The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Notice that little adjective "iced" the precedes coffee in your sentence and does not in mine. All cars have engines. "Not toy cars! Hahhahaha! Lollerskates!"

PWNTTTT!!!!!!111111

Yeah, that really was deserved

"Hey it's a poor, out of context play on words and my IQ is 12! LOLSKTAKESBBQINTERNETIDIOT!!L!!1one."

 

[iversonyin]

Well, shouldn't the added creme reduce the coffee temperature substantially?

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Correct, it's a description, that does not change the fact that the subject is coffee. Did you fail english class?

Ouch. :-(

You still haven't responded to my earlier statement:

Please point out in the article where it states that "people were burned without spilling the drink."

If you don't sip coffee to see if it's very HOT before taking a chug, you also deserve what you get.

The article does not address that information. If you rely on one article for a complete synopsis then maybe you should find another topic to debate? :0

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: iversonyin
Well, shouldn't the added creme reduce the coffee temperature substantially?

Only if you're intelligent enough and coordinated enough to:
1) Not rest a hot liquid between your shaky 81 year old knees.
2) Remove the lid without flipping the cup towards your crotch.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: AmusedActually, no.

There have been DOZENS of similar lawsuits involving self inflicted coffee burns since the McDonald's case. All have lost. Find me another successful lawsuit involving a self inflicted coffee injury that has been successful.

You cannot. If there was, that lawyer propaganda spam would list them.

Sorry, but read my second post. You're just wrong. Look to ANY gourmet coffee site to see that the ideal brewing and serving temp is exactly what McDonald's was serving it at.

And McDonald's coffee is not better because they lowered the temp. It is better now because they are using premium beans and charging a premium for them.

I'm not paying any more for McDonald's coffee. In fact it's cheaper than the competition.

You've made it clear before that the concept of negligence is foreign to you.

It's the lady's fault she spilled the coffee. It's McDonald's fault they served a product that was statistically going to be spilled, knew it had caused serious injuries before and did nothing to mitigate the risk.

The ideal brewing temperature is irrelevant - and the ideal serving temp is irrelevant too, because the ideal drinking temp is not 180 degrees. Most places that sell a high volume of coffee get around this by serving the coffee at a relatively safe temperature (which is normally still hot enough that you don't want to drink it 'right away' and throwing out the odd pot of coffee that sits at this temperature for too long. It doesn't take much planning to keep this waste to a bare minimum.

Instead of having to go through this yet again, why don't you search the archives for all the threads over the years about this case. I have destroyed every one of your arguments countless times in them. You are merely parrotting the same lame argumets others have.

Fact: Not a single self inflicted coffe injury lawsuit has won since, though dozens have been pressed.

Gee, I wonder why?

Fact: The defense in this case was incompentent and did not take the case seriously. That hasn't happened since.

Meanwhile, ask yourself why McDonald's served it at that temp? It costs them more to keep it that hot. It makes the coffee go bad faster, thus costing them more as well.

Is it because they were evil and set out to burn stupid old ladies?

NO. It's because that is the ideal brewing and holding temp for good coffee.

And yes, my little nanny-state friend. The ideal brewing and holding temp IS relevant. It's why this case was won, and every case since has lost. Because the fact of the matter is 170-180 degrees IS the ideal brewing and holding temp for good coffee flavor and is the temp most coffee houses still serve it at. The insurance company lawyers in the McD's case failed to point that out. They stupidly didn't even contest the absurd "industry standard" claims the ambulance chasers made.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Correct, it's a description, that does not change the fact that the subject is coffee. Did you fail english class?

Ouch. :-(

You still haven't responded to my earlier statement:

Please point out in the article where it states that "people were burned without spilling the drink."

If you don't sip coffee to see if it's very HOT before taking a chug, you also deserve what you get.

The article does not address that information. If you rely on one article for a complete synopsis then maybe you should find another topic to debate? :0

Feel free to point me to another place which mentions this fact.

 

[iversonyin]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: iversonyin
Well, shouldn't the added creme reduce the coffee temperature substantially?

Only if your intelligent enough and coordinated enough to:
1) Not rest a hot liquid between your shaky 81 year old knees.
2) Remove the lid without flipping the cup towards your crotch.

My point is even if McD serve coffee at 180 degree...added creme should reduce that to a level where it won't burn your skin.

I think anyone that spill coffee on themselves has noone to blame except for themselves.

Seriously, if you brew coffee at home and spilled it on yourself...are you going to sue the coffeemaker for making the coffee too hot?

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Correct, it's a description, that does not change the fact that the subject is coffee. Did you fail english class?

Ouch. :-(

You still haven't responded to my earlier statement:

Please point out in the article where it states that "people were burned without spilling the drink."

If you don't sip coffee to see if it's very HOT before taking a chug, you also deserve what you get.

The article does not address that information. If you rely on one article for a complete synopsis then maybe you should find another topic to debate? :0

Feel free to point me to another place which mentions this fact.

Google? I'm not sure. It's something I remember from when the case was going on.

I don't keep those kind of notes, I'm not a historian.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: oynaz
Is Siegfried and Jensen for real? This is the American legal system at its worst (I hope!). The "facts" alone.

Fact #1 - For years McDonalds served their coffee up to 40 degrees hotter than other fast food restaurants. In this way, they could get more coffee per pound of beans and increase their profits by a few cents per cup.

OK, the first part is proven, but the second is pure speculation. It MAY be right, but to present it is a fact is very manipulative.

Fact #2 - McDonald's coffee was so hot that, if spilled, it could cause third degree burns, which would burn through skin and down to the muscle in less than three seconds.

If you spill hot liquid on yourself, you get burned. The part with "which would burn through your skin etc." is gibberish, and purely mentioned for a wow-effect.

Fact #3 - McDonald's has had over 700 previous claims related to serious burns from their coffee to their customers, many of whom had been injured in the genital area, inner thighs, and buttocks areas. Yet, McDonald's refused to lower the temperature of their coffee.

Well, McDonald's has clumsy customers. Stop pouring coffee over yourselves.

Fact #4 - The injured (burned) plaintiff in this case, 79 year old Stella Lieback, was not driving her car. She was seated as the passenger in her grandson's parked car, holding the coffee cup between her legs while removing the plastic lid. The cup tipped over and poured the scalding hot coffee into her lap, causing third degree burns.

"holding the coffee cup between her legs while removing the plastic lid" ... Yep, that sounds like a great idea. She should have poured the coffee in her ears, that way she would not have suffered any damage.
Fact #5 - Mrs. Lieback required eight days of hospitalization and multiple surgeries, including skin grafts as a result of being scalded by McDonald's coffee.

No, was a result of her own stupidity.

Fact #6 - Mrs. Lieback only took legal action against McDonald's after they refused to reimburse her for her medical expenses.

If you are stupid and clumsy, get a medical insurance.

Fact #7 - The jury was so outraged at the arrogance and callousness of McDonald's that they awarded punitive damages, to punish McDonald's and to deter McDonald's from such conduct in the future. They awarded $2.7 million.

The JURY decides the amount of the compensation? Do they WANT corruption?

Fact #8 - The day after the verdict, McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee.

Gee, did they? What a surprise.

Fact #9 - The trial judge thought the verdict was too high and reduced the verdict to about $400,000 at McDonald's request. (This is one fact that the insurance lawyers and McDonald's corporate lawyers never mention.)

At McDonald's request? So you can request a milder punishment?

All-in-all, this is a tasteless commercial for the lawfirm. Sickening.

Youre entire argument is demolished by one single, but vast, misunderstanding, which I have bolded for you.

Seriously, go try it. Boil up a cup of 180F water, and pour it on yourself, anywhere you want. Post a video. I'll give you 5 dollars (paypal) if you can do it without screaming in absolute agony. Or chug it, even better. Any hospital bills that result, you're all on your own.

I'll likewise do the same with 140F water, if youre man enough.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: AmusedActually, no.

There have been DOZENS of similar lawsuits involving self inflicted coffee burns since the McDonald's case. All have lost. Find me another successful lawsuit involving a self inflicted coffee injury that has been successful.

You cannot. If there was, that lawyer propaganda spam would list them.

Sorry, but read my second post. You're just wrong. Look to ANY gourmet coffee site to see that the ideal brewing and serving temp is exactly what McDonald's was serving it at.

And McDonald's coffee is not better because they lowered the temp. It is better now because they are using premium beans and charging a premium for them.

I'm not paying any more for McDonald's coffee. In fact it's cheaper than the competition.

You've made it clear before that the concept of negligence is foreign to you.

It's the lady's fault she spilled the coffee. It's McDonald's fault they served a product that was statistically going to be spilled, knew it had caused serious injuries before and did nothing to mitigate the risk.

The ideal brewing temperature is irrelevant - and the ideal serving temp is irrelevant too, because the ideal drinking temp is not 180 degrees. Most places that sell a high volume of coffee get around this by serving the coffee at a relatively safe temperature (which is normally still hot enough that you don't want to drink it 'right away' and throwing out the odd pot of coffee that sits at this temperature for too long. It doesn't take much planning to keep this waste to a bare minimum.

Instead of having to go through this yet again, why don't you search the archives for all the threads over the years about this case. I have destroyed every one of your arguments countless times in them. You are merely parrotting the same lame argumets others have.

Fact: Not a single self inflicted coffe injury lawsuit has won since, though dozens have been pressed.

Gee, I wonder why?

Fact: The defense in this case was incompentent and did not take the case seriously. That hasn't happened since.

Meanwhile, ask yourself why McDonald's served it at that temp? It costs them more to keep it that hot. It makes the coffee go bad faster, thus costing them more as well.

Is it because they were evil and set out to burn stupid old ladies?

NO. It's because that is the ideal brewing and holding temp for good coffee.

And yes, my little nanny-state friend. The ideal brewing and holding temp IS relevant. It's why this case was won, and every case since has lost. Because the fact of the matter is 170-180 degrees IS the ideal brewing and holding temp for good coffee flavor and is the temp most coffee houses still serve it at.

McDonald's isn't a coffee house. They may serve a lot of coffee, but they hand it out through their little window to people in vehicles.

Find me a case of 180 degree coffee, going out through a window that resulted in a lost lawsuit.

The ideal holding temperature is NOT relevant, because no one is going to be able to drink that coffee until it cools down anyway. You can't have a temperature both be 'the ideal holding temperature' and 'make the coffee go bad faster', especially when it's aboce the ideal drinking temperature. Maybe you've never thought about this before, but that's the first legitimately dumb thing I've ever heard you say.

 

[iversonyin]

Either way, I think McD is only about 20% at fault and the lady is 80% at fault...You know you shouldn't try to drink hot liquid in your car given that it has a chance to spill on you and burn your skin. 150 degree or 180 degree...its going to BURN. The case probably fail to mention that she probably get coffee more than once from McD and know that McD coffee is hotter.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
McDonald's isn't a coffee house. They may serve a lot of coffee, but they hand it out through their little window to people in vehicles.

Find me a case of 180 degree coffee, going out through a window that resulted in a lost lawsuit.

The ideal holding temperature is NOT relevant, because no one is going to be able to drink that coffee until it cools down anyway. You can't have a temperature both be 'the ideal holding temperature' and 'make the coffee go bad faster', especially when it's aboce the ideal drinking temperature. Maybe you've never thought about this before, but that's the first legitimately dumb thing I've ever heard you say.

You don't know much about coffee. It's absolutely possible to be the ideal holding temperate and to make it go bad faster. It's ideal for taste, not for profit margin on McD's side.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: tagej
Pale Rider, they knew about the 'hazard'... duuuuuuh. Ya think spilling hot coffee on yourself could cause burns??

Uhh, did you fall off the short bus? Spilled drink is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is McDonald's KNOWINGLY gave the drink out and had 700 documented cases of where it burned people badly, INCLUDING BURNS SUFFERED BY CONSUMING THE COFFE FROM THE CUP AS IT WAS INTENDED WHEN SOLD. Hello? McFly?!

700 cases out of how many people who have purchased coffee throughout mcdonald's history? that's like saying every place needs elevators and escalators instead of stairs because 1 person in 5million trips and smashes their face

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: iversonyin
Either way, I think McD is only about 20% at fault and the lady is 80% at fault...You know you shouldn't try to drink hot liquid in your car given that it has a chance to spill on you and burn your skin. 150 degree or 180 degree...its going to BURN. The case probably fail to mention that she probably get coffee more than once from McD and know that McD coffee is hotter.

I also agree that both are at fault - the court also said this. Now what the court did that was insane was give out millions of dollars to the women, which was stupid.

 

[iversonyin]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: tagej
Pale Rider, they knew about the 'hazard'... duuuuuuh. Ya think spilling hot coffee on yourself could cause burns??

Uhh, did you fall off the short bus? Spilled drink is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is McDonald's KNOWINGLY gave the drink out and had 700 documented cases of where it burned people badly, INCLUDING BURNS SUFFERED BY CONSUMING THE COFFE FROM THE CUP AS IT WAS INTENDED WHEN SOLD. Hello? McFly?!

700 cases out of how many people who have purchased coffee throughout mcdonald's history? that's like saying every place needs elevators and escalators instead of stairs because 1 person in 5million trips and smashes their face

And they didn't mention how many cases were brought against other place that serve coffee! What if Dunkin Donut has 300-400 similar cases!?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: AmusedActually, no.

There have been DOZENS of similar lawsuits involving self inflicted coffee burns since the McDonald's case. All have lost. Find me another successful lawsuit involving a self inflicted coffee injury that has been successful.

You cannot. If there was, that lawyer propaganda spam would list them.

Sorry, but read my second post. You're just wrong. Look to ANY gourmet coffee site to see that the ideal brewing and serving temp is exactly what McDonald's was serving it at.

And McDonald's coffee is not better because they lowered the temp. It is better now because they are using premium beans and charging a premium for them.

I'm not paying any more for McDonald's coffee. In fact it's cheaper than the competition.

You've made it clear before that the concept of negligence is foreign to you.

It's the lady's fault she spilled the coffee. It's McDonald's fault they served a product that was statistically going to be spilled, knew it had caused serious injuries before and did nothing to mitigate the risk.

The ideal brewing temperature is irrelevant - and the ideal serving temp is irrelevant too, because the ideal drinking temp is not 180 degrees. Most places that sell a high volume of coffee get around this by serving the coffee at a relatively safe temperature (which is normally still hot enough that you don't want to drink it 'right away' and throwing out the odd pot of coffee that sits at this temperature for too long. It doesn't take much planning to keep this waste to a bare minimum.

Instead of having to go through this yet again, why don't you search the archives for all the threads over the years about this case. I have destroyed every one of your arguments countless times in them. You are merely parrotting the same lame argumets others have.

Fact: Not a single self inflicted coffe injury lawsuit has won since, though dozens have been pressed.

Gee, I wonder why?

Fact: The defense in this case was incompentent and did not take the case seriously. That hasn't happened since.

Meanwhile, ask yourself why McDonald's served it at that temp? It costs them more to keep it that hot. It makes the coffee go bad faster, thus costing them more as well.

Is it because they were evil and set out to burn stupid old ladies?

NO. It's because that is the ideal brewing and holding temp for good coffee.

And yes, my little nanny-state friend. The ideal brewing and holding temp IS relevant. It's why this case was won, and every case since has lost. Because the fact of the matter is 170-180 degrees IS the ideal brewing and holding temp for good coffee flavor and is the temp most coffee houses still serve it at.

McDonald's isn't a coffee house. They may serve a lot of coffee, but they hand it out through their little window to people in vehicles.

Find me a case of 180 degree coffee, going out through a window that resulted in a lost lawsuit.

The ideal holding temperature is NOT relevant, because no one is going to be able to drink that coffee until it cools down anyway. You can't have a temperature both be 'the ideal holding temperature' and 'make the coffee go bad faster', especially when it's aboce the ideal drinking temperature. Maybe you've never thought about this before, but that's the first legitimately dumb thing I've ever heard you say.

It's obvious you know nothing about bewing coffee. And you say my statement was dumb? Wow.

Please, go learn about coffee at any of dozens of gourmet coffee websites before trying to claim I am making dumb claims about coffee.

Wow...

Meanwhile, I make the same claim: Find me one successful lawsuit involving a case of self inflicted coffee injuries since the McD's case. Dozens have been pressed. From fast food to Starbucks. None have been successful.

Now you're trying to split hairs, and it's just silly. Coffee has ALWAYS been served hot enough to burn.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: tagej
Pale Rider, they knew about the 'hazard'... duuuuuuh. Ya think spilling hot coffee on yourself could cause burns??

Uhh, did you fall off the short bus? Spilled drink is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is McDonald's KNOWINGLY gave the drink out and had 700 documented cases of where it burned people badly, INCLUDING BURNS SUFFERED BY CONSUMING THE COFFE FROM THE CUP AS IT WAS INTENDED WHEN SOLD. Hello? McFly?!

700 cases out of how many people who have purchased coffee throughout mcdonald's history? that's like saying every place needs elevators and escalators instead of stairs because 1 person in 5million trips and smashes their face

Actually thats 700 people that made a big enough stink about it that MD corporate thought it was important enough to record the incident.

There is no telling how many people were actually burned. It could be 701 or it could be 7 million. There is no way to know.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
McDonald's isn't a coffee house. They may serve a lot of coffee, but they hand it out through their little window to people in vehicles.

Find me a case of 180 degree coffee, going out through a window that resulted in a lost lawsuit.

The ideal holding temperature is NOT relevant, because no one is going to be able to drink that coffee until it cools down anyway. You can't have a temperature both be 'the ideal holding temperature' and 'make the coffee go bad faster', especially when it's aboce the ideal drinking temperature. Maybe you've never thought about this before, but that's the first legitimately dumb thing I've ever heard you say.

You don't know much about coffee. It's absolutely possible to be the ideal holding temperate and the make it go bad faster. It's ideal for taste, not for profit margin on McD's side.

The ideal brewing temperature is certainly much hotter than the ideal drinking temperature, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that 180 degrees is probably about right (somewhere in the neighborhood of 'not boiling, but pretty close'). The ideal holding temperature is not to hold it at any temperature, which might be the reason for the ideal serving temperature being so high. It's clearly not actually ideal, because the coffee is undrinkable - it has to cool down one way or another. So taking into consideration a number of factors, especially 'safety', why wouldn't you let the coffee do some of its necessary cooling before you put it out the door? It has to cool down either way, and you can moderate the cooling somewhat to buy yourself time.

To say that anything about contemporary McDonald's coffee had to do with quality is pure BS. They make decent coffee now - at the time it was the worst crap you could get in a restaurant.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: iversonyin
Either way, I think McD is only about 20% at fault and the lady is 80% at fault...You know you shouldn't try to drink hot liquid in your car given that it has a chance to spill on you and burn your skin. 150 degree or 180 degree...its going to BURN. The case probably fail to mention that she probably get coffee more than once from McD and know that McD coffee is hotter.

I also agree that both are at fault - the court also said this. Now what the court did that was insane was give out millions of dollars to the women, which was stupid.

A court didn't do sh!t. A jury that heard only the plaintiffs case and a totally incompetent defense from the insurance company made that statement, and that award. The only thing the court did was lower the award.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: iversonyin
Either way, I think McD is only about 20% at fault and the lady is 80% at fault...You know you shouldn't try to drink hot liquid in your car given that it has a chance to spill on you and burn your skin. 150 degree or 180 degree...its going to BURN. The case probably fail to mention that she probably get coffee more than once from McD and know that McD coffee is hotter.

I also agree that both are at fault - the court also said this. Now what the court did that was insane was give out millions of dollars to the women, which was stupid.

A court didn't do sh!t. A jury that heard only the plaintiffs case and a totally incompetent defense from the insurance company made that statement, and that award. The only thing the court did was lower the award.

The court actually said that she was 20% at fault for spilling the drink. I think more like 50%.

The jury it part of the court here.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
McDonald's isn't a coffee house. They may serve a lot of coffee, but they hand it out through their little window to people in vehicles.

Find me a case of 180 degree coffee, going out through a window that resulted in a lost lawsuit.

The ideal holding temperature is NOT relevant, because no one is going to be able to drink that coffee until it cools down anyway. You can't have a temperature both be 'the ideal holding temperature' and 'make the coffee go bad faster', especially when it's aboce the ideal drinking temperature. Maybe you've never thought about this before, but that's the first legitimately dumb thing I've ever heard you say.

You don't know much about coffee. It's absolutely possible to be the ideal holding temperate and the make it go bad faster. It's ideal for taste, not for profit margin on McD's side.

The ideal brewing temperature is certainly much hotter than the ideal drinking temperature, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that 180 degrees is probably about right (somewhere in the neighborhood of 'not boiling, but pretty close'). The ideal holding temperature is not to hold it at any temperature, which might be the reason for the ideal serving temperature being so high. It's clearly not actually ideal, because the coffee is undrinkable - it has to cool down one way or another. So taking into consideration a number of factors, especially 'safety', why wouldn't you let the coffee do some of its necessary cooling before you put it out the door? It has to cool down either way, and you can moderate the cooling somewhat to buy yourself time.

To say that anything about contemporary McDonald's coffee had to do with quality is pure BS. They make decent coffee now - at the time it was the worst crap you could get in a restaurant.

OMG... PLEASE go learn about coffee before you make an even bigger fool of yourself by pulling this crap out of your ass.

McDonald's has CHANGED THEIR COFFEE. I can't believe you're arguing about this. Do a fscking Google search about before yet again making an even bigger fool of yourself.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: iversonyin
Either way, I think McD is only about 20% at fault and the lady is 80% at fault...You know you shouldn't try to drink hot liquid in your car given that it has a chance to spill on you and burn your skin. 150 degree or 180 degree...its going to BURN. The case probably fail to mention that she probably get coffee more than once from McD and know that McD coffee is hotter.

Like others have mentioned, yet has been totally ignored, the amount of damage done is nearly exponential to the temperature. 140F will burn and hurt, but 180F is seriously injuring.

You would also be unable to tell this temperature difference through a styrofoam cup. Styrofoam is that good an insulator.

You cant just take a single fact in a vaccuum and call it frivolous based upon that. Otherwise the case would have been done in a day, and she would have lost. There were too many factors at play, any single one of which would have been excusable, but put together, are certainly negligent.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused
It's obvious you know nothing about bewing coffee. And you say my statement was dumb? Wow.

Please, go learn about coffee at any of dozens of gourmet coffee websites before trying to claim I am making dumb claims about coffee.

Wow...

Meanwhile, I make the same claim: Find me one successful lawsuit involving a case of self inflicted coffee injuries since the McD's case. Dozens have been pressed. From fast food to Starbucks. None have been successful.

Now you're trying to split hairs, and it's just silly. Coffee has ALWAYS been served hot enough to burn.

You're sounding dumber all the time. If McDonald's was the only drive-thru selling coffee at that temperature, and they stopped, why would another lawsuit be successful?

The coffee has to cool off sometime - when you have volume sales, you're moving it quickly and there's no reason to serve it so hot. Coffee in a paper cup stays drinkable for close to an hour (admittedly, I drink it black), I can only guess that styrofoam works substantially better.

Now, kindly tell ATOT that you don't believe in negligence, and I'll let it drop.

 

[OutHouse]

in the latest survey 9/10 people prefer the new mcdonalds premium blend coffee over starbucks.

so i got a cup and i must say it is a very very good cup of coffee and not bitter at all like starbucks and about 2 bucks cheaper per cup.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused
OMG... PLEASE go learn about coffee before you make an even bigger fool of yourself by pulling this crap out of your ass.

McDonald's has CHANGED THEIR COFFEE. I can't believe you're arguing about this. Do a fscking Google search about before yet again making an even bigger fool of yourself.

Yes, they changed their coffee I'm well aware of this - I think that's why I said it.

What possible argument could there be for serving coffee you know is dangerous, when you're using crap for ingredients? I could serve 180 degree coffee made from ground up tires, and it won't make it good.

If McDonald's had been a coffee house, serving high quality coffee, maybe they would have been in a better position, but they weren't. But don't let anything factual get in your way, please.