhere, instead of human beings, and you make up Satans to be responsible for your every perceived phantom of evil. The irony in your sig is that you did find Bin Laden, but you just call him GW Bush.

You do an even worse job of pretending to be moonie. he acutally addresses peoples points and trys to make them think and learn instead of breaking out the peronal attacks while claiming he's the one being attacked.

What do you do for an encore? 😛

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic
Whee! Personal anecdotes not based on the actual facts, conspiracy theories, and more personal attacks! :roll:<^>

LOL, your self-hate is showing again Vic. You can lash out at me if it makes you feel better, but you'll still have to make allowances for the fact that my personal experience means more to me then what our corrupt legal system says/does.

So, why did it take a lawsuit to get get McDonanld's to change the way they served their coffee? Dance around in circles all you want, but the fact that they did change shows they knew they were wrong.

You don't do a good job of pretending to be Moonie.

Anecdote is the height of illogic. That's why McOwen is so wrong about everything. You are but one person among billions, and your vision is clouded by your emotions and perceptions. There's a reason that police don't trust eyewitness accounts.

And once again, I am not and have not ever throughout this thread defended McD's. Read the fsckin' thread again.
People like you are very confused. You're so self-absorbed in fear that you see monsters and demons everywhere, instead of human beings, and you make up Satans to be responsible for your every perceived phantom of evil. The irony in your sig is that you did find Bin Laden, but you just call him GW Bush.

You do an even worse job of pretending to be moonie. he acutally addresses peoples points and trys to make them think and learn instead of breaking out the peronal attacks while claiming he's the one being attacked.

What do you do for an encore? 😛

What planet do some of you people live on? Moonie address's points? Maybe in a convoluted self inflated view of his world he does.

Reading this thread it was quite apparent what Vic did and it is amazing more than one of you failed to understand it and all made the same mistake.

 

[Vic]

Um... you didn't make any actual points of fact, not one, and you did make personal attacks against me. And my last part was not a personal attack against you, but a factual observation that I have made about extremist conspiracy theorists like yourself.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic
Um... you didn't make any actual points of fact, not one, and you did make personal attacks against me. And my last part was not a personal attack against you, but a factual observation that I have made about extremist conspiracy theorists like yourself.

You are smart, too bad your not more intelligent, that's not a personal attack, just an observation of fact.

Normally I'd agree that personal anecdotes aren't exceedingly revlevant, but in a case such as this I disagree. You can argue the point until your blue in the face, but everybody who purchased coffee at a McDonalds before 1992 knows that it was served scalding hot and that was iditotic in the least and according to the jury and the judges invloved, negligent. There is a McD's in almost every town and I'm sure most people reading this have had similar experiences to mine, that is why I mention it, to help jog their memories.

Oh, and as for the facts, try reading this. Read it and learn.

You still havn't managed a decent answer as to why it took 10 years, over 700 claims of being burned and a lawsuit to effect any change. I'm sorry but calling it human nature is a miserable excuse for an argument.

According to my link, during the trial upper management even tried to claim they kept their coffee scalding hot because their customers were buying the coffee for use at home despite the company's own research that showed the coffe was purchased for immediate consumption. What a bunch of lying assholes!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic
Whee! Personal anecdotes not based on the actual facts, conspiracy theories, and more personal attacks! :roll:<^>

LOL, your self-hate is showing again Vic. You can lash out at me if it makes you feel better, but you'll still have to make allowances for the fact that my personal experience means more to me then what our corrupt legal system says/does.

So, why did it take a lawsuit to get get McDonanld's to change the way they served their coffee? Dance around in circles all you want, but the fact that they did change shows they knew they were wrong.

You don't do a good job of pretending to be Moonie.

Anecdote is the height of illogic. That's why McOwen is so wrong about everything. You are but one person among billions, and your vision is clouded by your emotions and perceptions. There's a reason that police don't trust eyewitness accounts.

And once again, I am not and have not ever throughout this thread defended McD's. Read the fsckin' thread again.
People like you are very confused. You're so self-absorbed in fear that you see monsters and demons everywhere, instead of human beings, and you make up Satans to be responsible for your every perceived phantom of evil. The irony in your sig is that you did find Bin Laden, but you just call him GW Bush.

You do an even worse job of pretending to be moonie. he acutally addresses peoples points and trys to make them think and learn instead of breaking out the peronal attacks while claiming he's the one being attacked.

What do you do for an encore? 😛

What planet do some of you people live on? Moonie address's points? Maybe in a convoluted self inflated view of his world he does.

Reading this thread it was quite apparent what Vic did and it is amazing more than one of you failed to understand it and all made the same mistake.

Here is a clear cut case of the blind leading the blind.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Oh, and as for the facts, try reading this. Read it and learn.

Originally posted by: Vic 3 fsckin days ago
The decision of the United States federal 7th Court of Appeals in favor of Bunn-O-Matic:
"The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 degrees F to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150 degrees F to 160 degrees F, and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 degrees F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further."

The National Coffee Association's instructions to proper coffee brewing include:
"Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee."
Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!
Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.

Never reheat your coffee.

Your argument here has already been thoroughly addressed when brought up by other posters and completely squashed out of existence. At this point, you're just repeating what has already been discussed as though it had never been addressed, and adding emotion and personal attacks as though that makes the slightest bit of difference.

Yaknow, it's funny, but I re-watched "V for Vendetta" the other day and, in light of this thread, it never ceases to amaze me how similar the extremists on both the right and the left are. "This is for your protection." What you can't seem to understand is that we don't want your damn protection from ourselves, thank you very much.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Oh, and as for the facts, try reading this. Read it and learn.

Originally posted by: Vic 3 fsckin days ago
The decision of the United States federal 7th Court of Appeals in favor of Bunn-O-Matic:
"The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 degrees F to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150 degrees F to 160 degrees F, and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 degrees F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further."

The National Coffee Association's instructions to proper coffee brewing include:
"Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee."
Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!
Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.

Never reheat your coffee.

Your argument here has already been thoroughly addressed when brought up by other posters and completely squashed out of existence. At this point, you're just repeating what has already been discussed as though it had never been addressed, and adding emotion and personal attacks as though that makes the slightest bit of difference.

Yaknow, it's funny, but I re-watched "V for Vendetta" the other day and, in light of this thread, it never ceases to amaze me how similar the extremists on both the right and the left are. "This is for your protection." What you can't seem to understand is that we don't want your damn protection from ourselves, thank you very much.

You are too damn funny vic. If you want to be a coffee afficiando the go to starbucks, McD's is a fast food joint. Why would they build a busineess that specializes in having your meal ready before you get there and then serve you a cup of coffee that takes 20 mintues to cool down to a temperature it can be drank?


DUHHHH!!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Oh, and as for the facts, try reading this. Read it and learn.

Originally posted by: Vic 3 fsckin days ago
The decision of the United States federal 7th Court of Appeals in favor of Bunn-O-Matic:
"The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 degrees F to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150 degrees F to 160 degrees F, and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 degrees F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further."

The National Coffee Association's instructions to proper coffee brewing include:
"Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee."
Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!
Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.

Never reheat your coffee.

Your argument here has already been thoroughly addressed when brought up by other posters and completely squashed out of existence. At this point, you're just repeating what has already been discussed as though it had never been addressed, and adding emotion and personal attacks as though that makes the slightest bit of difference.

Yaknow, it's funny, but I re-watched "V for Vendetta" the other day and, in light of this thread, it never ceases to amaze me how similar the extremists on both the right and the left are. "This is for your protection." What you can't seem to understand is that we don't want your damn protection from ourselves, thank you very much.

You are too damn funny vic. If you want to be a coffee afficiando the go to starbucks, McD's is a fast food joint. Why would they build a busineess that specializes in having your meal ready before you get there and then serve you a cup of coffee that takes 20 mintues to cool down to a temperature it can be drank?


DUHHHH!!

What are you proving here beyond the fact that you don't actually know what you're talking about but like to hurl personal insults against me anyway? And now you get elistist?
Facts don't care about your partisanship, which is why I don't let partisanship get in the way of interpreting and accepting the facts. You should learn from that, but unfortunately you always act as though my just questioning the dogma of your partisanship somehow tips over your sacred cow. What a joke!

And here's the funniest part: you're the McD's customer here, by your own admission. I have seriously never understood the masochistic needs of the McOwen disciples. Have you ever considered the fact that the reason you see the world as such an ugly place is because you keep forcing yourself to see and experience only that which is ugly?