NationStates Jolt Archive


We live in a world of dumbasses

Wolfenstein Castle
24-07-2004, 21:08
One reason I believe in my topic is because of the frivolous lawsuits brought to court by people who want their 15 minutes. One example would be Stella Liebeck and her Mcdonalds coffee. I think the american judicial system is falling apart. Everyday i hear about somone suing a company because they weren't sensitive to their needs. Which brings me to the ACLU.
how can they be for american civil liberties if they sue they government for every little thing. You can't make everyone happy all the time. If the founding fathers were here today they'd bitch slap the hell out of all of these touchy people.
Chess Squares
24-07-2004, 21:11
1) not all lawsuits are frivolous, yes alot are, but there are thsoe that aren ot frivolous and the lawsuit is required to fix the problem at hand. there should be an oversight committee for stuff liek this. the us supreem court has a whole group of peopel researchnig cases, thats what it should be for questionably frivolous lawsuits

2) i will agree the aclu can get fanatical but there are things that never wouldve gotten fixed if not for the aclu bringing it to court
Wolfenstein Castle
24-07-2004, 21:14
they need to reform the aclu completely. Once in a while they will bring a righteous lawsuit that I will agree with. I'll give you that, but it's the people that need to be slapped down too for even bringing this case to a judge.
Roach-Busters
24-07-2004, 21:18
If the founding fathers were here today they'd bitch slap the hell out of all of these touchy people.

Agreed. Did you know the ACLU was founded by communists? (Seriously!)
CSW
24-07-2004, 21:21
The coffee lawsuit was a ligtimate lawsuit. Read up on it.
Bottle
24-07-2004, 21:25
the ACLU are currently defending Rush Limbaugh and the anti-ACLU protestors in Boston. just in case anybody wants to claim they are biased :P.
Roach-Busters
24-07-2004, 21:32
the ACLU are currently defending Rush Limbaugh and the anti-ACLU protestors in Boston. just in case anybody wants to claim they are biased :P.

I'm not claiming anything. I'm just saying they were founded by communists, which is true. Moreover, the ACLU's president is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
CSW
24-07-2004, 21:32
I'm not claiming anything. I'm just saying they were founded by communists, which is true. Moreover, the ACLU's president is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
So?
El Aguila
24-07-2004, 21:33
One reason I believe in my topic is because of the frivolous lawsuits brought to court by people who want their 15 minutes. One example would be Stella Liebeck and her Mcdonalds coffee. I think the american judicial system is falling apart. Everyday i hear about somone suing a company because they weren't sensitive to their needs. Which brings me to the ACLU.
how can they be for american civil liberties if they sue they government for every little thing. You can't make everyone happy all the time. If the founding fathers were here today they'd bitch slap the hell out of all of these touchy people.
I agree with most everything you wrote.

However, I believe the reason that these ridiculous lawsuits ever succeed is due to juries.

Most moral people with decent jobs and common sense are almost always trying to find excuses not to serve when they are randomly selected for jury duty. This leaves people without jobs, people who will find any excuse (including jury duty) to not go to their regular job, and people with too much time on their hands (usually low class individuals), to serve on juries.

This results in juries that include people inclined to committing crimes themselves, people who hate corporations, socialists, and people who will do anything to get back at "the man."

EVERYONE needs to serve when called to jury duty. This is one of the largest problems with our system of justice today.
Bodies Without Organs
24-07-2004, 21:35
Most moral people with decent jobs and common sense are almost always trying to find excuses not to serve when they are randomly selected for jury duty.


Ah, so the moral people are the ones that try to shirk their responsibilities as citizens?
Roach-Busters
24-07-2004, 21:36
So?

So, what?
El Aguila
24-07-2004, 21:48
Ah, so the moral people are the ones that try to shirk their responsibilities as citizens?
Unfortunately they do not realize the importance of serving, and the consequences of not.

They believe that their job, family, and the small amount of free time they usually enjoy are the most important things in their life. THEY ARE CORRECT. But they need to realize that on the rare occasion they get called to serve they need to go! It is required for justice!

Afterall, bad juries are what caused OJ to get off and will certainly allow Scott Peterson (I'm sick of hearing about this case BTW) to get off also. They are also the juries that are quick to convict people of "minor" crimes but have a higher socioeconomic status such as Martha Stewart Not to mention the McDonald type lawsuits of the past also.
Bodies Without Organs
24-07-2004, 21:54
Afterall, bad juries are what caused OJ to get off and will certainly allow Scott Peterson (I'm sick of hearing about this case BTW) to get off also.

You have conclusive proof that OJ did in fact commit the murder?
Chess Squares
24-07-2004, 21:58
Unfortunately they do not realize the importance of serving, and the consequences of not.

They believe that their job, family, and the small amount of free time they usually enjoy are the most important things in their life. THEY ARE CORRECT. But they need to realize that on the rare occasion they get called to serve they need to go! It is required for justice!

Afterall, bad juries are what caused OJ to get off and will certainly allow Scott Peterson (I'm sick of hearing about this case BTW) to get off also. They are also the juries that are quick to convict people of "minor" crimes but have a higher socioeconomic status such as Martha Stewart Not to mention the McDonald type lawsuits of the past also.
im not fulyl convinced peterson did it, we all know oj did it. but peterson reminds me of another trial a while back, the guy got convicted and died in jail but the police didnt bother going after any other leads
El Aguila
24-07-2004, 22:04
You have conclusive proof that OJ did in fact commit the murder?
DNA evidence is all that is required. Of course, when you have an un-educated jury that doesn't even know what DNA is...well that's a whole bunch of mombo jombo for someone who may not have even graduated H.S.

As for Scott Peterson, I don't really follow the case THAT MUCH. It has an unjust amount of coverage for a common man's case (of course the criminal is now famous thanks to the media.) There are cases like this everyday that get ignored.

Anyway, I'm not sure if he's guilty or not, but he sure seems like it and if he's not he is a complete Moron. Who is out selling your wife's car and buying a new one for yourself, disguised, and with a load of money when your wife is still missing?

This Hacking one is another Peterson case with again too much media attention for a "common" criminal. Again if the husband isn't guilty he sure is an idiot. This guy was buying a mattress after his wife went missing and lied to everyone about medical school...geez...stupid criminals!
Bodies Without Organs
24-07-2004, 22:09
DNA evidence is all that is required. Of course, when you have an un-educated jury that doesn't even know what DNA is...well that's a whole bunch of mombo jombo for someone who may not have even graduated H.S.

Breakdown of the highest educational levels of the OJ Simpson jury:
2 College graduates.
9 High School graduates.
1 without diploma.
Wolfenstein Castle
24-07-2004, 22:24
Juries are also a big problem. just look at the guy who got off with the twinky defense. michael Jackson and Kobe will probably will get off too because the jury will be overwhelmed by their star power and not want to convict a pop icon.

i say :mp5: Michael Jackson. That's ignorant.
El Aguila
24-07-2004, 22:49
Breakdown of the highest educational levels of the OJ Simpson jury:
2 College graduates.
9 High School graduates.
1 without diploma.
Nice legwork on that. I'm not impressed by the educational background of the jury, but hey, it's probably better than it could have been. Of course there are plenty of idiots that graduate high school that didn't pay attention in biology or chemistry classes or were there prior to great advances in the field. Oh yeah, and there plenty of bad college majors too...so being a college graduate helps, but it MAY NOT also. Who knows.
Tuesday Heights
25-07-2004, 02:00
We don't live in a world of "dumbasses" as you say; we live in a world of ignorance, where people claim idiocy as a means of escaping from the real life consequences of any action/thought taken.

Thus, we live in a world of ignorance.
Wolfenstein Castle
25-07-2004, 10:29
thanks for adding sophistication to the argument. :headbang: Your way of naming it is the sugar coated way of my views. If you are stupid enough to not pay attention in court and then vote not guilty then you're a dumbass.

Things I've seen and heard from in court that qualify as dumbassry.(I know, not a real word)

1) Mark Geragos is winning the Scott Peterson trial because he knows how to make a joke and keep the jury entertained. Come on!!!! People shouldn't win their cased based on how entertained the jury was kept by the legal counsel.Everybody knows he's guilty. What father in his right mind goes fishing on Christmas eve. They even found her hair on the boat. i know that you can disprove that part, but women usually do not go on fishing trips in California. If he was so innocent then why did he try to escape? Innocent people have nohing to hide. Ten years from now if he is aqcuitted do you really think he's going to still search for his wife's killer? now who does that remind me of?http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=55379&stc=1[IMG]

2) Before Timothy McVeigh was sentenced there was a dispute about what his sentence would be. There was this one old army nurse who fought against him getting the death penalty because she didn't want another person to lose their life. This contradicts what she would have said earlier when they had jury selection. The main question they always ask you is "Do you believe in the death penalty?"

3) Michael Jackson is probably going to get off because he made thriller.

4) Kobe is going to get off because everybody wants him back with the lakers.(Who I might add won't be in the championship in the next ten years.) that girl will never be the same because once her identity gets out people will walk up to her and say things like "[I]cough, cough, kobe"
Asuarati
25-07-2004, 12:14
According to a quiz about "What swear word are you" on quizilla.com, I am dumbass. ;)
Chess Squares
25-07-2004, 14:08
1) Mark Geragos is winning the Scott Peterson trial because he knows how to make a joke and keep the jury entertained. Come on!!!! People shouldn't win their cased based on how entertained the jury was kept by the legal counsel.Everybody knows he's guilty. What father in his right mind goes fishing on Christmas eve. They even found her hair on the boat. i know that you can disprove that part, but women usually do not go on fishing trips in California. If he was so innocent then why did he try to escape? Innocent people have nohing to hide. Ten years from now if he is aqcuitted do you really think he's going to still search for his wife's killer? now who does that remind me of?http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=55379&stc=1[IMG]

all your reasoning isnt substantial and isnt going to pass for jack. him being an insensitive prick of a husband doesnt mean he killed her



4) Kobe is going to get off because everybody wants him back with the lakers.(Who I might add won't be in the championship in the next ten years.) that girl will never be the same because once her identity gets out people will walk up to her and say things like "[I]cough, cough, kobe"
kobe is probably gonna get off because they are going to bust out the ho's records
HannibalSmith
25-07-2004, 14:21
If it weren't for these ambulance chasers, there would be no crazy lawsuits. From the tobacco settlements to John Edwards claiming to channel spirits of dead babies in the courtroom, trial lawyers need to be held accountable for these frivalous lawsuits. I mean 1 billion dollars because you smoked, even though they have had warnings on them for years. Juries should be held accountable as well, but in this day and age personal responsibility doesn't exist.


Trial lawyers :sniper:
Druthulhu
25-07-2004, 17:41
One reason I believe in my topic is because of the frivolous lawsuits brought to court by people who want their 15 minutes. One example would be Stella Liebeck and her Mcdonalds coffee. I think the american judicial system is falling apart. Everyday i hear about somone suing a company because they weren't sensitive to their needs. Which brings me to the ACLU.
how can they be for american civil liberties if they sue they government for every little thing. You can't make everyone happy all the time. If the founding fathers were here today they'd bitch slap the hell out of all of these touchy people.

Anybody interested in truth should google up "McDonalds coffee lawsuit" and read what actually happened. Stella Liebeck received third degree burns on her groin which necessitated extensive reconstructive surgery because the coffee that she, yes she, spilled on her lap was kept, prior to sale and by corporate policy, 20 degrees higher than the temperature that coffee is normally brewed at. And she was not the first.

Read. Think.

As far as the ACLU, how does suing he government (for things like spending the tax monies of all people on judea-christian iconography and ritual, I suppose? Or making them disclose things they do in our name?) run contrary to saying they are for civil liberties? Is sovereign immunity somehow synonymous with civil liberties now? What? :rolleyes:
Druthulhu
25-07-2004, 18:01
Re: Peterson...

"Everybody knows he's guilty"? Then why didn't we stop him, since apparently we all were witnesses?

Her hair was on the boat? She was on the boat, when he showed it to her. This has been shown in court. Pliars were also on the boat? BFD. Unless the hair had bloody roots and was wedged in the pliar's jaws, it means nothing.

Two pregnant women, headless and handless, washed up in the bay at around the same time. The one that wasn't Scott Peterson's wife has been determined to be unrelated to this case. Why? Apparently she washed up on the other side of the bay. Plus she was not in an way related to the Peterson's, so obviously, she couldn't be pinned on Scott. Nobody knows who killed her, there are no suspects. BUT somehow the police are sure that the two deaths are unrelated.

A black van had been spotted cruising the neighbourhood, implicated in some break-ins, and parked near the Peterson's. The inhabitents, whom the media has called "Satanists", were also investigated for raping a girl they picked up in the van. But they had nothing to do with Lacy's death, of course. Just some horny little devils out for fun. They wouldn't kidnap and dismember a pregnant woman, and certainly not two. Lucky for them the police have cleared them.

When half of a couple is murdered the police will always treat the other half as a "person of interest". What seems to have happened here is not just that they didn't bother to look any further, but that, it seems, they have actively resisted looking at other possibilities. Scott was having an affair and that was good enough for them. Meanwhile someone "else" has dismembered at least one other pregnant woman in their area, quite possibly someone that they have had in custody, and we aren't hearing anything about how close they are to solving that one. I guess her husband wasn't cheating... didn't just buy a boat... didn't spend x-mas away from his wife like some kind of non-christian, etc.
Enodscopia
25-07-2004, 18:17
Like these morons sueing fast food places for making them fat, they should be put in jail for being useless leeches.
Chess Squares
25-07-2004, 18:20
Like these morons sueing fast food places for making them fat, they should be put in jail for being useless leeches.
i propose a nonpartisan comitee formed by judges, working or retired with an army of people helpnig them like the supreme court, to go over all casues which involve law suits askin for monetary reparations. they will decide whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous, if it is deemed so, the plaintiff and their attorney are fined
Unfree People
25-07-2004, 18:40
One reason I believe in my topic is because of the frivolous lawsuits brought to court by people who want their 15 minutes. One example would be Stella Liebeck and her Mcdonalds coffee. I think the american judicial system is falling apart. Everyday i hear about somone suing a company because they weren't sensitive to their needs. Which brings me to the ACLU.
how can they be for american civil liberties if they sue they government for every little thing. You can't make everyone happy all the time. If the founding fathers were here today they'd bitch slap the hell out of all of these touchy people.
Woah, cool, thanks for proving your own point! A "world of dumbasses" indeed ;)

McDonalds was purposely making their coffee hot enough to burn because it boosted profits. The American judicial system is only falling apart if you think the country is; it's no worse now than it was 200 years ago when people sued each other for bewitching their cows or moving property stones.

The ACLU is a really necessary organization and believe me, the government does need taking down a lot of the time. Better than facism, surely. I think I'd like to work for them someday.

Heh, you uh ever met the Founding Fathers? America today is almost exactly the vision Hamilton had for the country. And I doubt 18th century Englishmen would have 'bitch slapped' anyone, or even that the thought would cross their minds.
Wolfenstein Castle
25-07-2004, 19:17
Dru this is just for you:

Did you know that the National Coffee Association of America recommends that coffee be served at a range of 185 degress farenheit? Coffee is supposed to be prepared at a range of 195-205 degrees for optimal extraction.

Let me refresh your memory here. Mcdonalds guidelines recommend that coffee be served between 180-190 degrees, which is well within range of what is recommended.

Stella was also in the passenger's side while the car was stopped with the coffee between her legs. She wanted to add sugar and milk. Now she could have set it in any number of places to add this stuff, like the CUP HOLDER.

There were 700 documented cases in the past ten years of minor and major cases of burns, but they didn't tell you that this averages out to be one burn per every 24 million cups sold

Her clumsiness does not mean that she has to sue a company that was following it's standard guidelines. If you want to check my statistics out go here and scroll down http://www.ncausa.org/public/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71


btw dru do you live in Concord, NC?
Druthulhu
25-07-2004, 19:24
No I don't, why?

I also don't give the half-digested hind end of a rat that got puked up by a gator about what the National Coffee Association of America recommends. Are YOU in the habit of putting 195-205 degree liquids into your mouth? Also consider that even the august and hoary NCAA uses the words "prepared" and "for ... extraction" ... they do not use the word "serve", do they? And if they used the word "drank" they would be pretty wide open to lawsuits themselves from anybody dumb enough to actually try it.
Chess Squares
25-07-2004, 19:27
Are YOU in the habit of putting 195-205 degree liquids into your mouth?

are you? i guess you dont like hot tea, coffee, or chocolate


Also consider that even the august and hoary NCAA uses the words "prepared" and "for ... extraction" ... they do not use the word "serve", do they? And if they used the word "drank" they would be pretty wide open to lawsuits themselves from anybody dumb enough to actually try it.
and if she is so incompetent as to be screwing with hot cofee in her lap while in the car, what she gets
Wolfenstein Castle
25-07-2004, 19:33
Correction- She was screwing around with coffee while the car was stopped.

I wanted to know if you lived in concord because there was someone there that I knew named dru who shared you're same views.

As long as Mcdonalds was well within its limit she had no right to sue for her own mistakes.
Wolfenstein Castle
25-07-2004, 19:41
i'm sure Hamilton would have wanted his America similar to this, but not exactly like this. People bring lawsuits about how tobacco caused them to get cancer even though it says right on the front this will harm you Hamilton would have wanted an America with all the political freedoms and civil rights that we have today, but not with people who sue fast food companies for making them fat. Now people can claim obesity as a disease. " Hey boss I can't come to work today, yeah, my ass is too fat."
Druthulhu
25-07-2004, 19:46
Bring him in here :) I'd like to meet him.

Correction- She was screwing around with coffee while the car was stopped.

I wanted to know if you lived in concord because there was someone there
that I knew named dru who shared you're same views.

As long as Mcdonalds was well within its limit she had no right to sue for her own mistakes.

She certainly "had the right" to sue, just as the jury had the right and the authority to deny her claims. And McDonalds can set whatever limits for itself it wants, and be within its limits. The jury is supposed to decide if those limits are reasonably safe. Apparently they decided that handing a cup of 190 degree liquid to an old lady in a car wasn't reasonably safe enough for them.

" woman spilled coffee on herself so she sued McDonalds for a lot of money." Makes good play. Worked for the Gipper, didn't it? Gets people all insensed about those nasty ambulence chasers.

Ever seen third degree burns? Ever seen them on a person's genitals? A lot nastier than what would be caused by 170 degree coffee, second degree burns, and even I don't drink 170 degree coffee anyway.

She shouldn't have dropped it? Of course she shouldn't have. And I don't think it should have been 190 degrees either. Damn! What was she thinking, spilling her coffee like that? But hey, it's only 700 cases of third degree burns out of... what... billions served? Let them pay for their own reconstructive surgery, that'll learn 'em not to spill a drink.
Druthulhu
25-07-2004, 19:47
are you? i guess you dont like hot tea, coffee, or chocolate



and if she is so incompetent as to be screwing with hot cofee in her lap while in the car, what she gets

Was I talking to you?
Chess Squares
25-07-2004, 19:53
Was I talking to you?
is that your way of avoiding answering peopels questions? it looks very suspicious
Druthulhu
25-07-2004, 19:56
is that your way of avoiding answering peopels questions? it looks very suspicious

No this is my way of reminding you that I consider you an asinine pissant who defends his shakey logic with verbal abuse, and that for my own safety I will not be drawn into another flame war with you.
Wolfenstein Castle
25-07-2004, 19:56
The jury was sympathetic to a little old lady. Her claim should have been denied. it's just like people suing gun companies. People have the right to bear arms, and fire arms. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Druthulhu
25-07-2004, 19:57
The jury was sympathetic to a little old lady. Her claim should have been denied. it's just like people suing gun companies. People have the right to bear arms, and fire arms. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

But guns sure do make it a Hell of a lot easier, don't they? :D
Chess Squares
25-07-2004, 19:57
No this is my way of reminding you that I consider you an asinine pissant who defends his shakey logic with verbal abuse, and that for my own safety I will not be drawn into another flame war with you.
oh yeah thats completely different than what you do
Druthulhu
25-07-2004, 20:00
The jury was sympathetic to a little old lady. Her claim should have been denied. it's just like people suing gun companies. People have the right to bear arms, and fire arms. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Oh, btw, coffee is not made for the express purpose of killing. My own coffee being the exception, of course :D
Wolfenstein Castle
25-07-2004, 20:09
sure it makes it easier, but why stop at guns. Let's sue car companies for causing us to end up in accidents and lets sue air conditioning companies for causing it to become too cold in my house and resulting in my mother dying from pneumonia. It never stops. :headbang:
Druthulhu
25-07-2004, 20:19
sure it makes it easier, but why stop at guns. Let's sue car companies for causing us to end up in accidents and lets sue air conditioning companies for causing it to become too cold in my house and resulting in my mother dying from pneumonia. It never stops. :headbang:

Got a better idea: let's NOT sue gun manufacturers, unless they make their products less safe than a device designed to kill actually needs to be in order to do what it does. Like, if a gun manufacturer sells a gun that has an unreasonably high misfire rate, and is prone to blowing its user's hand off, let's sue them then.

If a manufacturer markets cars with faulty breaks, and we get hurt as a result, let us sue. If they sell your ma an AC that puts out CO and she dies in her sleep as a result, let's sue.

Suing McD's for making food that can make you fat is indeed stupid, but suing them for handing out 190 degree coffee in little styrofoam cups to people in cars is not.

And you haven't answered a critical question: DO you drink your coffee at 190 degrees? If you do... do you use one of those voice boxes, like Ned on "South Park"?
Wolfenstein Castle
25-07-2004, 20:26
Yes I do. I gradually drink it through those tiny straws and it is hot, but not death consuming hot.
Chess Squares
25-07-2004, 20:27
Got a better idea: let's NOT sue gun manufacturers, unless they make their products less safe than a device designed to kill actually needs to be in order to do what it does. Like, if a gun manufacturer sells a gun that has an unreasonably high misfire rate, and is prone to blowing its user's hand off, let's sue them then.

If a manufacturer markets cars with faulty breaks, and we get hurt as a result, let us sue. If they sell your ma an AC that puts out CO and she dies in her sleep as a result, let's sue.

Suing McD's for making food that can make you fat is indeed stupid, but suing them for handing out 190 degree coffee in little styrofoam cups to people in cars is not.

And you haven't answered a critical question: DO you drink your coffee at 190 degrees? If you do... do you use one of those voice boxes, like Ned on "South Park"?


you are yet again ignoring points and focusing on others. anyoen who is tired of his bliterhing about the temperature go abck up and read the stuff about the national whatever on coffee with the designated temperature
Wolfenstein Castle
25-07-2004, 20:27
I'm taling about suing companies that sell products with no faults in them. Of course CO and faulty brakes are worth suing for, but not a product that was made to be like that.
Druthulhu
25-07-2004, 20:35
I'm taling about suing companies that sell products with no faults in them. Of course CO and faulty brakes are worth suing for, but not a product that was made to be like that.
So McD's coffee was intended to cause third degree burns? Or did they just decide that since there was only a risk to people dumb enough to spill it (as I am sure you have never spilled a drink), that the third degree burns of those people were not their problem?

...and, do you drink your coffee at 190-205 degrees?
Druthulhu
25-07-2004, 20:37
You know what? :) I've changed my mind. You're right. Anybody who is so incredibly stupid as to spill a cup off coffee deserves to have their bits melted off.

McDonalDs RooLeZ!!! :D
Chess Squares
25-07-2004, 21:06
...and, do you drink your coffee at 190-205 degrees?
well apparently that lady did, most people wouldve waited for it to kewl the hell down instead of playing with it while itwas still scalding hot. instead of trying toi attack people who disagree why dont you go back and think about whats going on

mcdonalds must keep the coffee hot, no one is gonig to drink room temperature coffee because they had to leave it sitting out all day because dumbasses mgiht spilt it on themselves
Onanis
25-07-2004, 21:09
Saying all lawsuits are frivolous is a huge generalization.
If you think that too many people sue, it is foolish to take away their right or ability to sue. That would make for a lot of very unhappy people (which you don't want to have if you are a politician in a democracy). It would be better to go after the heart of why these people who you consider to have undeserving issues are sueing. I would assume this would have something to do with a need for money, otherwise they aren't going to make the effort unless they actually want a social change. If we put limits on how much people could sue for, then it would limit those who sue to only the people with real issues. The stricter the limits on monetary amounts, the more important issue would come out. We do need the ACLU though in order to make the people with these real issues able to bring them out. Otherwise the country would be controlled by only those with extra money even more than it is now.
Now, this is just a temporary fix to settle people down a bit. The real fix for the problem would be to better distribute money, and lead happier lives with less of it. People would not take the time that they could be using to enjoy their lives if a) they would actually be enjoying it, and b) they wouldn't try to use it as a quick way to the top if there were not top to reach. Of course, this would be like communism or socialism, or whichever one you don't like more, and it would completely undermine the American way of life. Well, when the American way of life means living under the rule of corperations and the 2% of the population with enough wealth to buy everyone else, then i think it needs a little bit of undermining. But now that's a whole different issue than the one at hnd in this thread.
Druthulhu
25-07-2004, 21:40
well apparently that lady did, most people wouldve waited for it to kewl the hell down instead of playing with it while itwas still scalding hot. instead of trying toi attack people who disagree why dont you go back and think about whats going on

mcdonalds must keep the coffee hot, no one is gonig to drink room temperature coffee because they had to leave it sitting out all day because dumbasses mgiht spilt it on themselves

OK you get another chance. I would advise you to look at the origins instigation and escalation of our recent flame war before you decide that I am the one that is prone to attack those who disagree with him.

Apparently McDonalds decided she wanted scalding hot coffee, and she was trusting enough of their judgement to go ahead and add the sugar or whatever while pulled over in their lot. Also you seem to ignore the fact that there is a wide range of temperatures between "third-degree-burns" and "room temperature". In fact the 20 degree difference that McD's went to, 170 degrees, is only enough to cause second degree burns. Second degree burns do not require skin grafts.

Chess Squares, have you ever spilled a drink?
Fat Smelly Bastards
25-07-2004, 21:45
My defanitoin of a dumbass is anybody who dont' like George W. Bush.
Druthulhu
25-07-2004, 21:48
My defanitoin of a dumbass is anybody who dont' like George W. Bush.

You're about as articulate as he is.
Fat Smelly Bastards
25-07-2004, 22:00
You're about as articulate as he is.

What the hell you talkin' about jerko? :mad: :sniper:
Wolfenstein Castle
25-07-2004, 22:02
Sure, I've spilled drink, but I don't go around suing companies for something I did.

Let me present this question to you. What if the coffee was at 170 degrees and she still burned herself and sued the company? now that is way below what it's supposed to be.
Chess Squares
25-07-2004, 22:15
OK you get another chance. I would advise you to look at the origins instigation and escalation of our recent flame war before you decide that I am the one that is prone to attack those who disagree with him.

Apparently McDonalds decided she wanted scalding hot coffee, and she was trusting enough of their judgement to go ahead and add the sugar or whatever while pulled over in their lot. Also you seem to ignore the fact that there is a wide range of temperatures between "third-degree-burns" and "room temperature". In fact the 20 degree difference that McD's went to, 170 degrees, is only enough to cause second degree burns. Second degree burns do not require skin grafts.

Chess Squares, have you ever spilled a drink?


i think you miss the fact that she did NOT wait for it to cool down before messing with it, especially sicne she was in a car. she should not have the right to sue over personal incompetence.


me spiled something? not when if its between my legs in a stationary car, im smart enoguh to realize i shouldnt be opening stuff and screwing with it if a car is speeding up or slowing down or on a bumpy road
Misfitasia
26-07-2004, 00:07
One reason I believe in my topic is because of the frivolous lawsuits brought to court by people who want their 15 minutes. One example would be Stella Liebeck and her Mcdonalds coffee.

When you receive third degree burns over 6 per cent of your body (http://www.atla.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx) (badly enough to require skin grafts), and then realize that the your injuries would have been greatly reduced, if not avoided entirely, if a company had simply lowered the tempature of its coffee from 180 degrees to about 140 to 155 degrees, and even after learning that the company understands that coffee at such a high tempature isn't even fit for consumption, and, even after receiving more than 700 claims of people being burnt by its coffee in the previous 10 years, refuses to change its policy... if and when all this happens to you, yet you refuse to sue the company, then perhaps I'll take your complaint that this is somehow a frivolous lawsuit seriously.
Roach-Busters
26-07-2004, 00:22
My defanitoin of a dumbass is anybody who dont' like George W. Bush.

Well, I guess I match your 'defanitoin,' because I don't particularly care for him. I don't HATE him (I don't hate anybody), I just think he's an odious politician and his policies are asinine and repugnant. By the way, please learn to spell.
Misfitasia
26-07-2004, 00:26
The jury was sympathetic to a little old lady. Her claim should have been denied. it's just like people suing gun companies. People have the right to bear arms, and fire arms. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

And people with guns just happen to kill other people a lot easier and quicker than those without.
Wolfenstein Castle
26-07-2004, 00:26
What you don't realize is that if you have coffee at that temperature then there is a greater risk of bacteria contaminating the coffee and the mixture won't dissolve if the temperatures are not high enough. That's why they keep it at such high temperatures.
Misfitasia
26-07-2004, 00:30
By the way, please learn to spell.

It's just his way of paying homage to that master loquacionist, Bush II.
Misfitasia
26-07-2004, 06:13
What you don't realize is that if you have coffee at that temperature then there is a greater risk of bacteria contaminating the coffee and the mixture won't dissolve if the temperatures are not high enough. That's why they keep it at such high temperatures.

Um, in a word, NO. The danger zone for food is 40 degrees to 140 degrees F. 190 degrees won't kill any more bacteria than will, say, 155 degrees (although this isn't true for some meats, but then again, we were talking about coffee, not meat). And though you have to heat the water that high to BREW the coffee, it is not necessary to keep it at the heat to SERVE it.