PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft shortens Windows name


Yousuf Khan
August 20th 04, 07:44 AM
The previously named Windows XP and 2003 "64-bit edition for 64-bit extended
systems" has now just been shorted to "for X64". Eg. Windows XP Pro for X64
or Windows Server 2003 for X64.

Looks like Microsoft has decided on X64 as the universal moniker for all
X86-64 marketing names.

Yousuf Khan

http://entmag.com/news/rss.asp?editorialsid=6343

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)

Stubby Boardman
August 21st 04, 01:02 AM
"Yousuf Khan" > wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
| The previously named Windows XP and 2003 "64-bit edition for 64-bit extended
| systems" has now just been shorted to "for X64". Eg. Windows XP Pro for X64
| or Windows Server 2003 for X64.
|
| Looks like Microsoft has decided on X64 as the universal moniker for all
| X86-64 marketing names.
|
| Yousuf Khan
|

How many staff meetings did it take for them to think up 'X64'
I wonder?

Ed Light
August 21st 04, 01:49 AM
"Yousuf Khan" > wrote
> shorted to "for X64". Eg. Windows XP Pro for X64
> or Windows Server 2003 for X64.

Will there be a Home edition?


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

MyndPhlyp
August 21st 04, 02:31 AM
"Ed Light" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Yousuf Khan" > wrote
> > shorted to "for X64". Eg. Windows XP Pro for X64
> > or Windows Server 2003 for X64.
>
> Will there be a Home edition?

The Home edition seems to be somewhat dysfunctional - they're thinking about
calling it X Spouse. It was going to be finalized in a matter of weeks, but
attorneys for both parties are dragging matters out and it's getting very
messy.

(Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.)

/..
August 21st 04, 04:39 AM
By Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:31:46 GMT, "MyndPhlyp" >
decided to post "Re: Microsoft shortens Windows name" to
alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64:

>
>"Ed Light" > wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Yousuf Khan" > wrote
>> > shorted to "for X64". Eg. Windows XP Pro for X64
>> > or Windows Server 2003 for X64.
>>
>> Will there be a Home edition?
>
>The Home edition seems to be somewhat dysfunctional - they're thinking about
>calling it X Spouse. It was going to be finalized in a matter of weeks, but
>attorneys for both parties are dragging matters out and it's getting very
>messy.
>
>(Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.)

In order to rid one's self of the floppy, one should upgrade to mistress
4.0, taking care not to overwrite spouse 2.1 or girlfriend 17.2(beta).

These patches and workarounds should be applied only to systems specified
in this document<link>; they should be considered to be under testing at
this point, and should only be applied if symptoms mentioned above persist.

Next time, RTFM before LYAO, k????

/ts

--

find / -iname "*gw*" -exec rm -rf {} \;

In heaven, there is no beer,
That's why we drink it here,
And when we're all gone from here,
Our friends will be drinking all the beer!
-- Famous old Czech song about beer --

Yousuf Khan
August 21st 04, 06:12 AM
Stubby Boardman wrote:
>> Looks like Microsoft has decided on X64 as the universal moniker for
>> all X86-64 marketing names.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>
> How many staff meetings did it take for them to think up 'X64'
> I wonder?

Probably one more than the one that came up with "64-bit Edition for 64-bit
Extended Systems". :-)

Yousuf Khan

Tony Hill
August 21st 04, 08:01 AM
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:02:37 -0700, "Stubby Boardman" >
wrote:
>
>"Yousuf Khan" > wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
>| The previously named Windows XP and 2003 "64-bit edition for 64-bit extended
>| systems" has now just been shorted to "for X64". Eg. Windows XP Pro for X64
>| or Windows Server 2003 for X64.
>|
>| Looks like Microsoft has decided on X64 as the universal moniker for all
>| X86-64 marketing names.
>|
>| Yousuf Khan
>|
>
>How many staff meetings did it take for them to think up 'X64'
>I wonder?

Probably none. It sounds to me like the middle management was off
having countless staff meetings to decide on "64-bit edition for
64-bit extended systems" while everyone actually doing the work just
ignored all that garbage and decided on 'X64'.

Then, after the bean counters figured out that the staff-meeting name
was going to require them to completely redesign the box, labels and
all marketing material because it was just too long, someone figured
on the bright idea of completely ignoring the morons who thought of
this name in the first place and just using 'X64', which is what
everyone was calling it in the first place.


Ok... maybe that's just my version of the events without having
actually been involved in any way :>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Johannes H Andersen
August 21st 04, 01:34 PM
Ed Light wrote:
>
> "Yousuf Khan" > wrote
> > shorted to "for X64". Eg. Windows XP Pro for X64
> > or Windows Server 2003 for X64.
>
> Will there be a Home edition?

Since M$ used Rolling Stones 'Start me up' for promoting Win95,
I suppose that this time they will use The Beatles 'When I'm 64'.

Alexander Grigoriev
August 21st 04, 02:56 PM
LOL!

IIRC, "I can't get no satisfaction" was used for Win95?

"Johannes H Andersen" > wrote in
message news:[email protected] rrxzx.com...
>
>
> Ed Light wrote:
> >
> > "Yousuf Khan" > wrote
> > > shorted to "for X64". Eg. Windows XP Pro for X64
> > > or Windows Server 2003 for X64.
> >
> > Will there be a Home edition?
>
> Since M$ used Rolling Stones 'Start me up' for promoting Win95,
> I suppose that this time they will use The Beatles 'When I'm 64'.

Lee Waun
August 21st 04, 08:26 PM
"Alexander Grigoriev" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> LOL!
>
> IIRC, "I can't get no satisfaction" was used for Win95?
>

Nope it was "Start me Up" for win95

Nick Roberts
August 21st 04, 11:55 PM
>> Nope it was "Start me Up" for win95
>>
> Later it was changed to....
> (Try to) Start Me Up

Then to "Just Press Start" ...

.... and then "Just Press Reset"

;-)

--
Nick Roberts

Yousuf Khan
August 22nd 04, 11:13 PM
Lee Waun wrote:
> "Alexander Grigoriev" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> LOL!
>>
>> IIRC, "I can't get no satisfaction" was used for Win95?
>>
>
> Nope it was "Start me Up" for win95

He was trying to be clever.

Yousuf Khan

David Magda
August 23rd 04, 09:46 PM
"Lee Waun" > writes:

> "Alexander Grigoriev" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > LOL!
> >
> > IIRC, "I can't get no satisfaction" was used for Win95?
> >
>
> Nope it was "Start me Up" for win95

Though they edited the song to removed the line "You make a grown
man cry".

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

Lee Waun
August 24th 04, 06:26 AM
>> Nope it was "Start me Up" for win95
>
> Though they edited the song to removed the line "You make a grown
> man cry".

Good point.

Nelson M. G. Santiago
August 24th 04, 02:08 PM
In >, on 08/23/04
at 04:46 PM, David Magda > said:


>Though they edited the song to removed the line "You make a grown man
>cry".

It would do them no good to plainly state the obvious! 8-))))

Nelson

-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson M. G. Santiago >
-----------------------------------------------------------

Today is Tue Aug 24, 2004.

As of 11:08am this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 0 hours, and
24 minutes. It's running 31 processes with 132 threads.

MyndPhlyp
August 24th 04, 03:24 PM
"Nelson M. G. Santiago" > wrote in message
. ..
> In >, on 08/23/04
> at 04:46 PM, David Magda > said:
>
>
> >Though they edited the song to removed the line "You make a grown man
> >cry".
>
> It would do them no good to plainly state the obvious! 8-))))

If that were true, McDonalds and Burger King would not have been sued by
people spilling commonly known hot beverages in their laps. We might have a
foundation here for a class action lawsuit. Hmmm.

(I wonder ... if my kid burns his hand on the stove, who would I sue: the
stove manufacturer, the electric company, the installer, the supplier, the
interior designer, the landlord? After all, our (US) court system has pretty
much accepted we are not responsible for our own actions these days.)

Rob Stow
August 24th 04, 04:17 PM
MyndPhlyp wrote:
> "Nelson M. G. Santiago" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>In >, on 08/23/04
>> at 04:46 PM, David Magda > said:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Though they edited the song to removed the line "You make a grown man
>>>cry".
>>
>> It would do them no good to plainly state the obvious! 8-))))
>
>
> If that were true, McDonalds and Burger King would not have been sued by
> people spilling commonly known hot beverages in their laps. We might have a
> foundation here for a class action lawsuit. Hmmm.
>
> (I wonder ... if my kid burns his hand on the stove, who would I sue: the
> stove manufacturer, the electric company, the installer, the supplier, the
> interior designer, the landlord? After all, our (US) court system has pretty
> much accepted we are not responsible for our own actions these days.)
>

None of the above. Your wife was the one who
left the stove unattended while the burner was
hot. :-D

--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

MyndPhlyp
August 24th 04, 06:32 PM
"Rob Stow" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> MyndPhlyp wrote:
> >
> > (I wonder ... if my kid burns his hand on the stove, who would I sue:
the
> > stove manufacturer, the electric company, the installer, the supplier,
the
> > interior designer, the landlord? After all, our (US) court system has
pretty
> > much accepted we are not responsible for our own actions these days.)
> >
>
> None of the above. Your wife was the one who
> left the stove unattended while the burner was
> hot. :-D

Ah - no good. She would have grounds for a countersuit since I (presumably)
had something to do with the conception and there would undoubtedly be a
jury out there willing to listen to a liar ... er, lawyer argue the kid
wouldn't have burnt his hand if he hadn't been conceived in the first place.

Lee Waun
August 25th 04, 06:30 AM
>>
>> None of the above. Your wife was the one who
>> left the stove unattended while the burner was
>> hot. :-D
>
> Ah - no good. She would have grounds for a countersuit since I
> (presumably)
> had something to do with the conception and there would undoubtedly be a
> jury out there willing to listen to a liar ... er, lawyer argue the kid
> wouldn't have burnt his hand if he hadn't been conceived in the first
> place.
>
>
Well then your parents should be sued for concieving you as they made you
etc.

Why not just everyone sue everyone. Wait in America they do do that.

Grumble
September 1st 04, 10:08 AM
MyndPhlyp wrote:

> If that were true, McDonalds and Burger King would not have been sued by
> people spilling commonly known hot beverages in their laps. We might have a
> foundation here for a class action lawsuit. Hmmm.
>
> (I wonder ... if my kid burns his hand on the stove, who would I sue: the
> stove manufacturer, the electric company, the installer, the supplier, the
> interior designer, the landlord? After all, our (US) court system has pretty
> much accepted we are not responsible for our own actions these days.)

The infamous "McDonald's coffee case" is definitely *NOT* an example of
frivolous lawsuits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

--
Regards, Grumble

MyndPhlyp
September 1st 04, 11:03 AM
"Grumble" > wrote in message ...
> MyndPhlyp wrote:
>
> > If that were true, McDonalds and Burger King would not have been sued by
> > people spilling commonly known hot beverages in their laps. We might
have a
> > foundation here for a class action lawsuit. Hmmm.
> >
> > (I wonder ... if my kid burns his hand on the stove, who would I sue:
the
> > stove manufacturer, the electric company, the installer, the supplier,
the
> > interior designer, the landlord? After all, our (US) court system has
pretty
> > much accepted we are not responsible for our own actions these days.)
>
> The infamous "McDonald's coffee case" is definitely *NOT* an example of
> frivolous lawsuits.

In your opinion.

Grumble
September 1st 04, 12:48 PM
MyndPhlyp wrote:

> Grumble wrote:
>
>> The infamous "McDonald's coffee case" is definitely *NOT* an example
>> of frivolous lawsuits.
>
> In your opinion.

Yes. In my humble opinion, based on the facts presented in the press
and in the article the link to which you inappropriately snipped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

--
Regards, Grumble

MyndPhlyp
September 1st 04, 02:28 PM
http://www.liberator.net/articles/VanderVeldeBruno/responsibility.html

Robert Redelmeier
September 1st 04, 03:29 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips MyndPhlyp > wrote:
> http://www.liberator.net/articles/VanderVeldeBruno/responsibility.html

Very nice, but I wouldn't consider debridement to be required
for "minor burns". Especially not on the vulva (ouch!)

IMHO, Wikipedia is a bit more authoratative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

It _is_ an interesting question of responsibility:

1) coffee is customarily served at 150-160'F
2) McD coffee was deliberately served at 180-190'F
(presumably for competitive advantage -- staying warm longer
or to use cheaper coffee beans)
3) who is to blame for the resulting burns?

The same question of responsibility arises in lots of cases,
tire blowouts, vehicles catching fire, ...

Maybe people in the computer field accept strict "caveat emptor"
because the major software supplier(s) produce buggy products.

-- Robert

MyndPhlyp
September 1st 04, 04:24 PM
"Robert Redelmeier" > wrote in message
om...
>
> It _is_ an interesting question of responsibility:
>
> 1) coffee is customarily served at 150-160'F
> 2) McD coffee was deliberately served at 180-190'F
> 3) who is to blame for the resulting burns?
>
> Maybe people in the computer field accept strict "caveat emptor"
> because the major software supplier(s) produce buggy products.

This is getting way off the path, but one just can't flog a dead horse
enough. <g>

Maybe I am old school. Obviously I firmly believe we are responsible for our
own acts and decisions (or lack thereof). It is something I was taught at a
very early age by my Depression Era parents and has little to do with being
in the computer field.

Just for grins I pulled out a manual that came with a water heater I
recently installed. (Just look at all those warning statements on the
BernzOmatic propane tank. Who would have thought it contained flammable
gas?) There's a handy chart showing the time it takes to produce a serious
burn for various temperatures (in Fahrenheit):

120F => More than 5 minutes
125F => 1-1/2 to 2 minutes
130F => About 30 seconds
135F => About 10 seconds
140F => Less than 5 seconds
145F => Less than 3 seconds
150F => About 1-1/2 seconds
155F => About 1 second

Given that knowledge and that coffee is generally served at > 150F, would I
expect to /*not*/ be burned if I dumped a coffee in my lap?

Caveat emptor has been around for a very long time. A consumer of any
product or service is an idiot for failing to use at least a modicum of
common sense. To seek compensation for one's stupidity or ignorance is a
redundant act.

(Wouldn't you know it -- I was just doing some repairs around the house and
whacked my thumb with the hammer. There's no warning label. Time to leaf
through the Yellow Pages in search of a liar ... er, lawyer ... to go after
Craftsman.)

MyndPhlyp
September 1st 04, 05:01 PM
"Lee Waun" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> >>
> >> None of the above. Your wife was the one who
> >> left the stove unattended while the burner was
> >> hot. :-D
> >
> > Ah - no good. She would have grounds for a countersuit since I
> > (presumably)
> > had something to do with the conception and there would undoubtedly be a
> > jury out there willing to listen to a liar ... er, lawyer argue the kid
> > wouldn't have burnt his hand if he hadn't been conceived in the first
> > place.
> >
> >
> Well then your parents should be sued for concieving you as they made you
> etc.
>
> Why not just everyone sue everyone. Wait in America they do do that.

Yeppers. Somehow your post escaped me. Now that I've found it, you can
expect a summons delivery soon. I'm going to sue you for defamation of
character. <g>

Wes Newell
September 1st 04, 05:19 PM
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:08:44 +0200, Grumble wrote:

> The infamous "McDonald's coffee case" is definitely *NOT* an example of
> frivolous lawsuits.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

BS, Any coffee drinker knows that the water is boiling when brewed. I'd
assume it to be freshly brewed at 212F, and as such a potential danger if
spilled on someone. She shouldn't have gotten crap. And yes I read the
link even though you didn't post it right. it wasn't M's fault she was a
79 year old idiot. And I guess that the driver was an idiot too for not
warning her it was hot. After all, he's the one that took the coffee from
the drivein window, not her. It also wasn't M's fault that she decided to
stick it between her legs. You can argue this crap all you want, but those
are the facts. Shouldn't have respned to this off topic crap, but idiots
just make me sick.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

MyndPhlyp
September 1st 04, 05:27 PM
"Wes Newell" > wrote in message
news:[email protected] .net...
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:08:44 +0200, Grumble wrote:
>
> Shouldn't have respned to this off topic crap, but idiots
> just make me sick.


ROFLMAO! It's like walking by a sign that says "Wet Paint".

Lee Waun
September 1st 04, 05:32 PM
"MyndPhlyp" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Lee Waun" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> >>
>> >> None of the above. Your wife was the one who
>> >> left the stove unattended while the burner was
>> >> hot. :-D
>> >
>> > Ah - no good. She would have grounds for a countersuit since I
>> > (presumably)
>> > had something to do with the conception and there would undoubtedly be
>> > a
>> > jury out there willing to listen to a liar ... er, lawyer argue the kid
>> > wouldn't have burnt his hand if he hadn't been conceived in the first
>> > place.
>> >
>> >
>> Well then your parents should be sued for concieving you as they made
>> you
>> etc.
>>
>> Why not just everyone sue everyone. Wait in America they do do that.
>
> Yeppers. Somehow your post escaped me. Now that I've found it, you can
> expect a summons delivery soon. I'm going to sue you for defamation of
> character. <g>
>
>
AMD sucks. Intel rules. Now you have more grounds to sue. :)

MyndPhlyp
September 1st 04, 05:36 PM
"Lee Waun" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> AMD sucks. Intel rules. Now you have more grounds to sue. :)

Uh ... nope. I don't shill for AMD. But seeing as how you are so fond of
them <g>, I called off the liar.

Lee Waun
September 1st 04, 06:22 PM
"MyndPhlyp" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Lee Waun" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> AMD sucks. Intel rules. Now you have more grounds to sue. :)
>
> Uh ... nope. I don't shill for AMD. But seeing as how you are so fond of
> them <g>, I called off the liar.
>
>

I am not fond of AMD. I am a long time Intel user and read these newsgroups
everyday and despite all the pro AMD info circulated around these newsgroups
I will not change machines. Something about a old dog and tricks or
something like that. I also killfiled JK a long time ago.

Robert Redelmeier
September 1st 04, 07:25 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips MyndPhlyp > wrote:
> 120F => More than 5 minutes
> 125F => 1-1/2 to 2 minutes
> 130F => About 30 seconds
> 135F => About 10 seconds
> 140F => Less than 5 seconds
> 145F => Less than 3 seconds
> 150F => About 1-1/2 seconds
> 155F => About 1 second

I bet this manual was published after McD coffee!

> Given that knowledge and that coffee is generally served
> at > 150F, would I expect to /*not*/ be burned if I dumped
> a coffee in my lap?

Running hot water is different from spilled coffee.
The spilled coffee cools very quickly, running hot
water replaces itself.

Look, there is no big issue if _everyone_ had coffee as hot
as McD. America generally serves hotter coffee than Europe.
Worse beans. Everyone would expect it to be scalding hot
and take approporiate precautions. It is more that McD had
a sizeable hidden increased hazard.

> use at least a modicum of common sense.

Of course. The debate is on how large that modicum
should be. Or more specifically, how gracefully products
should fail when misused.

> the house and whacked my thumb with the hammer.

Did the hammerhead fly off? Was it coated with some toxin?
Did sharp spikes spring from the head into your thumb?

If the coffee had been normally hot, McD wouldn't have lost.

-- Robert

Robert Redelmeier
September 1st 04, 07:37 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Wes Newell > wrote:
> BS, Any coffee drinker knows that the water is boiling
> when brewed. I'd assume it to be freshly brewed at 212F,

I wouldn't want to drink any of your coffee!
http://www.coffeeresearch.org/coffee/brewing.htm

The water might _start_ out boiling, but the beans,
apparatus and contact with air cool it quite a bit.

-- Robert

David Schwartz
September 1st 04, 09:40 PM
"Grumble" > wrote in message ...
> MyndPhlyp wrote:
>
>> Grumble wrote:
>>
>>> The infamous "McDonald's coffee case" is definitely *NOT* an example
>>> of frivolous lawsuits.
>>
>> In your opinion.
>
> Yes. In my humble opinion, based on the facts presented in the press
> and in the article the link to which you inappropriately snipped.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

Intelligent people can disagree over whether the lawsuit was frivolous
or not, but it was not *obviously* frivolous, so it's bad to use as an
example of a frivolous lawsuit. There are so many genuinely and obviously
frivolous lawsuits in which sums of money were awarded.

DS

Wes Newell
September 1st 04, 10:06 PM
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:37:36 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Wes Newell
> > wrote:
>> BS, Any coffee drinker knows that the water is boiling when brewed. I'd
>> assume it to be freshly brewed at 212F,
>
> I wouldn't want to drink any of your coffee!

I don't drink coffee, but that doesn't mean I've never brewed it or seen
it brewed. And if I know it's hot as hell, she sure as hell should have.
She was just plain stupid and didn't deserve a dime.

> http://www.coffeeresearch.org/coffee/brewing.htm
>
> The water might _start_ out boiling, but the beans, apparatus and
> contact with air cool it quite a bit.
>
So that's why there's a burner underneath the coffeepot, to cool it off.
Christ man, you're making a fool of yourself. I said it was freshly brewed
at 212F, not served at 212F. Freshly served, I'd expect what she got
,180-190F.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Wes Newell
September 1st 04, 10:08 PM
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:37:36 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Wes Newell > wrote:
>> BS, Any coffee drinker knows that the water is boiling
>> when brewed. I'd assume it to be freshly brewed at 212F,
>
> I wouldn't want to drink any of your coffee!
> http://www.coffeeresearch.org/coffee/brewing.htm
>
> The water might _start_ out boiling, but the beans,
> apparatus and contact with air cool it quite a bit.
>
And to follow that up, her lawyer should have had to pay all court cost
and M's attorneys fees.:-)

Give me a break.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Yousuf Khan
September 1st 04, 10:23 PM
Lee Waun wrote:
> I am not fond of AMD. I am a long time Intel user and read these
> newsgroups everyday and despite all the pro AMD info circulated
> around these newsgroups I will not change machines. Something about a
> old dog and tricks or something like that. I also killfiled JK a long
> time ago.

Killfiling JK is no proof that you're pro-Intel or anti-AMD. :-)

Yousuf Khan

Robert Redelmeier
September 2nd 04, 12:28 AM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Wes Newell > wrote:
> So that's why there's a burner underneath the coffeepot,
> to cool it off. Christ man, you're making a fool of
> yourself. I said it was freshly brewed at 212F, not served
> at 212F. Freshly served, I'd expect what she got ,180-190F.

Nope. The thermostat on the keep-warm burner is around
155'F. McDonalds had to threaten Bunn (the mfr) to get
special-order coffee makers with thermostats at 185'F.
Bunn warned McD of the hazards.

There are frivolous lawsuits. This ain't one.

-- Robert

Wes Newell
September 2nd 04, 04:02 AM
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:28:52 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Wes Newell
> > wrote:
>> So that's why there's a burner underneath the coffeepot, to cool it
>> off. Christ man, you're making a fool of yourself. I said it was
>> freshly brewed at 212F, not served at 212F. Freshly served, I'd expect
>> what she got ,180-190F.
>
> Nope. The thermostat on the keep-warm burner is around 155'F.
> McDonalds had to threaten Bunn (the mfr) to get special-order coffee
> makers with thermostats at 185'F. Bunn warned McD of the hazards.
>
I don't give a **** if it was 210F, she wouldn't have gotten a dime from
me and I would have found her attorney guilty of a friivilous lawsuit.

> There are frivolous lawsuits. This ain't one.
>
It's a matter of opinion. In mine it is. You must be an attorney.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Lee Waun
September 2nd 04, 06:38 AM
"Yousuf Khan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Lee Waun wrote:
>> I am not fond of AMD. I am a long time Intel user and read these
>> newsgroups everyday and despite all the pro AMD info circulated
>> around these newsgroups I will not change machines. Something about a
>> old dog and tricks or something like that. I also killfiled JK a long
>> time ago.
>
> Killfiling JK is no proof that you're pro-Intel or anti-AMD. :-)
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

Yah but it sure makes the group easier to read.

I hope Intel catches up to AMD tech wise but even if they don't I won't buy
AMD just to **** JK off.
>

Yousuf Khan
September 2nd 04, 07:13 AM
Lee Waun wrote:
>> Killfiling JK is no proof that you're pro-Intel or anti-AMD. :-)
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>
> Yah but it sure makes the group easier to read.
>
> I hope Intel catches up to AMD tech wise but even if they don't I
> won't buy AMD just to **** JK off.

He's making AMDroids wanna go buy a Pentium.

Yousuf Khan

Tony Hill
September 2nd 04, 08:18 AM
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:08:44 +0200, Grumble > wrote:

>MyndPhlyp wrote:
>
>> If that were true, McDonalds and Burger King would not have been sued by
>> people spilling commonly known hot beverages in their laps. We might have a
>> foundation here for a class action lawsuit. Hmmm.
>>
>> (I wonder ... if my kid burns his hand on the stove, who would I sue: the
>> stove manufacturer, the electric company, the installer, the supplier, the
>> interior designer, the landlord? After all, our (US) court system has pretty
>> much accepted we are not responsible for our own actions these days.)
>
>The infamous "McDonald's coffee case" is definitely *NOT* an example of
>frivolous lawsuits.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

Hmm.. having the read the details I am now sufficiently convinced that
it was *DEFINITELY* a frivolous lawsuit of the worst kind.

The fact that consumers were not aware that the coffee was so hot that
it could produce burns simply demonstrates that consumers, in general,
are complete morons. But apparently we must protect people from their
own stupidity, or else we get frivolous lawsuits like this particular
case.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Tony Hill
September 2nd 04, 08:18 AM
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:02:13 GMT, Wes Newell
> wrote:
>
>I don't give a **** if it was 210F, she wouldn't have gotten a dime from
>me and I would have found her attorney guilty of a friivilous lawsuit.

Well, it's any consolation, she probably DIDN'T get a dime in the end,
it probably all went to pay for her legal fees anyway. :>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

MyndPhlyp
September 2nd 04, 02:29 PM
"Tony Hill" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:08:44 +0200, Grumble > wrote:
>
> The fact that consumers were not aware that the coffee was so hot that
> it could produce burns simply demonstrates that consumers, in general,
> are complete morons. But apparently we must protect people from their
> own stupidity, or else we get frivolous lawsuits like this particular
> case.


As I prefer to word it, the herd needs a little thinning.

Robert Redelmeier
September 2nd 04, 03:18 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tony Hill > wrote:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
>
> Hmm.. having the read the details I am now sufficiently convinced
> that it was *DEFINITELY* a frivolous lawsuit of the worst kind.

> The fact that consumers were not aware that the coffee was
> so hot that it could produce burns simply demonstrates that
> consumers, in general, are complete morons. But apparently we
> must protect people from their own stupidity, or else we get
> frivolous lawsuits like this particular case.

Ah, so you expect considerable expertise from consumers.
How much? Does everyone have to know everything?

Some SUVs have stiffer springs which makes them more prone
to roll-over when they hit a bump during over-sharp turns.
Some cars have gas-tanks extending too far aft and more likely
to be punctured during a collision. Some tires are perfectly
adequate under normal conditions, but sometimes blowout under
extreme stress because they are missing belts.

Or closer to home -- some motherboards fail prematurely due
to low-quality capacitors leaking out.

Are all of these things "caveat emptor"? How would you
discourage manufacturers from cutting corners? Is reputation
enough? Enough in view of investor short-termism? Do you
want a market so paranoid that reputation is everything
and hence closed to new entrants? (Europe?)

I don't much like punitive damages. But there is lots of slop
in the legal system, particularly people who suffer in silence
or get soaked by lawyers fees (IANAL) or silent because.
The threat of punative damages are a counter-weight. How would
you keep the corps mindful of the true loss they can cause in
the face of a clear duty to maximize profit for shareholders?

-- Robert

Wes Newell
September 2nd 04, 05:55 PM
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:18:39 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tony Hill > wrote:
>> Hmm.. having the read the details I am now sufficiently convinced
>> that it was *DEFINITELY* a frivolous lawsuit of the worst kind.
>
> Ah, so you expect considerable expertise from consumers.
> How much? Does everyone have to know everything?
>
We;re talking coffee here, not SUV's are anything complex. I'm certain
most 4 year olds know hot coffe will burn them. If they don't, their
parents should be horsewhipped.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Robert Redelmeier
September 2nd 04, 07:53 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Wes Newell > wrote:
> We;re talking coffee here, not SUV's are anything complex.
> I'm certain most 4 year olds know hot coffe will burn them.

The same principle applies. Hidden defects and/or unexpectedly
bad consequences.

-- Robert

David Schwartz
September 2nd 04, 09:14 PM
"Wes Newell" > wrote in message
et...

> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:18:39 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tony Hill >
>> wrote:
>>> Hmm.. having the read the details I am now sufficiently convinced
>>> that it was *DEFINITELY* a frivolous lawsuit of the worst kind.

>> Ah, so you expect considerable expertise from consumers.
>> How much? Does everyone have to know everything?
>
> We;re talking coffee here, not SUV's are anything complex. I'm certain
> most 4 year olds know hot coffe will burn them. If they don't, their
> parents should be horsewhipped.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether the coffee was delivered at a
significantly higher temperature than it should have been delivered and
whether this 'defect' is responsible for the magnitude of the injury.

We all know that children chew on crayons and that swallowing crayons
could cause injury. However, if a child chews on a crayon and dies because
the crayon contained something toxic, it would not be unreasonable to say
that the *magnitude* of the injury was high because of a defect in the
crayon.

Again, it is not unreasonable to argue that this lawsuit is frivolous.
However, it is not obviously frivolous and arguments like "everyone knows
coffee is hot and will burn you" totally miss the actual issue. The actual
issue is, was the coffee "defective" (in the technical sense) because it was
served much hotter than coffee is normally served, and if so is this
"defect" responsible for the *severity* of her burns.

Add to this that McDonald's was aware of previous burns and knew that
they served their coffee much hotter than typical. They judged the benefits
of hotter coffee (stays enjoyable longer) to be worth the increased risks of
burns or the increased severity of burns. Of course, this is not
unreasonable -- nobody makes dull axes. However, it is also not unreasonable
to argue that especially sharp axes, like especially hot coffee, is
excessively dangerous.

I personally think the lawsuit was frivolous, but it's a terrible
example to use precisely because it was such a complex issue -- given the
glut of obviosly frivolous lawsuits.

DS

Tony Hill
September 3rd 04, 04:59 AM
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:18:39 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
> wrote:
>
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tony Hill > wrote:
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
>>
>> Hmm.. having the read the details I am now sufficiently convinced
>> that it was *DEFINITELY* a frivolous lawsuit of the worst kind.
>
>> The fact that consumers were not aware that the coffee was
>> so hot that it could produce burns simply demonstrates that
>> consumers, in general, are complete morons. But apparently we
>> must protect people from their own stupidity, or else we get
>> frivolous lawsuits like this particular case.
>
>Ah, so you expect considerable expertise from consumers.
>How much? Does everyone have to know everything?
>
>Some SUVs have stiffer springs which makes them more prone
>to roll-over when they hit a bump during over-sharp turns.
>Some cars have gas-tanks extending too far aft and more likely
>to be punctured during a collision. Some tires are perfectly
>adequate under normal conditions, but sometimes blowout under
>extreme stress because they are missing belts.

It's a matter of expectations. I expect that my SUV will not roll
over under normal driving conditions, but I am fully aware that if I
push it to hard that it won't be able to handle it. Similarly I
expect my coffee to be hot, but fully expect that if I dump the thing
in my lap it will continue to be hot and burn me.

>Or closer to home -- some motherboards fail prematurely due
>to low-quality capacitors leaking out.

If my motherboard came with a 3 year warranty I would expect that it
would last for those 3 years without failing. However I do recognize
that after a certain period of time it WILL fail for one reason or
another (be it capacitors, blow diodes, fried resistors or severe
physical damage by my being frustrated with a slow, outdated
computer). If I buy a cheap-ass motherboard that only came with a 1
year warranty and it dies 2 years down the road, I have no one to
blame but myself.

>Are all of these things "caveat emptor"? How would you
>discourage manufacturers from cutting corners? Is reputation
>enough? Enough in view of investor short-termism? Do you
>want a market so paranoid that reputation is everything
>and hence closed to new entrants? (Europe?)

There are simple expectations that people should have before
purchasing anything. Anyone and everyone who buys coffee should be
well aware that it's hot, and even most toddlers know that hot things
can burn. Even if McD's coffee had been only 150F or so it could
still very easily burn someone if spilled in their lap.

>I don't much like punitive damages. But there is lots of slop
>in the legal system, particularly people who suffer in silence
>or get soaked by lawyers fees (IANAL) or silent because.
>The threat of punative damages are a counter-weight. How would
>you keep the corps mindful of the true loss they can cause in
>the face of a clear duty to maximize profit for shareholders?

This is one of the real problems with the "corporate veil", it removes
responsibility. However I don't think that the way to fight this is
by removing responsibility from consumers as well to the extent that
no one is properly responsible for anything. That's what we're seeing
in this case. McD's hiding behind the corporate veil so that no one
will be responsible for their coffee being hotter than other companies
coffee, and the woman is hiding behind her apparent right to ignorance
that hot coffee can burn.

In the end, all the money just ends up getting shuffled around into
lawyers pockets and neither the corporation or the consumers benefit.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

David Schwartz
September 3rd 04, 06:03 AM
"Tony Hill" > wrote in message
...

> It's a matter of expectations. I expect that my SUV will not roll
> over under normal driving conditions, but I am fully aware that if I
> push it to hard that it won't be able to handle it. Similarly I
> expect my coffee to be hot, but fully expect that if I dump the thing
> in my lap it will continue to be hot and burn me.

I don't think very many people would expect that spilling McDonald's
coffee on your lap could result in third degree burns requiring
hospitalization for 8 days and skin grafts.

> There are simple expectations that people should have before
> purchasing anything. Anyone and everyone who buys coffee should be
> well aware that it's hot, and even most toddlers know that hot things
> can burn. Even if McD's coffee had been only 150F or so it could
> still very easily burn someone if spilled in their lap.

That's not the point. The point is that because McDonald's coffee was
unusually hot, it caused unusually severe burns.

> This is one of the real problems with the "corporate veil", it removes
> responsibility. However I don't think that the way to fight this is
> by removing responsibility from consumers as well to the extent that
> no one is properly responsible for anything. That's what we're seeing
> in this case. McD's hiding behind the corporate veil so that no one
> will be responsible for their coffee being hotter than other companies
> coffee, and the woman is hiding behind her apparent right to ignorance
> that hot coffee can burn.

She never said she had no idea hot coffee could burn. She said she had
no idea that McDonald's coffee was so hot that it could cause third degree
burns. Frankly, I would not have thought that spilled coffee could cause
third degree burns either, but I never really thought about the case where
very fresh coffee spilled on a person who was in a confined space and so
couldn't easily get the hot liquid away from their skin.

This is a case about an unusually dangerous product that caused an
unusually severe injury.

DS

Robert Redelmeier
September 3rd 04, 03:00 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tony Hill > wrote:

> Similarly I expect my coffee to be hot, but fully expect
> that if I dump the thing in my lap it will continue to be
> hot and burn me.

Precisely! If I spill coffee on my lap, I expect to get burned
about the same as I was burned last time (typically a few years
ago). A first degree burn. I do not expect that the stuff is
30'F hotter so that it will give me a third-degree burn.

> This is one of the real problems with the "corporate veil",
> it removes responsibility. However I don't think that
> the way to fight this is by removing responsibility from
> consumers as well to the extent that no one is properly
> responsible for anything.

OK, that's fair enough. Then how would you pierce the
corporate veil? Jail the employees responsible for deciding
the thermostats should be set +30'F? Fine them into penury?
No problem, lots more people waiting for management jobs.
Competitive churn. Maybe pay them a very little more.

> In the end, all the money just ends up getting shuffled
> around into lawyers pockets and neither the corporation or
> the consumers benefit.

I don't much care what happens to the money. Perhaps punative
damages should be paid to the state, not the plaintiff.
The bigger question is how it changes people's behaviour.
The law is all about prevention. Punishment afterward does
damn little good.

These inflammatory awards do get on the corp risk-managers
radar screens. They start to factor in the cost of large
awards and the much larger reputational loss (Firestone)
into the risks they decide to take every day. I've seen it
at work, and believe it results in better decisions for all.

-- Robert

Wes Newell
September 3rd 04, 06:22 PM
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:14:12 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

> "Wes Newell" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>> We;re talking coffee here, not SUV's are anything complex. I'm certain
>> most 4 year olds know hot coffe will burn them. If they don't, their
>> parents should be horsewhipped.
>
> That's not the issue. The issue is whether the coffee was delivered at a
> significantly higher temperature than it should have been delivered and
> whether this 'defect' is responsible for the magnitude of the injury.
>
There was no defect in the coffee. The only defect was in the brain
of the stupid old woman that spilled the coffee on herself. The only thing
at issue here is wether any reasonable person would expect to get burned
if they spilled hot coffee on themselves and then sat there like a moron
and let it continue to burn them. Yes, any reasonable person would expect
to be burned IMO, and If I'm sitting on the jury, she gets nothing. I can
run my hand through a blow torch for a short period of time. Only an idiot
would leave it there and not expect to get burned.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

The Chief
September 3rd 04, 06:46 PM
Wes Newell wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:14:12 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>
>>"Wes Newell" > wrote in message
et...
>>
>>
>>>We;re talking coffee here, not SUV's are anything complex. I'm certain
>>>most 4 year olds know hot coffe will burn them. If they don't, their
>>>parents should be horsewhipped.
>>
>> That's not the issue. The issue is whether the coffee was delivered at a
>>significantly higher temperature than it should have been delivered and
>>whether this 'defect' is responsible for the magnitude of the injury.
>>
>
> There was no defect in the coffee. The only defect was in the brain
> of the stupid old woman that spilled the coffee on herself. The only thing
> at issue here is wether any reasonable person would expect to get burned
> if they spilled hot coffee on themselves and then sat there like a moron
> and let it continue to burn them. Yes, any reasonable person would expect
> to be burned IMO, and If I'm sitting on the jury, she gets nothing. I can
> run my hand through a blow torch for a short period of time. Only an idiot
> would leave it there and not expect to get burned.
>
Unfortunately you're also trying to communicate with a bunch of morons.
It seems the predominate U.S.A. mentality is they are not responsible
for their own action, the government is supposed to provide everything
to them free and they don't feel obligated to pay any kind of taxes to
support their government, and to sue anybody and everybody for anything
they can.

And to support all this, we fill our juries with morons that have the
same mindset!

Rob Stow
September 4th 04, 03:44 PM
David Schwartz wrote:
> "Tony Hill" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>It's a matter of expectations. I expect that my SUV will not roll
>>over under normal driving conditions, but I am fully aware that if I
>>push it to hard that it won't be able to handle it. Similarly I
>>expect my coffee to be hot, but fully expect that if I dump the thing
>>in my lap it will continue to be hot and burn me.
>
>
> I don't think very many people would expect that spilling McDonald's
> coffee on your lap could result in third degree burns requiring
> hospitalization for 8 days and skin grafts.
>
>
>>There are simple expectations that people should have before
>>purchasing anything. Anyone and everyone who buys coffee should be
>>well aware that it's hot, and even most toddlers know that hot things
>>can burn. Even if McD's coffee had been only 150F or so it could
>>still very easily burn someone if spilled in their lap.
>
>
> That's not the point. The point is that because McDonald's coffee was
> unusually hot, it caused unusually severe burns.
>
>
>>This is one of the real problems with the "corporate veil", it removes
>>responsibility. However I don't think that the way to fight this is
>>by removing responsibility from consumers as well to the extent that
>>no one is properly responsible for anything. That's what we're seeing
>>in this case. McD's hiding behind the corporate veil so that no one
>>will be responsible for their coffee being hotter than other companies
>>coffee, and the woman is hiding behind her apparent right to ignorance
>>that hot coffee can burn.
>
>
> She never said she had no idea hot coffee could burn. She said she had
> no idea that McDonald's coffee was so hot that it could cause third degree
> burns. Frankly, I would not have thought that spilled coffee could cause
> third degree burns either, but I never really thought about the case where
> very fresh coffee spilled on a person who was in a confined space and so
> couldn't easily get the hot liquid away from their skin.
>
> This is a case about an unusually dangerous product that caused an
> unusually severe injury.
>

Having coffee slosh over my hand for whatever reason
happens once in a while.

Everywhere else I've gotten coffee from it has just been
a matter of shrugging off a little pain from a mild scalding
and ten minutes later there is no visible sign on your hand
that anything ever happened.

However McDonald's coffee is so much hotter that it caused
blistering that took about two weeks to heal. No prolonged
exposure was necessary - and it is painful to think about
how much worse it would have been if I had spilled it
someplace where my clothing would have held the hot liquid
in place.

My reaction was simply to stop buying McDonald's coffee, but
I do have a *lot* of empathy for those who decided to sue.


--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

keith
September 4th 04, 05:36 PM
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:29:32 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips MyndPhlyp > wrote:
>> http://www.liberator.net/articles/VanderVeldeBruno/responsibility.html
>
> Very nice, but I wouldn't consider debridement to be required
> for "minor burns". Especially not on the vulva (ouch!)
>
> IMHO, Wikipedia is a bit more authoratative:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
>
> It _is_ an interesting question of responsibility:
>
> 1) coffee is customarily served at 150-160'F
> 2) McD coffee was deliberately served at 180-190'F
> (presumably for competitive advantage -- staying warm longer
> or to use cheaper coffee beans)

Competative advantage? Perhaps competative pressure. A friend had a
Dunkin' Donuts franchise and we were talking about this issue when it hit
the presses. They were *required* by franchise agreement to keep their
coffee at 180F +/- 3F. The corporate inspectors would show up unnanounced
and measure the temperature. They were heavily fined if it was
out-of-spec. Contrary to the claims in this thread 180F is not unusual for
coffee.

> 3) who is to blame for the resulting burns?

The ass that put the cup in their lap. Dunno about you, but I'm smart
enough not to get even 150F water near my johnson!

> The same question of responsibility arises in lots of cases, tire
> blowouts, vehicles catching fire, ...

One expects hot coffee. One doesn't expect tire blowouts and vehicles
catching fire *THESE DAYS*. There was a time where such was
reasonable. There has *always* been a time where hot water and private
parts don't mix.

> Maybe people in the computer field accept strict "caveat emptor" because
> the major software supplier(s) produce buggy products.

That much is obvious. The proof is that wee-Willie Gates has a roof over
his head. ;-)

--
Keith

keith
September 4th 04, 05:43 PM
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:59:10 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:18:39 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
> > wrote:

<snip>

>>Or closer to home -- some motherboards fail prematurely due
>>to low-quality capacitors leaking out.
>
> If my motherboard came with a 3 year warranty I would expect that it
> would last for those 3 years without failing. However I do recognize
> that after a certain period of time it WILL fail for one reason or
> another (be it capacitors, blow diodes, fried resistors or severe
> physical damage by my being frustrated with a slow, outdated
> computer). If I buy a cheap-ass motherboard that only came with a 1
> year warranty and it dies 2 years down the road, I have no one to
> blame but myself.

You equate the length of a warranty with life expectancy? I should
expect my truck to fail because the warranty just expired?

>>Are all of these things "caveat emptor"? How would you discourage
>>manufacturers from cutting corners? Is reputation enough? Enough in
>>view of investor short-termism? Do you want a market so paranoid that
>>reputation is everything and hence closed to new entrants? (Europe?)
>
> There are simple expectations that people should have before purchasing
> anything. Anyone and everyone who buys coffee should be well aware that
> it's hot, and even most toddlers know that hot things can burn. Even if
> McD's coffee had been only 150F or so it could still very easily burn
> someone if spilled in their lap.

Exactly!

>>I don't much like punitive damages. But there is lots of slop in the
>>legal system, particularly people who suffer in silence or get soaked by
>>lawyers fees (IANAL) or silent because. The threat of punative damages
>>are a counter-weight. How would you keep the corps mindful of the true
>>loss they can cause in the face of a clear duty to maximize profit for
>>shareholders?
>
> This is one of the real problems with the "corporate veil", it removes
> responsibility. However I don't think that the way to fight this is by
> removing responsibility from consumers as well to the extent that no one
> is properly responsible for anything. That's what we're seeing in this
> case. McD's hiding behind the corporate veil so that no one will be
> responsible for their coffee being hotter than other companies coffee,
> and the woman is hiding behind her apparent right to ignorance that hot
> coffee can burn.
>
> In the end, all the money just ends up getting shuffled around into
> lawyers pockets and neither the corporation or the consumers benefit.

That is the bigger issue. The littigation lottery costs us all big money.

I've been called to sit on civil jurries, but every time they had the good
sense to settle out-of-court. ;-)

--
Keith

Rob Stow
September 4th 04, 06:03 PM
keith wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:29:32 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>
>
>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips MyndPhlyp > wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.liberator.net/articles/VanderVeldeBruno/responsibility.html
>>
>>Very nice, but I wouldn't consider debridement to be required
>>for "minor burns". Especially not on the vulva (ouch!)
>>
>>IMHO, Wikipedia is a bit more authoratative:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
>>
>>It _is_ an interesting question of responsibility:
>>
>>1) coffee is customarily served at 150-160'F
>>2) McD coffee was deliberately served at 180-190'F
>> (presumably for competitive advantage -- staying warm longer
>> or to use cheaper coffee beans)
>
>
> Competative advantage? Perhaps competative pressure. A friend had a
> Dunkin' Donuts franchise and we were talking about this issue when it hit
> the presses. They were *required* by franchise agreement to keep their
> coffee at 180F +/- 3F. The corporate inspectors would show up unnanounced
> and measure the temperature. They were heavily fined if it was
> out-of-spec. Contrary to the claims in this thread 180F is not unusual for
> coffee.
>

There is no excuse for coffee that hot. It will be
interesting to see what happens if one of your friend's
customers needs a skin graft after spilling his coffee.
"I vas chust following orders" is not an acceptable
excuse for blatant stupidity so I would expect your
friend to be personally liable.

>
>>3) who is to blame for the resulting burns?
>
>
> The ass that put the cup in their lap. Dunno about you, but I'm smart
> enough not to get even 150F water near my johnson!

You've never had an accident ? Nobody has ever spilled
their coffee on you or caused you to spill yours on
yourself ?

And 150 or 160 degrees or is no big deal - you scream and
cuss and then you go home to change your clothes and the
event is soon forgotten. *THAT* is what people expect when
they spill their coffee. 180' coffee is an entirely different
story.

>
>
>>The same question of responsibility arises in lots of cases, tire
>>blowouts, vehicles catching fire, ...
>
>
> One expects hot coffee.

150 to 160 degree is plenty hot for coffee yet safe
if you spill it on yourself and that is what people
expect. 180 degrees is simply stupid and dangerous
and nobody expects that

> One doesn't expect tire blowouts and vehicles
> catching fire *THESE DAYS*. There was a time where such was
> reasonable. There has *always* been a time where hot water and private
> parts don't mix.
>
>
>>Maybe people in the computer field accept strict "caveat emptor" because
>>the major software supplier(s) produce buggy products.
>
>
> That much is obvious. The proof is that wee-Willie Gates has a roof over
> his head. ;-)
>


--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

Lee Waun
September 4th 04, 07:06 PM
"Yousuf Khan" > wrote in message
.rogers.com...
> Lee Waun wrote:
>>> Killfiling JK is no proof that you're pro-Intel or anti-AMD. :-)
>>>
>>> Yousuf Khan
>>>
>>
>> Yah but it sure makes the group easier to read.
>>
>> I hope Intel catches up to AMD tech wise but even if they don't I
>> won't buy AMD just to **** JK off.
>
> He's making AMDroids wanna go buy a Pentium.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>
He he He. Maybe he really is an Intel plant. Makes sense if you really
think about it. No one can really be as stupid as he seems to be. It has to
be an act to make AMD look bad. It is working too. :)

MyndPhlyp
September 4th 04, 07:28 PM
"Lee Waun" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> No one can really be as stupid as he seems to be.
>

Genius has its limitations, while stupidity knows no boundaries. :)

George Macdonald
September 5th 04, 12:59 AM
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:06:01 GMT, Wes Newell >
wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:37:36 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Wes Newell
>> > wrote:
>>> BS, Any coffee drinker knows that the water is boiling when brewed. I'd
>>> assume it to be freshly brewed at 212F,
>>
>> I wouldn't want to drink any of your coffee!
>
>I don't drink coffee, but that doesn't mean I've never brewed it or seen
>it brewed. And if I know it's hot as hell, she sure as hell should have.
>She was just plain stupid and didn't deserve a dime.
>
>> http://www.coffeeresearch.org/coffee/brewing.htm
>>
>> The water might _start_ out boiling, but the beans, apparatus and
>> contact with air cool it quite a bit.
>>
>So that's why there's a burner underneath the coffeepot, to cool it off.
>Christ man, you're making a fool of yourself. I said it was freshly brewed
>at 212F, not served at 212F. Freshly served, I'd expect what she got
>,180-190F.

Since you have admitted you don't drink coffee, it naturally follows that
you don't have a clue about making and drinking it: it should *not* be
brewed at 212F... something which seems to be done by the cheap coffee
joints to extract the maximum of what are actually undesirable components
from the cheap over-roasted beans they use. Good coffee requires a water
temp of ~195F max for the extraction step and by the time it's passed
through the apparatus used to prepare it and hit a cool jug it should be
close to the perfect drinking temp of 135-140F or preferably cooler... for
me personally. If "burners" are used to keep it hotter, they have nothing
to do with good coffee.

The fact is that, as admitted by the sellers, they are assuming that the
buyer is intending to take the just purchased coffee to an office where it
will be drunk 10-20mins later... apparently by someone who doesn't care
about the taste and likely thinks that slurping as a form of in-line
cooling is err, OK! Personally, I'm sick to death of finding that the
coffee I buy at a highway-stop is served scalding hot and in a styrofoam
cup which only serves to extend the waiting period before it becomes
drinkable... as a poor substitute for the real item.

The only question here is whether a cup of coffee as purchased is fit for
drinking, in fact not dangerously and unnecessarily hot... never mind
spilling, without risk of *serious* injury - obviously not! Nope - McD's
et.al. needs to err, cool it. Why don't they get the umm, message?...
insufficient economic penalty for their sins?? Hell the woman only wanted
her medical costs paid initially.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

keith
September 5th 04, 04:14 AM
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:03:38 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:

> keith wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:29:32 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips MyndPhlyp > wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.liberator.net/articles/VanderVeldeBruno/responsibility.html
>>>
>>>Very nice, but I wouldn't consider debridement to be required
>>>for "minor burns". Especially not on the vulva (ouch!)
>>>
>>>IMHO, Wikipedia is a bit more authoratative:
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
>>>
>>>It _is_ an interesting question of responsibility:
>>>
>>>1) coffee is customarily served at 150-160'F
>>>2) McD coffee was deliberately served at 180-190'F
>>> (presumably for competitive advantage -- staying warm longer
>>> or to use cheaper coffee beans)
>>
>>
>> Competative advantage? Perhaps competative pressure. A friend had a
>> Dunkin' Donuts franchise and we were talking about this issue when it hit
>> the presses. They were *required* by franchise agreement to keep their
>> coffee at 180F +/- 3F. The corporate inspectors would show up unnanounced
>> and measure the temperature. They were heavily fined if it was
>> out-of-spec. Contrary to the claims in this thread 180F is not unusual for
>> coffee.
>>
>
> There is no excuse for coffee that hot. It will be
> interesting to see what happens if one of your friend's
> customers needs a skin graft after spilling his coffee.
> "I vas chust following orders" is not an acceptable
> excuse for blatant stupidity so I would expect your
> friend to be personally liable.
>
>>
>>>3) who is to blame for the resulting burns?
>>
>>
>> The ass that put the cup in their lap. Dunno about you, but I'm smart
>> enough not to get even 150F water near my johnson!
>
> You've never had an accident ? Nobody has ever spilled
> their coffee on you or caused you to spill yours on
> yourself ?

Sure, but I don't *ASK* for it by putting a cup of hot water in my crotch
just *waiting* for the pain. Good grief, think man!
>
> And 150 or 160 degrees or is no big deal

You stick your dick in it! It's a big deal to me. I don't care if it's
150F or 180F, I'm not going to ask for such pain. Sure, I've spilled
coffee on myself, but I don't put the damned cup between my legs! Perhaps
you're that stupid, but I leaned hot water is *hot* when I was a wee
child.

> you scream and cuss and then
> you go home to change your clothes and the event is soon forgotten.

Certainly. I scream and curse *myself* for being so *stupid*. ...rather
like I do when I mash my thimb with a hammer. I don't run out ans sue
Stanleeey because they sold me a 20oz. hammer, when the "standard" hammer
is 16oz.

> *THAT* is what people expect when they spill their coffee. 180'
> coffee is an entirely different story.

YOu're worng. 180F coffee is perfectly normal. As I said above, Dunkin'
DOnuts *required* that their fhanchisees serve coffee at 180F +/- 3F at
that *same* time.

>>>The same question of responsibility arises in lots of cases, tire
>>>blowouts, vehicles catching fire, ...
>>
>>
>> One expects hot coffee.
>
> 150 to 160 degree is plenty hot for coffee yet safe if you spill it on
> yourself and that is what people expect. 180 degrees is simply stupid
> and dangerous and nobody expects that

You're simply wrong. 180F is a perfectly normal serving temperature for
coffee. Not that it matters much, you don't put 150F coffee in your
crotch either, I would suppose. I thought you were smarter than that
anyway.

>> One doesn't expect tire blowouts and
vehicles catching fire *THESE
>> DAYS*. There was a time where such was reasonable. There has *always*
>> been a time where hot water and private parts don't mix.
>>
>>
>>>Maybe people in the computer field accept strict "caveat emptor"
>>>because the major software supplier(s) produce buggy products.
>>
>>
>> That much is obvious. The proof is that wee-Willie Gates has a roof
>> over his head. ;-)
>>

You really need to re-think your blame-some/anyone-else-first socialistic
stance. Hot water is *hot*. Hammers impart much energy. One treats
both with respect. Putting coffee between one's legs and whacking one on
the forehead with a hammer are pretty much one and the same thing;
self-inflicted wounds.

"Ohhh, I hate it when that happens".

--
Keith

Rob Stow
September 5th 04, 07:00 AM
keith wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:03:38 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:
>
>
>>keith wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:29:32 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips MyndPhlyp > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.liberator.net/articles/VanderVeldeBruno/responsibility.html
>>>>
>>>>Very nice, but I wouldn't consider debridement to be required
>>>>for "minor burns". Especially not on the vulva (ouch!)
>>>>
>>>>IMHO, Wikipedia is a bit more authoratative:
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
>>>>
>>>>It _is_ an interesting question of responsibility:
>>>>
>>>>1) coffee is customarily served at 150-160'F
>>>>2) McD coffee was deliberately served at 180-190'F
>>>> (presumably for competitive advantage -- staying warm longer
>>>> or to use cheaper coffee beans)
>>>
>>>
>>>Competative advantage? Perhaps competative pressure. A friend had a
>>>Dunkin' Donuts franchise and we were talking about this issue when it hit
>>>the presses. They were *required* by franchise agreement to keep their
>>>coffee at 180F +/- 3F. The corporate inspectors would show up unnanounced
>>>and measure the temperature. They were heavily fined if it was
>>>out-of-spec. Contrary to the claims in this thread 180F is not unusual for
>>>coffee.
>>>
>>
>>There is no excuse for coffee that hot. It will be
>>interesting to see what happens if one of your friend's
>>customers needs a skin graft after spilling his coffee.
>>"I vas chust following orders" is not an acceptable
>>excuse for blatant stupidity so I would expect your
>>friend to be personally liable.
>>
>>
>>>>3) who is to blame for the resulting burns?
>>>
>>>
>>>The ass that put the cup in their lap. Dunno about you, but I'm smart
>>>enough not to get even 150F water near my johnson!
>>
>>You've never had an accident ? Nobody has ever spilled
>>their coffee on you or caused you to spill yours on
>>yourself ?
>
>
> Sure, but I don't *ASK* for it by putting a cup of hot water in my crotch
> just *waiting* for the pain. Good grief, think man!

What the heck is this obsession with coffee and your crotch ?
Everybody else in this thread is talking about coffee but
you keep talking about your dick.

>
>>And 150 or 160 degrees or is no big deal
>
>
> You stick your dick in it! It's a big deal to me. I don't care if it's
> 150F or 180F, I'm not going to ask for such pain. Sure, I've spilled
> coffee on myself, but I don't put the damned cup between my legs! Perhaps
> you're that stupid, but I leaned hot water is *hot* when I was a wee
> child.
>

Ok. So I'm in line at the drive in window at Tim Horton's
and the idiot behind me bumps my car just as I'm receiving
a cup of hot coffee from the cashier. And since you are
so obsessed with dicks, lets assume that is where the coffee
lands. I go home to clean myself up.

Meanwhile, 2000 miles away in Redneckistan you get bumped
while in line at McDonald's - and since you are so obsessed
with your crotch let's assume that is where the coffee lands.
Call me from the emergency room and tell me again that you
think 180' coffee wasn't an incredibly stupid idea from the
PHBs at Rotten Ronald's. And stop picking at those blisters,
damn it.

>
>>you scream and cuss and then
>>you go home to change your clothes and the event is soon forgotten.
>
>
> Certainly. I scream and curse *myself* for being so *stupid*. ...rather
> like I do when I mash my thimb with a hammer. I don't run out ans sue
> Stanleeey because they sold me a 20oz. hammer, when the "standard" hammer
> is 16oz.
>
>
>>*THAT* is what people expect when they spill their coffee. 180'
>>coffee is an entirely different story.
>
>
> YOu're worng. 180F coffee is perfectly normal. As I said above, Dunkin'
> DOnuts *required* that their fhanchisees serve coffee at 180F +/- 3F at
> that *same* time.
>

So McD's and Dunkin - two out of umpteen chains - require
there coffee to be served at 180'F. Hardly such a huge
preponderance of vendors that you can call their idiotic
practices the norm.

I regularly have coffee at many places - including the
big chains (at least in Canada) like 7-11, Mac's, Starbuck's,
Robin's Donuts, Tim Horton's, Burger King, A&W, Dairy Queen,
Smitty's, Boston's, and so on - and *none* of them serve their
coffee at a temperature anywhere near as high as McDonald's does.


>>>>The same question of responsibility arises in lots of cases, tire
>>>>blowouts, vehicles catching fire, ...
>>>
>>>
>>>One expects hot coffee.
>>
>>150 to 160 degree is plenty hot for coffee yet safe if you spill it on
>>yourself and that is what people expect. 180 degrees is simply stupid
>>and dangerous and nobody expects that
>
>
> You're simply wrong. 180F is a perfectly normal serving temperature for
> coffee. Not that it matters much, you don't put 150F coffee in your
> crotch either, I would suppose. I thought you were smarter than that
> anyway.
>
>

So if someone joggles your elbow and you get third degree
burns from spilling 180'F coffee down your chest that is
perfectly OK because your crotch wasn't involved ?


>>>One doesn't expect tire blowouts and
>
> vehicles catching fire *THESE
>
>>>DAYS*. There was a time where such was reasonable. There has *always*
>>>been a time where hot water and private parts don't mix.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe people in the computer field accept strict "caveat emptor"
>>>>because the major software supplier(s) produce buggy products.
>>>
>>>
>>>That much is obvious. The proof is that wee-Willie Gates has a roof
>>>over his head. ;-)
>>>
>
>
> You really need to re-think your blame-some/anyone-else-first socialistic
> stance. Hot water is *hot*. Hammers impart much energy. One treats
> both with respect. Putting coffee between one's legs and whacking one on
> the forehead with a hammer are pretty much one and the same thing;
> self-inflicted wounds.
>
> "Ohhh, I hate it when that happens".
>


--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

Rupert Pigott
September 5th 04, 10:54 AM
keith wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:03:38 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:
>
>
>>keith wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:29:32 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips MyndPhlyp > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.liberator.net/articles/VanderVeldeBruno/responsibility.html
>>>>
>>>>Very nice, but I wouldn't consider debridement to be required
>>>>for "minor burns". Especially not on the vulva (ouch!)
>>>>
>>>>IMHO, Wikipedia is a bit more authoratative:
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
>>>>
>>>>It _is_ an interesting question of responsibility:
>>>>
>>>>1) coffee is customarily served at 150-160'F
>>>>2) McD coffee was deliberately served at 180-190'F
>>>> (presumably for competitive advantage -- staying warm longer
>>>> or to use cheaper coffee beans)
>>>
>>>
>>>Competative advantage? Perhaps competative pressure. A friend had a
>>>Dunkin' Donuts franchise and we were talking about this issue when it hit
>>>the presses. They were *required* by franchise agreement to keep their
>>>coffee at 180F +/- 3F. The corporate inspectors would show up unnanounced
>>>and measure the temperature. They were heavily fined if it was
>>>out-of-spec. Contrary to the claims in this thread 180F is not unusual for
>>>coffee.
>>>
>>
>>There is no excuse for coffee that hot. It will be
>>interesting to see what happens if one of your friend's
>>customers needs a skin graft after spilling his coffee.
>>"I vas chust following orders" is not an acceptable
>>excuse for blatant stupidity so I would expect your
>>friend to be personally liable.
>>
>>
>>>>3) who is to blame for the resulting burns?
>>>
>>>
>>>The ass that put the cup in their lap. Dunno about you, but I'm smart
>>>enough not to get even 150F water near my johnson!
>>
>>You've never had an accident ? Nobody has ever spilled
>>their coffee on you or caused you to spill yours on
>>yourself ?
>
>
> Sure, but I don't *ASK* for it by putting a cup of hot water in my crotch
> just *waiting* for the pain. Good grief, think man!
>
>>And 150 or 160 degrees or is no big deal
>
>
> You stick your dick in it! It's a big deal to me. I don't care if it's
> 150F or 180F, I'm not going to ask for such pain. Sure, I've spilled
> coffee on myself, but I don't put the damned cup between my legs! Perhaps
> you're that stupid, but I leaned hot water is *hot* when I was a wee
> child.

Think about this : You've got your cup of superheated McD's coffee
in one hand and you are getting into your car. Just as you sit down
and you are carefully moving your superheated cup of coffee to a
place well away from your genitals some mother****er rear ends your
parked car and you end up with this unnecessarily hot cup of coffee
in your crotch anyways.

Sure you'd probably litigate against the careless driver, but if
you had any sense at all you'd litigate against the ****ers who
made coffee so hot that an incidient beyond your control boiled
your ********.

Superficially that case did sound stupid, but when the details did
actually emerge it appears McDs were being practically homicidal.

Cheers,
Rupert

Robert Redelmeier
September 5th 04, 05:39 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
> Certainly. I scream and curse *myself* for being so
> *stupid*. ...rather like I do when I mash my thimb with
> a hammer. I don't run out ans sue Stanleeey because they
> sold me a 20oz. hammer, when the "standard" hammer is 16oz.

Ah, but when you bought that 20oz, there were almost certainly
16oz'ers present, and that 20oz may have even been called
"heravyweight" or "hefty" or "supersized".

I'd have no problem if McD (and Dunkin' apparently at that
time) were to say "We serve our coffee hotter than normal
so you can enjoy it longer" or some other such warning that
there was an unusual hazard.

It's _hidden_ hazards that I decry.

-- Robert

Wes Newell
September 5th 04, 06:13 PM
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 06:00:55 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:

> Ok. So I'm in line at the drive in window at Tim Horton's
> and the idiot behind me bumps my car just as I'm receiving
> a cup of hot coffee from the cashier. And since you are
> so obsessed with dicks, lets assume that is where the coffee
> lands. I go home to clean myself up.
>
> Meanwhile, 2000 miles away in Redneckistan you get bumped
> while in line at McDonald's - and since you are so obsessed
> with your crotch let's assume that is where the coffee lands.
> Call me from the emergency room and tell me again that you
> think 180' coffee wasn't an incredibly stupid idea from the
> PHBs at Rotten Ronald's. And stop picking at those blisters,
> damn it.
>
Well, since the coffee was used for something other than what it was
intended for it doesn't matter who sold it to you, as the person that
caused the acident would be liable for any damage. Not the person that
sold the coffee to you, the pubic water works for providing the water
since they know it can be used dangerously if heated, the maker of the cup
since they know it's made to hold a dangerous substance. Maybe the auto
companys since you were in their vehicles and they didn't warn you not to
drink hot coffee in the car. Now, just how ****ing stupid are you?

> So McD's and Dunkin - two out of umpteen chains - require there coffee
> to be served at 180'F. Hardly such a huge preponderance of vendors that
> you can call their idiotic practices the norm.
>

And I suppose you know what temps all the little coffee shops around the
US sell their coffee at? And on top of that, it doesn't matter IMO. Hot is
hot. Would you jump into a bathtub filled with 160F hot water> How about
130FF. The 160F would scold you. And the 130F would come close to it

> I regularly have coffee at many places - including the big chains (at
> least in Canada) like 7-11, Mac's, Starbuck's, Robin's Donuts, Tim
> Horton's, Burger King, A&W, Dairy Queen, Smitty's, Boston's, and so on -
> and *none* of them serve their coffee at a temperature anywhere near as
> high as McDonald's does.
>
Don't like it? You don't have to buy it. Seems simple enough to me.

> So if someone joggles your elbow and you get third degree burns from
> spilling 180'F coffee down your chest that is perfectly OK because your
> crotch wasn't involved ?
>
No, but you don't sue the person that sold you the coffee. You sue the
person that bumped you. If someone driving a Chevy hits your car and
causes damage, do you sue chevy for allowing this person to drive a car
it made. Rediculous, just like everything else you've said.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Rob Stow
September 5th 04, 10:25 PM
Wes Newell wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 06:00:55 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:
>
>
>>Ok. So I'm in line at the drive in window at Tim Horton's
>>and the idiot behind me bumps my car just as I'm receiving
>>a cup of hot coffee from the cashier. And since you are
>>so obsessed with dicks, lets assume that is where the coffee
>>lands. I go home to clean myself up.
>>
>>Meanwhile, 2000 miles away in Redneckistan you get bumped
>>while in line at McDonald's - and since you are so obsessed
>>with your crotch let's assume that is where the coffee lands.
>>Call me from the emergency room and tell me again that you
>>think 180' coffee wasn't an incredibly stupid idea from the
>>PHBs at Rotten Ronald's. And stop picking at those blisters,
>>damn it.
>>
>
> Well, since the coffee was used for something other than what it was
> intended for it doesn't matter who sold it to you, as the person that
> caused the acident would be liable for any damage. Not the person that
> sold the coffee to you, the pubic water works for providing the water
> since they know it can be used dangerously if heated, the maker of the cup
> since they know it's made to hold a dangerous substance. Maybe the auto
> companys since you were in their vehicles and they didn't warn you not to
> drink hot coffee in the car. Now, just how ****ing stupid are you?
>
>
>>So McD's and Dunkin - two out of umpteen chains - require there coffee
>>to be served at 180'F. Hardly such a huge preponderance of vendors that
>>you can call their idiotic practices the norm.
>>
>
>
> And I suppose you know what temps all the little coffee shops around the
> US sell their coffee at?

Nope, but I do remember that at the time of the first
McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit there was evidence filed
showing that at 181'F the McDonald's coffee was more than
20'F hotter than what was sold by anyone else in that city.

> And on top of that, it doesn't matter IMO. Hot is hot.

That's bull**** and you know it. The degree of
hotness makes a huge difference. Hotter coffee has
both more energy to transfer to the skin and a
higher thermal transfer rate.

Would you jump into a bathtub filled with 160F hot water> How about
> 130FF. The 160F would scold you. And the 130F would come close to it

160'F water can scald if the exposure is long enough.
A scolding would have to come from some other source.
With a typical coffee spill the exposure is NOT long
enough. At 180'F there is both a lot more energy in the
coffee and the thermal transfer rate -

The hot water out of my kitchen tap is 160'F. It
stings when I am rinsing dishes after washing them,
but it is easy to live with when you know it is only
for a second or two at a time.

I have been in a 53'C hot tub a few times - about 127'F.
However, I can't take that for more than a minute or two
unless the hot tub is outdoors on a nice cold -30'C night.
Not painful at all except when you periodically dunk your
head to get rid of the ice that builds up in your hair.
Quite exhilarating. People who are used to it - such as
the owners of said hot tub - can take it for twenty minutes.


>
>
>>I regularly have coffee at many places - including the big chains (at
>>least in Canada) like 7-11, Mac's, Starbuck's, Robin's Donuts, Tim
>>Horton's, Burger King, A&W, Dairy Queen, Smitty's, Boston's, and so on -
>>and *none* of them serve their coffee at a temperature anywhere near as
>>high as McDonald's does.
>>
>
> Don't like it? You don't have to buy it. Seems simple enough to me.

S'matter of fact I don't buy McDonald's coffee anymore -
not since what should have been a non-event ordinary
coffee spill put blisters on my hand that lasted two weeks.

>
>
>>So if someone joggles your elbow and you get third degree burns from
>>spilling 180'F coffee down your chest that is perfectly OK because your
>>crotch wasn't involved ?
>>
>
> No, but you don't sue the person that sold you the coffee. You sue the
> person that bumped you. If someone driving a Chevy hits your car and
> causes damage, do you sue chevy for allowing this person to drive a car
> it made. Rediculous, just like everything else you've said.
>

I didn't propose that anyone sue anyone else.
The only point I've been trying to make is that 180'F is
incredibly stupid for coffee. It exposes the customers -
and the servers, for that matter - to the risk of
unnecessarily severe burns when accidents happen as they
inevitably will. And nobody has posted anything yet that
suggests that there are any benefits to 180'F coffee that
come close to justifying the risks.


--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

Locutus
September 5th 04, 11:05 PM
>
> I didn't propose that anyone sue anyone else.
> The only point I've been trying to make is that 180'F is
> incredibly stupid for coffee. It exposes the customers -
> and the servers, for that matter - to the risk of
> unnecessarily severe burns when accidents happen as they
> inevitably will. And nobody has posted anything yet that
> suggests that there are any benefits to 180'F coffee that
> come close to justifying the risks.
>
>
> --
> Reply to
> Do not remove anything.

im in the food service business
and most places their coffee is served at +\- 192 deg F

so 180 is cold

The Chief
September 5th 04, 11:29 PM
>>I didn't propose that anyone sue anyone else.
>>The only point I've been trying to make is that 180'F is
>>incredibly stupid for coffee. It exposes the customers -
>>and the servers, for that matter - to the risk of
>>unnecessarily severe burns when accidents happen as they
>>inevitably will. And nobody has posted anything yet that
>>suggests that there are any benefits to 180'F coffee that
>>come close to justifying the risks.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Reply to
>>Do not remove anything.
>
>
> im in the food service business
> and most places their coffee is served at +\- 192 deg F
>
> so 180 is cold
>

The incredibly stupid individuals are the ones trying to justify their
own stupidity. The vast majority of comments posted to this thread have
done nothing to demonstrate any logic or intelligence. They're only
trying to justify their own ignorance and stupidity, and why they should
blame someone else for their inability to take responsibility for their
own actions!

My mother, and other relatives, taught me when I was very young that hot
things burn. So, no matter where I purchased a hot cup of coffee I was
fully aware it had the capability to burn me and if I spilt it on
myself! It was my fault if I did, not someone else's!

Water boils at 212F or 100C. So, when you brew a pot of coffee at home
the water that is run over the coffee grounds is initially 212F! Do you
test it and wait until it is 130F before you drink it? I don't! It
would be like drinking **** water at that point. But, I don pour it on
my lap either!

So, if 180F is incredibly stupid for coffee, then it must be
Fahrenheit's fault for devising a temperature scale that indicated 212F
was the boiling point of water!

The Chief
September 5th 04, 11:37 PM
Locutus wrote:

>>I didn't propose that anyone sue anyone else.
>>The only point I've been trying to make is that 180'F is
>>incredibly stupid for coffee. It exposes the customers -
>>and the servers, for that matter - to the risk of
>>unnecessarily severe burns when accidents happen as they
>>inevitably will. And nobody has posted anything yet that
>>suggests that there are any benefits to 180'F coffee that
>>come close to justifying the risks.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Reply to
>>Do not remove anything.
>
>
> im in the food service business
> and most places their coffee is served at +\- 192 deg F
>
> so 180 is cold
>
>
The incredibly stupid individuals are the ones trying to justify their
own stupidity. The vast majority of comments posted to this thread have
done nothing to demonstrate any logic or intelligence. They're only
trying to justify their own ignorance and stupidity, and why they should
blame someone else for their inability to take responsibility for their
own actions!

My mother, and other relatives, taught me when I was very young that hot
things burn. So, no matter where I purchased a hot cup of coffee I was
fully aware it had the capability to burn me and if I spilt it on myself
it was my fault and not someone else's!

Water boils at 212F or 100C. So, when you brew a pot of coffee at home
the water that is run over the coffee grounds is initially 212F! Do you
test it and wait until it is 130F before you drink it? I don't! It
would be like drinking **** water at that point. But, I don't pour it
on my lap either!

So, if 180F is incredibly stupid for coffee, then it must be
Fahrenheit's fault for devising a temperature scale that indicated 212F
was the boiling point of water!

Locutus
September 6th 04, 12:00 AM
> >
> > im in the food service business
> > and most places their coffee is served at +\- 192 deg F
> >
> > so 180 is cold
> >
> >
> The incredibly stupid individuals are the ones trying to justify their
> own stupidity. The vast majority of comments posted to this thread have
> done nothing to demonstrate any logic or intelligence. They're only
> trying to justify their own ignorance and stupidity, and why they should
> blame someone else for their inability to take responsibility for their
> own actions!





I was not on any side here
just stating a fact

also I typo'd

it should have said 192 +/- 3 deg

Rupert Pigott
September 6th 04, 12:04 AM
The Chief wrote:
>>> I didn't propose that anyone sue anyone else.
>>> The only point I've been trying to make is that 180'F is
>>> incredibly stupid for coffee. It exposes the customers -
>>> and the servers, for that matter - to the risk of
>>> unnecessarily severe burns when accidents happen as they
>>> inevitably will. And nobody has posted anything yet that
>>> suggests that there are any benefits to 180'F coffee that
>>> come close to justifying the risks.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Reply to
>>> Do not remove anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> im in the food service business
>> and most places their coffee is served at +\- 192 deg F
>>
>> so 180 is cold
>>
>
> The incredibly stupid individuals are the ones trying to justify their
> own stupidity. The vast majority of comments posted to this thread have
> done nothing to demonstrate any logic or intelligence. They're only
> trying to justify their own ignorance and stupidity, and why they should
> blame someone else for their inability to take responsibility for their
> own actions!
>
> My mother, and other relatives, taught me when I was very young that hot
> things burn. So, no matter where I purchased a hot cup of coffee I was
> fully aware it had the capability to burn me and if I spilt it on
> myself! It was my fault if I did, not someone else's!
>
> Water boils at 212F or 100C. So, when you brew a pot of coffee at home
> the water that is run over the coffee grounds is initially 212F! Do you

Not in this house : It wrecks the flavour. Apparently the ideal temp
somewhere around 90C.

> test it and wait until it is 130F before you drink it? I don't! It
> would be like drinking **** water at that point. But, I don pour it on
> my lap either!

You make it sound like it's a voluntary action. It might not be...

Someone might knocks your elbow.
Perhaps there's a small earthquake.
Perhaps something falling displaces the cup into your lap.
.... The list goes on ...
Maybe your grip on the cup simply is not good enough...

Watch people picking up super-hot beverages in disposable containers.
Sometimes you will see their grip readjust rapidly (risking spillage)
because their fingertips are getting burnt... That's just stupidity in
action, too hot to drink, too hot to handle, and too damn hot as far
as flavour goes.


Cheers,
Rupert

Rob Stow
September 6th 04, 01:24 AM
Locutus wrote:

>>I didn't propose that anyone sue anyone else.
>>The only point I've been trying to make is that 180'F is
>>incredibly stupid for coffee. It exposes the customers -
>>and the servers, for that matter - to the risk of
>>unnecessarily severe burns when accidents happen as they
>>inevitably will. And nobody has posted anything yet that
>>suggests that there are any benefits to 180'F coffee that
>>come close to justifying the risks.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Reply to
>>Do not remove anything.
>
>
> im in the food service business
> and most places their coffee is served at +\- 192 deg F
>
> so 180 is cold
>
>

Bull****. At 192'F you would be waiting until
hell freezes over before the coffee was cool enough
to drink. The fact of the matter is that just about
every where you go the coffee is cool enough for at
least small sips as soon as it is poured into your
cup.


--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

Locutus
September 6th 04, 01:26 AM
"Rob Stow" > wrote in message news:[email protected]
> Locutus wrote:
>
> >>I didn't propose that anyone sue anyone else.
> >>The only point I've been trying to make is that 180'F is
> >>incredibly stupid for coffee. It exposes the customers -
> >>and the servers, for that matter - to the risk of
> >>unnecessarily severe burns when accidents happen as they
> >>inevitably will. And nobody has posted anything yet that
> >>suggests that there are any benefits to 180'F coffee that
> >>come close to justifying the risks.
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Reply to
> >>Do not remove anything.
> >
> >
> > im in the food service business
> > and most places their coffee is served at +\- 192 deg F
> >
> > so 180 is cold
> >
> >
>
> Bull****. At 192'F you would be waiting until
> hell freezes over before the coffee was cool enough
> to drink. The fact of the matter is that just about
> every where you go the coffee is cool enough for at
> least small sips as soon as it is poured into your
> cup.




go to starbucks and ask or go anywhere and ask
you are clueless

keith
September 6th 04, 01:59 AM
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 10:54:44 +0100, Rupert Pigott wrote:

> keith wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:03:38 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>keith wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:29:32 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips MyndPhlyp > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.liberator.net/articles/VanderVeldeBruno/responsibility.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Very nice, but I wouldn't consider debridement to be required
>>>>>for "minor burns". Especially not on the vulva (ouch!)
>>>>>
>>>>>IMHO, Wikipedia is a bit more authoratative:
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
>>>>>
>>>>>It _is_ an interesting question of responsibility:
>>>>>
>>>>>1) coffee is customarily served at 150-160'F
>>>>>2) McD coffee was deliberately served at 180-190'F
>>>>> (presumably for competitive advantage -- staying warm longer
>>>>> or to use cheaper coffee beans)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Competative advantage? Perhaps competative pressure. A friend had a
>>>>Dunkin' Donuts franchise and we were talking about this issue when it hit
>>>>the presses. They were *required* by franchise agreement to keep their
>>>>coffee at 180F +/- 3F. The corporate inspectors would show up unnanounced
>>>>and measure the temperature. They were heavily fined if it was
>>>>out-of-spec. Contrary to the claims in this thread 180F is not unusual for
>>>>coffee.
>>>>
>>>
>>>There is no excuse for coffee that hot. It will be
>>>interesting to see what happens if one of your friend's
>>>customers needs a skin graft after spilling his coffee.
>>>"I vas chust following orders" is not an acceptable
>>>excuse for blatant stupidity so I would expect your
>>>friend to be personally liable.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>3) who is to blame for the resulting burns?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The ass that put the cup in their lap. Dunno about you, but I'm smart
>>>>enough not to get even 150F water near my johnson!
>>>
>>>You've never had an accident ? Nobody has ever spilled
>>>their coffee on you or caused you to spill yours on
>>>yourself ?
>>
>>
>> Sure, but I don't *ASK* for it by putting a cup of hot water in my crotch
>> just *waiting* for the pain. Good grief, think man!
>>
>>>And 150 or 160 degrees or is no big deal
>>
>>
>> You stick your dick in it! It's a big deal to me. I don't care if it's
>> 150F or 180F, I'm not going to ask for such pain. Sure, I've spilled
>> coffee on myself, but I don't put the damned cup between my legs! Perhaps
>> you're that stupid, but I leaned hot water is *hot* when I was a wee
>> child.
>
> Think about this : You've got your cup of superheated McD's coffee

You really do like to *lie*, don't you Rupert. You know as well as I do
that the coffee in question was in *no* way "superheated" (a term that is
very well defined). 180F does not fit *any* definiton of "superheated".
Hot, sure, but that's what the customer (*me*) demands.

> in one hand and you are getting into your car. Just as you sit down and
> you are carefully moving your superheated
^^^^^^^^^^^-- there's that lie again.

> cup of coffee to a place well
> away from your genitals some mother****er rear ends your parked car and
> you end up with this unnecessarily hot cup of coffee in your crotch
> anyways.

....and according to everythign you've written in the past six months,
"it's George Bush's fault", eh?

> Sure you'd probably litigate against the careless driver, but if you had
> any sense at all you'd litigate against the ****ers who made coffee so
> hot that an incidient beyond your control boiled your ********.

SPeak for yourself! I would no longer litigate against the driver, nor
Mackie-D's as long as I was made whole. Litigation is for losers. It
makes everyone poorer, other than the lawyers.

> Superficially that case did sound stupid, but when the details did
> actually emerge it appears McDs were being practically homicidal.

I would expect this attitude from a slave to the state. Here in the US
some of us ae trying to get people stand on their own feet.

--
Keith

keith
September 6th 04, 02:08 AM
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:29:43 -0400, The Chief wrote:

>>>I didn't propose that anyone sue anyone else.
>>>The only point I've been trying to make is that 180'F is
>>>incredibly stupid for coffee. It exposes the customers -
>>>and the servers, for that matter - to the risk of
>>>unnecessarily severe burns when accidents happen as they
>>>inevitably will. And nobody has posted anything yet that
>>>suggests that there are any benefits to 180'F coffee that
>>>come close to justifying the risks.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Reply to
>>>Do not remove anything.
>>
>>
>> im in the food service business
>> and most places their coffee is served at +\- 192 deg F
>>
>> so 180 is cold
>>
>
> The incredibly stupid individuals are the ones trying to justify their
> own stupidity.

Blame *must* be placed. ...elsewhere! Honest people will accept the
blame and assume the *responsibility* for their mistakes. Only the
terminally stupid (and otherwise French) blame others for personal faults.

> The vast majority of comments posted to this thread have
> done nothing to demonstrate any logic or intelligence. They're only
> trying to justify their own ignorance and stupidity, and why they should
> blame someone else for their inability to take responsibility for their
> own actions!

Agreed! Hot water burns! If you can't deal with it, get an iced latte
from Dn' D. I'm just waiting for a frost-bite suit here.

> My mother, and other relatives, taught me when I was very young that hot
> things burn. So, no matter where I purchased a hot cup of coffee I was
> fully aware it had the capability to burn me and if I spilt it on
> myself! It was my fault if I did, not someone else's!

Exactly. However the liberal poofs believe that there is no such thing as
"personal responsibility", whether it be hot water, or raising children.

> Water boils at 212F or 100C. So, when you brew a pot of coffee at home
> the water that is run over the coffee grounds is initially 212F! Do you
> test it and wait until it is 130F before you drink it? I don't! It
> would be like drinking **** water at that point. But, I don pour it on
> my lap either!

> So, if 180F is incredibly stupid for coffee, then it must be
> Fahrenheit's fault for devising a temperature scale that indicated 212F
> was the boiling point of water!

As I've said in may of these arguments; 180F is a *normal* serving
temperature for coffee. Of course after this crap started we started
seeing stickers on brewers such as "coffee served at hot temperatures". I
think this says it all. ...the illiterate and the stupid.

--
Keith

keith
September 6th 04, 02:16 AM
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:39:51 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>> Certainly. I scream and curse *myself* for being so
>> *stupid*. ...rather like I do when I mash my thimb with
>> a hammer. I don't run out ans sue Stanleeey because they
>> sold me a 20oz. hammer, when the "standard" hammer is 16oz.
>
> Ah, but when you bought that 20oz, there were almost certainly
> 16oz'ers present, and that 20oz may have even been called
> "heravyweight" or "hefty" or "supersized".

There are at Mickie-D's too! They even sell 8-ox cups, for some strange
and unkown reason! (it takes 16ox. to even wake up enough to taste the
coffee). BTW, McD's coffee sucks. D-n-D's is barely drinkable.

BTW, a 20oz faming hammer is rather standard at HomeDespot, even 24oz. I
simply can't wait for John Edwards to figure out how dangerous these
places really are!

> I'd have no problem if McD (and Dunkin' apparently at that time) were to
> say "We serve our coffee hotter than normal so you can enjoy it longer"
> or some other such warning that there was an unusual hazard.
>
> It's _hidden_ hazards that I decry.

But he hazard is *not* hidden. I surely hope your mother didn't raise you
to be stupid enough to put *any* coffee cup in your crotch. ...and I
thought you to be the "reasonable man".

--
Keith

keith
September 6th 04, 02:19 AM
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 06:00:55 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:

> keith wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:03:38 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:
>>

>>
>> Sure, but I don't *ASK* for it by putting a cup of hot water in my crotch
>> just *waiting* for the pain. Good grief, think man!
>
> What the heck is this obsession with coffee and your crotch ?

If you have to ask this question, you are *NOT* paying attention. GO read
the thread (and links) again. I'm sure you'll figure it out the second
time through.

--
Keith

Wes Newell
September 6th 04, 07:43 AM
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:24:31 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:

> Bull****. At 192'F you would be waiting until
> hell freezes over before the coffee was cool enough
> to drink. The fact of the matter is that just about
> every where you go the coffee is cool enough for at
> least small sips as soon as it is poured into your
> cup.

Talking about BS, The few times I've drank coffee in th last 40years, I've
always, and I mean always, had to put ice cubes in it to cool it down.
Probably wouldn.t need to if I used cream or milk. But screw those people,
serve it colder so when they add add cream and suger and stir it up it
will be cold.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Rupert Pigott
September 6th 04, 09:17 AM
keith wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 10:54:44 +0100, Rupert Pigott wrote:

[SNIP]

>>Think about this : You've got your cup of superheated McD's coffee
>
>
> You really do like to *lie*, don't you Rupert. You know as well as I do

It's called humour. I figure you're attacking it because you actually
have no valid response to the core argument in this post.

> that the coffee in question was in *no* way "superheated" (a term that is
> very well defined). 180F does not fit *any* definiton of "superheated".
> Hot, sure, but that's what the customer (*me*) demands.
>
>
>>in one hand and you are getting into your car. Just as you sit down and
>>you are carefully moving your superheated
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^-- there's that lie again.

Oh blimey ! Humour isn't allowed by decree of Keith.

>>cup of coffee to a place well
>>away from your genitals some mother****er rear ends your parked car and
>>you end up with this unnecessarily hot cup of coffee in your crotch
>>anyways.
>
>
> ...and according to everythign you've written in the past six months,
> "it's George Bush's fault", eh?

Jeez, that *is* desperate. You managed to combine a an ad hominem
attack, non sequitur and a strawman all in one. I'm betting that
yout post is entirely content free.

>>Sure you'd probably litigate against the careless driver, but if you had
>>any sense at all you'd litigate against the ****ers who made coffee so
>>hot that an incidient beyond your control boiled your ********.
>
>
> SPeak for yourself! I would no longer litigate against the driver, nor
> Mackie-D's as long as I was made whole. Litigation is for losers. It
> makes everyone poorer, other than the lawyers.

You must be the most tolerant driver I know. Most people take some
kind of action when a collision occurs. Somehow I doubt you get out
of your car and shake hands with them, then pay full whack for the
repairs out of your own pocket.

>>Superficially that case did sound stupid, but when the details did
>>actually emerge it appears McDs were being practically homicidal.
>
>
> I would expect this attitude from a slave to the state. Here in the US
> some of us ae trying to get people stand on their own feet.

I don't really know why you bothered making a pretence of posting a
resopnse as you didn't tackle the argument I presented at all. The
personal attacks you presented in place of any kind of rational
argument were lame at best. I've heard better come from the lips of
a 5 year old.


Cheers,
Rupert

keith
September 6th 04, 01:20 PM
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 09:17:11 +0100, Rupert Pigott wrote:

> keith wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 10:54:44 +0100, Rupert Pigott wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>>>Think about this : You've got your cup of superheated McD's coffee
>>
>>
>> You really do like to *lie*, don't you Rupert. You know as well as I do
>
> It's called humour. I figure you're attacking it because you actually
> have no valid response to the core argument in this post.

I guess you call a lie "humor", after you're caught. There was no humor
there, not even quotation marks around "superheated".

>> that the coffee in question was in *no* way "superheated" (a term that
>> is very well defined). 180F does not fit *any* definiton of
>> "superheated". Hot, sure, but that's what the customer (*me*) demands.
>>
>>
>>>in one hand and you are getting into your car. Just as you sit down and
>>>you are carefully moving your superheated
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^-- there's that lie again.
>
> Oh blimey ! Humour isn't allowed by decree of Keith.

....another lie.

>>>cup of coffee to a place well
>>>away from your genitals some mother****er rear ends your parked car and
>>>you end up with this unnecessarily hot cup of coffee in your crotch
>>>anyways.
>>
>>
>> ...and according to everythign you've written in the past six months,
>> "it's George Bush's fault", eh?
>
> Jeez, that *is* desperate. You managed to combine a an ad hominem
> attack, non sequitur and a strawman all in one. I'm betting that yout
> post is entirely content free.

Nope, just bringing up the recent posting history as evidence of a
looser-leftie.

>>>Sure you'd probably litigate against the careless driver, but if you
>>>had any sense at all you'd litigate against the ****ers who made coffee
>>>so hot that an incidient beyond your control boiled your ********.
>>
>>
>> SPeak for yourself! I would no longer litigate against the driver, nor
>> Mackie-D's as long as I was made whole. Litigation is for losers. It
>> makes everyone poorer, other than the lawyers.
>
> You must be the most tolerant driver I know. Most people take some kind
> of action when a collision occurs. Somehow I doubt you get out of your
> car and shake hands with them, then pay full whack for the repairs out
> of your own pocket.

Nope, I do what all reasonable people do. Swap insurance cards and move
on. ...no reason for road-rage. ...no reason to call in the
ambulance-chasers.

>>>Superficially that case did sound stupid, but when the details did
>>>actually emerge it appears McDs were being practically homicidal.
>>
>>
>> I would expect this attitude from a slave to the state. Here in the US
>> some of us ae trying to get people stand on their own feet.
>
> I don't really know why you bothered making a pretence of posting a
> resopnse as you didn't tackle the argument I presented at all. The
> personal attacks you presented in place of any kind of rational argument
> were lame at best. I've heard better come from the lips of a 5 year old.

My, you lefty-loosers do like to lie.

--
Keith

The Chief
September 6th 04, 03:47 PM
Rupert Pigott wrote:
> Not in this house : It wrecks the flavour. Apparently the ideal temp
> somewhere around 90C.
>
> Cheers,
> Rupert
>
And if you took the time to calculate the equivalent temperature you
would find that it is almost exactly 194F!!!!

Wes Newell
September 6th 04, 06:48 PM
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 08:20:30 -0400, keith wrote:

> Nope, I do what all reasonable people do. Swap insurance cards and move
> on. ...no reason for road-rage. ...no reason to call in the
> ambulance-chasers.
>
But sadly you will still have to file suit later. I know this from
experience. Twice in the last 15 years I was in a severe car accidents.
The first I was rear ended by a woman putting on makeup while driving. The
second was almost a headon when a chinese national driving an Avis rental
car ran a left turn light into me. Both times I just asked for damages
and medical expensives. Both time they offered about 50% of that. I had to
sue both times. In the end they ended up spending 4 times what I had
originally asked for. So why do they do this? Simple,. Most people need
the money to purchase a new car, pay the bills, etc., and are desperate
for money, and take what they can get. I guess I was one of the few that
wasn't. And when I contacted my insurance agent (also a friend), he told
me I'd have to sue Avis to get the money. He siad they were one of the
worst ones using these kind of tactics and never pay/settle until they've
been sued. I pay cash for new cars just so I don't have to get collision
insurance. I could go on and on with examples, but I'm ready to drop all
this and get back on topic.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Rupert Pigott
September 6th 04, 07:08 PM
keith wrote:

[SNIP]

> My, you lefty-loosers do like to lie.

Being an ignorant prat leaves you few chances for redemption.

The only one that comes to mind right now is that you could
improve yourself by sucking on the end of a loaded 12 guage
as you pull the trigger.

Best Wishes,
Rupert

Rupert Pigott
September 6th 04, 07:13 PM
The Chief wrote:
> Rupert Pigott wrote:
>
>> Not in this house : It wrecks the flavour. Apparently the ideal temp
>> somewhere around 90C.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rupert
>>
> And if you took the time to calculate the equivalent temperature you
> would find that it is almost exactly 194F!!!!

Let us review the two sentences I was responding to that you snipped :

"Water boils at 212F or 100C. So, when you brew a pot of coffee at home
the water that is run over the coffee grounds is initially 212F!"

So ~90C is the temp I aim at when I'm *brewing* the coffee, I serve it
cooler. I never saw the point in burnt finger tips.

Cheers,
Rupert

Robert Redelmeier
September 7th 04, 12:48 AM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
> But the hazard is *not* hidden.

The extent of it is. If it's horribly worse (third degree
burns) than expected for the same incident (it wasn't a full
carafe spilled) then that additional hazard _is_ hidden.

> I surely hope your mother didn't raise you to be stupid
> enough to put *any* coffee cup in your crotch.

Of course not! However, the risks I will take while handling
coffee are based on my perceived hazards of accidents.
I handle sulfuric acid much more carefully than coffee.
It costs time, but the conseuqneces are so much worse that
the time is well spent.

> ...and I thought you to be the "reasonable man".

Thanks. And the exception proves the rule!
Misery is moderation in excess.
Happiness is excess in moderation.

-- Robert

keith
September 7th 04, 04:25 AM
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:48:43 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 08:20:30 -0400, keith wrote:
>
>> Nope, I do what all reasonable people do. Swap insurance cards and move
>> on. ...no reason for road-rage. ...no reason to call in the
>> ambulance-chasers.
>>
> But sadly you will still have to file suit later. I know this from
> experience. Twice in the last 15 years I was in a severe car accidents.
> The first I was rear ended by a woman putting on makeup while driving. The
> second was almost a headon when a chinese national driving an Avis rental
> car ran a left turn light into me. Both times I just asked for damages
> and medical expensives.

I've had several accidents. In each case I've been taken care of by
*my* insurance. They might have sued the others, but didn't because the
insurance companies got it all together. The best reason not to go cheap
on insurance.

I was once hit by an uninsured motorist (ran stop-sign, no license, no
insurance, swapped plates, DWAI, and on parole from the state penn; can I
pick 'em or what?). I got not a nickle out of the nitwit. My insurance
paid.


> Both time they offered about 50% of that. I had to
> sue both times. In the end they ended up spending 4 times what I had
> originally asked for. So why do they do this? Simple,. Most people need
> the money to purchase a new car, pay the bills, etc., and are desperate
> for money, and take what they can get. I guess I was one of the few that
> wasn't. And when I contacted my insurance agent (also a friend), he told
> me I'd have to sue Avis to get the money. He siad they were one of the
> worst ones using these kind of tactics and never pay/settle until
> they've been sued. I pay cash for new cars just so I don't have to get
> collision insurance. I could go on and on with examples, but I'm ready
> to drop all this and get back on topic.

I'm not saying that I'd never sue (I may be going there on what I
consider a consumer fraud issue), just that it's a bad first recourse. It
certanly bad policy to make it into the lottery it *has* become. Take
care of your own, before looking for someone else to take care of you.

--
Keith

keith
September 7th 04, 04:29 AM
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:48:02 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>> But the hazard is *not* hidden.
>
> The extent of it is. If it's horribly worse (third degree
> burns) than expected for the same incident (it wasn't a full
> carafe spilled) then that additional hazard _is_ hidden.

I disagree. It is *well* known that a cup of coffee will burn your
genitals if it is spilled on them. Why then *place* the hot cup between
one's legs? IMO, she should have gotten *nothing*, simply because of
common stupidity (common sense failed).
>
>> I surely hope your mother didn't raise you to be stupid enough to put
>> *any* coffee cup in your crotch.
>
> Of course not! However, the risks I will take while handling coffee are
> based on my perceived hazards of accidents. I handle sulfuric acid much
> more carefully than coffee. It costs time, but the conseuqneces are so
> much worse that the time is well spent.

Exactly. You know that even 150F coffee will burn your genitals, so you
handle any suspected hot water with care.

>> ...and I thought you to be the "reasonable man".
>
> Thanks.

Well, I did forget the smiley there. ;-) <-- see!

> And the exception proves the rule! Misery is moderation in
> excess. Happiness is excess in moderation.

Sadness is screwing around with dangerously hot liquids like they're so
much soda-pop!

Woe be it to the plantiff who's jurry I serve on!

--
Keith

Robert Redelmeier
September 7th 04, 04:54 AM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
> I disagree. It is *well* known that a cup of coffee will burn
> your genitals if it is spilled on them. Why then *place* the hot
> cup between one's legs? IMO, she should have gotten *nothing*,
> simply because of common stupidity (common sense failed).

Ah, but I see a world of difference between a first degree burn
(that everyone gets and copes with) and a third-degree burn
that requires medical treatment, debridement (ouch!) and grafts.
I've never had one. Have you?

> Exactly. You know that even 150F coffee will burn your
> genitals, so you handle any suspected hot water with care.

I handle boiling water with more care than a hot liquid I
expect to be cool enough to drink. I _have_ tasted McD coffee.
Not only is it scalding hot, but it tastes of burnt mud.
Fallout from the Boston Tea Party.

> Sadness is screwing around with dangerously hot liquids
> like they're so much soda-pop!

Real sadness is not knowing they're hotter than is
suitable for drinking.

> Woe be it to the plantiff who's jurry I serve on!

This goes without saying! Of course, lawyers routinely exclude
engineers from juries. They do not want anyone capable of
thinking, logic or possessing independant knowledge.

-- Robert

David Schwartz
September 7th 04, 10:33 AM
"Tony Hill" > wrote in message
...

> The fact that consumers were not aware that the coffee was so hot that
> it could produce burns simply demonstrates that consumers, in general,
> are complete morons. But apparently we must protect people from their
> own stupidity, or else we get frivolous lawsuits like this particular
> case.

If we permit the assumption that the vast majority of people are morons,
our entire legal system goes away, based as it is upon a jury of ordinary
people. It is a common, elitist attitude that "the masses are asses",
however experience will show that this is most definitely not true. The
average person is, well, average. About half of the people are dumber than
that and about half smarter.

Try polling a random selection of, say, 20 people. Ask them what they
think would most likely happen if a person spilled hot coffee in their lap.

And note that nobody claimed that "consumers were not aware that coffee
was so hot that it could produce burns". What was claimed was that consumers
were not aware that coffee from McDonald's was so much hotter than the
standard coffee serving temperature that a spill could cause third degree
burns requiring hospitalization for eight days. And this wasn't just
claimed, it was backed up with evidence.

DS

keith
September 7th 04, 04:42 PM
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 03:54:05 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>> I disagree. It is *well* known that a cup of coffee will burn
>> your genitals if it is spilled on them. Why then *place* the hot
>> cup between one's legs? IMO, she should have gotten *nothing*,
>> simply because of common stupidity (common sense failed).
>
> Ah, but I see a world of difference between a first degree burn
> (that everyone gets and copes with) and a third-degree burn
> that requires medical treatment, debridement (ouch!) and grafts.
> I've never had one. Have you?

That's not the issue at all. If the coffee were "only" 150F it would
still be hot enough to get the respect of the "reasonable man". Not to
mention that 180F coffee is *not* uncommon.

>> Exactly. You know that even 150F coffee will burn your genitals, so
>> you handle any suspected hot water with care.
>
> I handle boiling water with more care than a hot liquid I expect to be
> cool enough to drink.

When I buy coffee from a shop such as McD's, D-n-D, or even our company
cafeteria it's *never* cool enough to just drink. Sip perhaps, after
several minutes. Hot coffee is not at all unusual. Of course everyone
now has a disclaimer, as our cafeteria: "Coffee served at HOT (sic)
temperatures".

> I _have_ tasted McD coffee. Not only is it
> scalding hot, but it tastes of burnt mud. Fallout from the Boston Tea
> Party.
>
>> Sadness is screwing around with dangerously hot liquids like they're so
>> much soda-pop!
>
> Real sadness is not knowing they're hotter than is suitable for
> drinking.
>
>> Woe be it to the plantiff who's jurry I serve on!
>
> This goes without saying! Of course, lawyers routinely exclude
> engineers from juries. They do not want anyone capable of thinking,
> logic or possessing independant knowledge.

Hmm, Boston Tea Party... It is indeed CRUD (Charles River Underwater
Debris). ;-)

--
Keith
>
> -- Robert

Robert Redelmeier
September 7th 04, 05:27 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
> That's not the issue at all. If the coffee were "only" 150F it
> would still be hot enough to get the respect of the "reasonable
> man". Not to mention that 180F coffee is *not* uncommon.

Of course coffee at 150'F gets respect. But coffee at
180'F gets more! McD had to special-order and armtwist the
coffeemaker mfr, so I think it _was_ uncommon before them,
but they might have broken a dam.

> When I buy coffee from a shop such as McD's, D-n-D, or even
> our company cafeteria it's *never* cool enough to just drink.
> Sip perhaps, after several minutes. Hot coffee is not at all
> unusual.

It's a question of degree! Many of the poorer coffees really
are still served too hot to sip within 10 minutes of sitting
in a closed foam/paper cup. The keep-warm temperature was
probably designed hot enough to warm up a heavy ceramic cup.

-- Robert

Walt
September 7th 04, 06:22 PM
Actually, the asses were McD for its execs being dumb enough
to have documented all they did. They really hung themselves,
and the plaintiffs had to do very little.

The McD execs documented, in writting and saved, that they knew
customers would get burned, and that these people were insignificant
and totally worthless.

The jury reacted more to that, then the pain and suffering the
"victim" endured. The only way the jury had, was to make an
award that wasn't insignificant and worthless; one that would
be seen by the stockholders in the company's next bottom line.

keith wrote:
>
>
> The ass that put the cup in their lap. Dunno about you, but I'm smart
> enough not to get even 150F water near my johnson!
>

Robert Redelmeier
September 7th 04, 06:32 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Walt > wrote:
> The McD execs documented, in writting and saved, that they
> knew customers would get burned, and that these people were
> insignificant and totally worthless.

> The jury reacted more to that, then the pain and suffering
> the "victim" endured. The only way the jury had, was to
> make an award that wasn't insignificant and worthless;
> one that would be seen by the stockholders in the company's
> next bottom line.

Also true. The jury punative damage award was determined
as 2 days McD coffee sales.

How would you deter someone who knowingly aggravates harm?

-- Robert

The little lost angel
September 7th 04, 06:58 PM
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:39:51 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
> wrote:

>I'd have no problem if McD (and Dunkin' apparently at that
>time) were to say "We serve our coffee hotter than normal
>so you can enjoy it longer" or some other such warning that
>there was an unusual hazard.
>
>It's _hidden_ hazards that I decry.

Hmm, I know I'm late to this party (did I complain about how my new
ISP news server sucks?), but how different are things in the States
with regards to purchased made coffee? In my country, I don't recall
anywhere, vending machines included, that sells coffee at temperatures
that I would risk putting in between my legs. At least not unless I
know I'm doing a stunt sitting there with nobody else nearby to cause
an accident and definitely not with something "crumplable" like a MacD
foam cup.


--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

keith
September 7th 04, 08:14 PM
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:27:09 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>> That's not the issue at all. If the coffee were "only" 150F it
>> would still be hot enough to get the respect of the "reasonable
>> man". Not to mention that 180F coffee is *not* uncommon.
>
> Of course coffee at 150'F gets respect. But coffee at
> 180'F gets more! McD had to special-order and armtwist the
> coffeemaker mfr, so I think it _was_ uncommon before them,
> but they might have broken a dam.

Which is a "factoid" I dispute, since D-n-D *did* serve serve 180F coffee
at that time. ...and franchisees were *ordered* to serve it at that
temperature by corporate.

>> When I buy coffee from a shop such as McD's, D-n-D, or even our company
>> cafeteria it's *never* cool enough to just drink. Sip perhaps, after
>> several minutes. Hot coffee is not at all unusual.
>
> It's a question of degree!

No pun intended, I suppose... ;-)

> Many of the poorer coffees really are still
> served too hot to sip within 10 minutes of sitting in a closed
> foam/paper cup. The keep-warm temperature was probably designed hot
> enough to warm up a heavy ceramic cup.

??? "Poorer" coffees? Green Mountain Coffee Roasters isn't exactly the
same CRUD as McD's uses. That's what's served in our cafeteria, in closed
styrofoam cups.

--
Keith

Robert Redelmeier
September 7th 04, 08:31 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
> Which is a "factoid" I dispute, since D-n-D *did* serve
> serve 180F coffee at that time. ...and franchisees were
> *ordered* to serve it at that temperature by corporate.

Certainly possible to disagree, but that can only really
be resolved with more facts, one way or the other.

If franchiesees were _ordered_, does that mean there was
a compliance problem, that they wouldn't otherwise?

>> It's a question of degree!
> No pun intended, I suppose... ;-)

Me? Never! :)

> ??? "Poorer" coffees? Green Mountain Coffee Roasters isn't
> exactly the same CRUD as McD's uses. That's what's served
> in our cafeteria, in closed styrofoam cups.

I suspect the low thermal mass of the cups is responsible.
Our cafeteria serves Starbucks out of pump carafes.
It's never all that hot (even if over-roasted for my
taste). We are _very_ safety conscious at work.

-- Robert

George Macdonald
September 7th 04, 09:12 PM
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:58:24 GMT,
(The little lost angel) wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:39:51 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
> wrote:
>
>>I'd have no problem if McD (and Dunkin' apparently at that
>>time) were to say "We serve our coffee hotter than normal
>>so you can enjoy it longer" or some other such warning that
>>there was an unusual hazard.
>>
>>It's _hidden_ hazards that I decry.
>
>Hmm, I know I'm late to this party (did I complain about how my new
>ISP news server sucks?), but how different are things in the States
>with regards to purchased made coffee? In my country, I don't recall
>anywhere, vending machines included, that sells coffee at temperatures
>that I would risk putting in between my legs. At least not unless I
>know I'm doing a stunt sitting there with nobody else nearby to cause
>an accident and definitely not with something "crumplable" like a MacD
>foam cup.

The question which is ignored by the Stella-phobes is why in the hell a
beverage is sold at a temp which is undrinkable<gawp, by at least 20F, and
which is so hot it causes 3rd degree burns on the skin? You've just
purchased a drink which, at the temp served, *will* burn your mouth/tongue
and which has been intentionally elevated to that temp... rather than left
at the natural temp it finds in the carafe following the brewing process.

Do they, as customers, insist they want it at that temp so they can install
it in their cup-holders and admire it for 15mins? Personally I don't want
that - when I buy a drink I want to be able drink it and taste it as
served... just like at home. While it may seem like a minor annoyance, it
is enough of one that I no longer purchase coffee from highway stops.

The woman was 79 years old and it's likely her fingers were not as
dexterous as a younger person. AIUI she put the cup between her knees, not
thighs, possibly/probably because she couldn't get the cap off by holding
the cup in one hand and prying with the other... and thought there'd be
less chance of spillage that way.

Note also that the liar/lawyer indignation is contrived and misplaced - the
woman did not ask for punitive damages and there was no suggestion of
misuse of the legal system to gain a disproportionate monetary award; she
just had a large medical bill of $20,000.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

Nelson M. G. Santiago
September 7th 04, 10:20 PM
In >, on 09/01/04
at 11:28 PM, Robert Redelmeier > said:


>There are frivolous lawsuits. This ain't one.


Well, then you can take a look at:

http://www.StellaAwards.com


Below there is an excerpt from it:


QUOTE

May it please the court:


The Stella Awards were inspired by Stella Liebeck. In 1992, Stella, then
79, spilled a cup of McDonald's coffee onto her lap, burning herself. A
New Mexico jury awarded her $2.9 million in damages, but that's not the
whole story. Ever since, the name "Stella Award" has been applied to any
wild, outrageous, or ridiculous lawsuits -- including bogus cases! We
search for true cases, and you can subscribe by e-mail for free to get the
case reports as they're issued.

Yes, we mean to be entertaining. But there's also a deeper consideration
that we'll be addressing: are the people involved in the cases we present
to you (a juror in the Court of Public Opinion) using the courts to
redress justifiable grievances that can't otherwise be settled? ...Or are
they trying to extort money from anyone they can? Are the lawyers involved
champions of justice? ...Or are they helping to abuse the system in the
name of getting a piece of the action? You be the judge!

UNQUOTE


Nelson

-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson M. G. Santiago >
-----------------------------------------------------------

Today is Tue Sep 07, 2004.

As of 7:20pm this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 1 hours, and
01 minutes. It's running 32 processes with 134 threads.

keith
September 8th 04, 03:37 AM
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:31:28 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>> Which is a "factoid" I dispute, since D-n-D *did* serve
>> serve 180F coffee at that time. ...and franchisees were
>> *ordered* to serve it at that temperature by corporate.
>
> Certainly possible to disagree, but that can only really
> be resolved with more facts, one way or the other.
>
> If franchiesees were _ordered_, does that mean there was
> a compliance problem, that they wouldn't otherwise?

Not as such, though it *was* one of th measurements that corporate used to
whack their franchise holder over the head with. Unlike restroom
cleanliness, this one was measurable and rather simple to conform to,
since their equipment was shipped from corporate to conform.

>>> It's a question of degree!
>> No pun intended, I suppose... ;-)
>
> Me? Never! :)

Come on! You'e guilty, at least to some degree! ;-)

>> ??? "Poorer" coffees? Green Mountain Coffee Roasters isn't exactly the
>> same CRUD as McD's uses. That's what's served in our cafeteria, in
>> closed styrofoam cups.
>
> I suspect the low thermal mass of the cups is responsible. Our cafeteria
> serves Starbucks out of pump carafes. It's never all that hot (even if
> over-roasted for my taste). We are _very_ safety conscious at work.

We have some of the exotics from pumps, but the major flavors are directly
from the 5# urns. I suppose our cafeteria contractor isn't interested
in safety either.

--
Keith

The little lost angel
September 8th 04, 05:15 AM
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:12:32 -0400, George Macdonald
> wrote:

>The question which is ignored by the Stella-phobes is why in the hell a
>beverage is sold at a temp which is undrinkable<gawp, by at least 20F, and
>which is so hot it causes 3rd degree burns on the skin? You've just
>purchased a drink which, at the temp served, *will* burn your mouth/tongue
>and which has been intentionally elevated to that temp... rather than left
>at the natural temp it finds in the carafe following the brewing process.

I guess the question here would be, was it an arbitary number fixed by
MacD, or they have some reasonable reasons for doing this. I think
somebody did mentioned that MacD's assumption was most of the take
away coffee would be drunk some time later when the customer arrives
at whatever place it was they were taking away to. So I would think it
wasn't an unreasonable temperature.

>Do they, as customers, insist they want it at that temp so they can install
>it in their cup-holders and admire it for 15mins? Personally I don't want
>that - when I buy a drink I want to be able drink it and taste it as
>served... just like at home. While it may seem like a minor annoyance, it
>is enough of one that I no longer purchase coffee from highway stops.

hehehe, personally I usually just order cold drinks if I want
something fast. Maybe I'm used to the fact hot drinks will always be
too hot to drink immediately. Otherwise, we'll call them warm drinks
no? :P

>The woman was 79 years old and it's likely her fingers were not as
>dexterous as a younger person. AIUI she put the cup between her knees, not
>thighs, possibly/probably because she couldn't get the cap off by holding
>the cup in one hand and prying with the other... and thought there'd be
>less chance of spillage that way.

>Note also that the liar/lawyer indignation is contrived and misplaced - the
>woman did not ask for punitive damages and there was no suggestion of
>misuse of the legal system to gain a disproportionate monetary award; she
>just had a large medical bill of $20,000.

Given this, I think MacD should had just settled out of compassion and
give her the money to cover her medical, it's a paltry sum to MacD.
Plus their marketing department can always put a wonderful spin on how
MacD didn't need to but made a goodwill payment etc etc.

Did she sue MacD first or did she ask them nicely to compensate for
the bills caused by the drinks and they refused?


Though, personally being the klutz I am, I've always kept in mind to
open things applying force in a direction away from myself, hot drinks
or canned soda which have an annoying tendency to gush forth.
Considering my own klutziness, I don't think MacD is technically at
fault here for cups toppling?

Since teens, I've spilled countless of drinks trying to place the tray
down on the table at fast food places like MacD & KFC. It took a while
(ok so I'm slooooow :P) before I figured out that I should hold the
drink down with one hand before I attempt the maneuver. or lower
myself parallel to the ground. How the heck do you guys do it without
tripping the cup anyway? There's no way I could figure out how with
two hands still on the tray since the hands inevitably causes the tray
to tilt at an angle.

If going by the "did the customer ask for it" argument, I could very
well sue MacD had any harm come to me, by asking "did I ask for such a
tall cup with a high center of gravity thus greater instability? Why
didn't MacD provide a large base bowl instead for their drinks?" It's
not reasonable, everybody knows that it's a common practise that
bigger drinks come in taller cups and taller cups are more prone to
falling.

Also, I think MacD does have the word HOT on these things no? So
they've warned the customer, it's not their fault if any of us don't
read it no? Though I still hope they do help out the old lady with her
medical bills.


--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

Wes Newell
September 8th 04, 07:51 AM
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 02:33:55 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

>
> "Tony Hill" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> The fact that consumers were not aware that the coffee was so hot that
>> it could produce burns simply demonstrates that consumers, in general,
>> are complete morons. But apparently we must protect people from their
>> own stupidity, or else we get frivolous lawsuits like this particular
>> case.
>
> If we permit the assumption that the vast majority of people are morons,

I think the governemnt classified morons as ones that didn't score at
least 100 on an IQ test. I don't know what percentage of the population is
that scored this, but I'm sure it's low. OTOH, you don't have to be a
classified moron to be stupid, and I classify about 90% of the people to
be this. A recent survey showed that 80% of people were considered
incompetant in their jobs.

> our entire legal system goes away, based as it is upon a jury of
> ordinary people. It is a common, elitist attitude that "the masses are
> asses", however experience will show that this is most definitely not
> true.

And our entire legal system should go away. You got idiots determing the
fate of some poor smuck that 's on trial. Prosecutors that don't give a
**** if the person is innocent or not because it's not in their interest
to loose a case, and I could go on and on, but since 90% of the peole
wouldn't understand it, I won't.

> The average person is, well, average. About half of the people are
> dumber than that and about half smarter.
>
And the average person is stupid, so what.

> Try polling a random selection of, say, 20 people. Ask them what
> they
> think would most likely happen if a person spilled hot coffee in their
> lap.
>
You'd probably get 2 people that would ask what the temp of the coffee
was, and all kinds of responses from the others.

> And note that nobody claimed that "consumers were not aware that
> coffee
> was so hot that it could produce burns". What was claimed was that
> consumers were not aware that coffee from McDonald's was so much hotter
> than the standard coffee serving temperature that a spill could cause
> third degree burns requiring hospitalization for eight days. And this
> wasn't just claimed, it was backed up with evidence.
>
But I'll bet that even most of the morons would have taken off the sweat
pants immediatly after spilling it rather than just let it continue to
burn them even though the senses were numbed after the intitial shock of
the hot liquid. Damn, idiots **** me off sometime. Are you are getting
alfly close to that catagory.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

The Chief
September 8th 04, 01:36 PM
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_detail.asp?stupid_ID=19

The Chief
September 8th 04, 01:41 PM
http://www.theacorn.com/News/2002/0801/Editorials/

The Chief
September 8th 04, 01:43 PM
http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html

The Chief
September 8th 04, 01:45 PM
http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?section_type=com&td=20020905130134

The Chief
September 8th 04, 02:00 PM
http://www.liberator.net/articles/VanderVeldeBruno/responsibility.html

The Chief
September 8th 04, 02:03 PM
http://www.opendebate.com/questions?topic=57

The Chief
September 8th 04, 02:14 PM
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/lawsuits.html

Robert Redelmeier
September 8th 04, 02:49 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Wes Newell > wrote:
> I think the governemnt classified morons as ones that didn't
> score at least 100 on an IQ test.

Nope. The IQ test was set up with average=100 and std.dev=15.
IIRC Results have drifted somewhat, with US pop'n average a little
lower (98) and std.dev a bit higher (16). Disability <~70.

> you don't have to be a classified moron to be stupid, and I

Never confuse ignorance with stupidity. The former can be
easily cured. Stupidity is forever.

> classify about 90% of the people to be this. A recent survey showed
> that 80% of people were considered incompetant in their jobs.

Done by whom, against what standards? Sounds like it was done
to prove a point, not discover knowledge. Rhetoric, not science.

> And our entire legal system should go away. You got idiots
> determing the fate of some poor smuck that 's on trial.

You have a better idea? Trial by judge alone perhaps?
You are free to request it.

> And the average person is stupid, so what.

Perhaps _you_ consider the average person stupid.
No-one can stop you from your elitism. Personally,
I consider the average person ... average!

> But I'll bet that even most of the morons would have taken off

Actually, jumping out of the vehicle and pulling the wet material
away from the skin would have been quicker and reduce burning.
But it isn't always possible with seatbelts, autolocking and
doors hemmed in. Pulling sweatpants off while seated in a car
isn't always easy/quick, especially for an elderly lady.

> Damn, idiots **** me off sometime.

I usually find anger interesting, revealing and comical.

-- Robert

keith
September 8th 04, 04:31 PM
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:49:52 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Wes Newell > wrote:
>> I think the governemnt classified morons as ones that didn't
>> score at least 100 on an IQ test.
>
> Nope. The IQ test was set up with average=100 and std.dev=15.
> IIRC Results have drifted somewhat, with US pop'n average a little
> lower (98) and std.dev a bit higher (16). Disability <~70.

Robert is correct. I vaguely remembered the classifications, so... (ain't
the web wunnerful?): http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Mental_retardation

WAIS IQ classifications used in 1958:

IQ 1958 WAIS IQ terms Post PC terms
<20 Idiot Profound mental retardation
20-49 Imbecile Severe mental retardation
50-69 Moron Mild mental retardation
70-79 Borderline deficiency Borderline deficiency



>> you don't have to be a classified moron to be stupid, and I
>
> Never confuse ignorance with stupidity. The former can be easily
> cured. Stupidity is forever.
>
>> classify about 90% of the people to be this. A recent survey showed
>> that 80% of people were considered incompetant in their jobs.
>
> Done by whom, against what standards? Sounds like it was done to prove
> a point, not discover knowledge. Rhetoric, not science.

You've never heard of the Peter Principle? ;-)

>> And our entire legal system should go away. You got idiots determing
>> the fate of some poor smuck that 's on trial.
>
> You have a better idea? Trial by judge alone perhaps? You are free to
> request it.

The defendant isn't.

>> And the average person is stupid, so what.
>
> Perhaps _you_ consider the average person stupid. No-one can stop you
> from your elitism. Personally, I consider the average person ...
> average!
>
>> But I'll bet that even most of the morons would have taken off
>
> Actually, jumping out of the vehicle and pulling the wet material away
> from the skin would have been quicker and reduce burning. But it isn't
> always possible with seatbelts, autolocking and doors hemmed in. Pulling
> sweatpants off while seated in a car isn't always easy/quick, especially
> for an elderly lady.

So perhaps McD's should refuse to sell coffee to anyone with an AARP
membership? Somehow I don't think that'll fly.
>
>> Damn, idiots **** me off sometime.
>
> I usually find anger interesting, revealing and comical.

--
Keith

Robert Redelmeier
September 8th 04, 05:02 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
> http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Mental_retardation
>
> IQ 1958 WAIS IQ terms Post PC terms
> <20 Idiot Profound mental retardation
> 20-49 Imbecile Severe mental retardation
> 50-69 Moron Mild mental retardation
> 70-79 Borderline deficiency Borderline deficiency

Thanks for the precise classifications.

> You've never heard of the Peter Principle? ;-)

Certainly! But it operates best in the management ranks,
and they usually aren't 80% of a whole population.

>>> And our entire legal system should go away. You got idiots
>>> determing the fate of some poor smuck that 's on trial.
>>
>> You have a better idea? Trial by judge alone perhaps?
>> You are free to request it.
>
> The defendant isn't.

In a criminal trial (which I inferred from the post above),
the defendant is. I've never heard of a DA demanding a jury.

> So perhaps McD's should refuse to sell coffee to anyone
> with an AARP membership? Somehow I don't think that'll fly.

No, just serve it out of a cooler carafe :) For everyone except
"tough as nails" lawsuit haters who get coffee superheated
in a microwave to ~220'F (nice bump when tapped).

-- Robert

keith
September 8th 04, 05:36 PM
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:02:03 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>> http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Mental_retardation
>>
>> IQ 1958 WAIS IQ terms Post PC terms
>> <20 Idiot Profound mental retardation
>> 20-49 Imbecile Severe mental retardation
>> 50-69 Moron Mild mental retardation
>> 70-79 Borderline deficiency Borderline deficiency
>
> Thanks for the precise classifications.
>
>> You've never heard of the Peter Principle? ;-)
>
> Certainly! But it operates best in the management ranks,
> and they usually aren't 80% of a whole population.
>
>>>> And our entire legal system should go away. You got idiots
>>>> determing the fate of some poor smuck that 's on trial.
>>>
>>> You have a better idea? Trial by judge alone perhaps?
>>> You are free to request it.
>>
>> The defendant isn't.
>
> In a criminal trial (which I inferred from the post above),
> the defendant is. I've never heard of a DA demanding a jury.

We were discussing a civil issue.

>> So perhaps McD's should refuse to sell coffee to anyone
>> with an AARP membership? Somehow I don't think that'll fly.
>
> No, just serve it out of a cooler carafe :) For everyone except
> "tough as nails" lawsuit haters who get coffee superheated
> in a microwave to ~220'F (nice bump when tapped).

220F? That would be a good trick. No, 180F is good enough for this
lawsuit-hater. ;-)

--
Keith

Robert Redelmeier
September 8th 04, 06:44 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
> We were discussing a civil issue.

We were, and you are correct that if either plantiff or defendant
want a jury trial, they get it. But the wording of the poster to
which I replied ("fate of some poor shmuck") made me think more
of criminal. In most civil trials, no-one's fate is risk.
Perhaps that is wrong. Moral hazard.

> 220F? That would be a good trick. No, 180F is good enough
> for this lawsuit-hater. ;-)

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/superheating.html
http://www.impi.org/publications/microwaveworld/articles/MWarticle4.html

Water can easily be superheated in a microwave.
When bubble nucleation starts, it can "bump" (expel liquid).

-- Robert

September 8th 04, 08:05 PM

September 8th 04, 08:05 PM

September 8th 04, 08:05 PM

September 8th 04, 08:05 PM

September 8th 04, 08:06 PM

September 8th 04, 08:06 PM

Archen
September 8th 04, 08:43 PM
In article >,
The Chief > wrote:

> http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html

We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
tort reforms go through.

The Chief
September 8th 04, 08:51 PM
Archen wrote:
> In article >,
> The Chief > wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
>
>
> We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
> tort reforms go through.

I personally don't feel that way and I don't think that has held true
throughout history. I think that if you have a legitimate case you will
be able to go forward with it. I think the subject speaks for itself
and means exactly what it says.

chrisv
September 8th 04, 09:19 PM
Archen > wrote:

>In article >,
> The Chief > wrote:
>
>> http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
>
>We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
>tort reforms go through.

Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
someone is the common worker and his company.

CJT
September 8th 04, 11:26 PM
The Chief wrote:

> Archen wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> The Chief > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
>>
>>
>>
>> We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
>> tort reforms go through.
>
>
> I personally don't feel that way and I don't think that has held true
> throughout history. I think that if you have a legitimate case you will
> be able to go forward with it. I think the subject speaks for itself
> and means exactly what it says.
>

Not if the "tort reformers" get their way -- they don't recognize _any_
lawsuits not brought _by them_ as nonfrivolous.

I have some personal experience in this matter. When my mother died as
a result of clear healthcare professional negligence, she was in a state
that had passed tort reform. As a result, we were unable to sue her
murderers.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT
September 8th 04, 11:27 PM
chrisv wrote:

> Archen > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>The Chief > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
>>
>>We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
>>tort reforms go through.
>
>
> Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
> outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
> passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
> for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
> someone is the common worker and his company.
>

So you think it's better to leave the dangerous ones alone. I disagree.

Or do you think the dangerous ones have signs on their office doors to
make them easy to identify?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

MyndPhlyp
September 8th 04, 11:55 PM
"chrisv" > wrote in message
...
> Archen > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > The Chief > wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
> >
> >We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
> >tort reforms go through.
>
> Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
> outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
> passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
> for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
> someone is the common worker and his company.

Ooo ... bad example.

Malpractice insurance is optional, at least in the US, and serves only as a
safety blanket for unqualified so-called professionals.

Consider this alternative - eliminate (read: outlaw) malpractice insurance.
Any "reward" from a malpractice suit is now limited to the assets of the
so-called doctor. If the doctor is not worth his pay (read: quack), he will
abandon the profession because it is no longer profitable. The net result is
a thinning of the herd thereby strengthening the surviving members and the
overall health thereof. It the suit is tossed out, the persons filing the
suit get slapped with all the court costs and legal fees from both sides.

Does malpractice insurance do anything to benefit the consumer? No. The
absence of malpractice insurance does.

As a trickle down effect, the legal system is no longer clogged by so-called
victims chasing after their bite of the apple. Quite possibly the consumer's
cost for medical services get decreased since the doctors no longer pay the
"outlandish" insurance premiums. Yes, the choices for medical services
become limited, but the quality increases.

(And to think this whole OT subject started at the beginning of the month
when Grumble started in on the McD case not being an example of a frivolous
lawsuit. For the record, I didn't start this mess by calling the McD case
frivolous. I don't even think I've used the word "frivolous" in this thread
until this posting, but I've been wrong once before ... or maybe I was just
mistaken that one time.)

George Macdonald
September 9th 04, 05:48 AM
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:15:09 GMT,
(The little lost angel) wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:12:32 -0400, George Macdonald
> wrote:
>
>>The question which is ignored by the Stella-phobes is why in the hell a
>>beverage is sold at a temp which is undrinkable<gawp, by at least 20F, and
>>which is so hot it causes 3rd degree burns on the skin? You've just
>>purchased a drink which, at the temp served, *will* burn your mouth/tongue
>>and which has been intentionally elevated to that temp... rather than left
>>at the natural temp it finds in the carafe following the brewing process.
>
>I guess the question here would be, was it an arbitary number fixed by
>MacD, or they have some reasonable reasons for doing this. I think
>somebody did mentioned that MacD's assumption was most of the take
>away coffee would be drunk some time later when the customer arrives
>at whatever place it was they were taking away to. So I would think it
>wasn't an unreasonable temperature.

Hmm, how about two kinds of coffee: dangerous stuff for take-away and
consumption later... and drinkable stuff??:-)

>>Do they, as customers, insist they want it at that temp so they can install
>>it in their cup-holders and admire it for 15mins? Personally I don't want
>>that - when I buy a drink I want to be able drink it and taste it as
>>served... just like at home. While it may seem like a minor annoyance, it
>>is enough of one that I no longer purchase coffee from highway stops.
>
>hehehe, personally I usually just order cold drinks if I want
>something fast. Maybe I'm used to the fact hot drinks will always be
>too hot to drink immediately. Otherwise, we'll call them warm drinks
>no? :P

Yep - cold drinks is the only way but.... I do like a cup of moderately hot
coffee. Seems a shame that it's impossible to satisfy my needs. Am I
really in a minority on this?

>>The woman was 79 years old and it's likely her fingers were not as
>>dexterous as a younger person. AIUI she put the cup between her knees, not
>>thighs, possibly/probably because she couldn't get the cap off by holding
>>the cup in one hand and prying with the other... and thought there'd be
>>less chance of spillage that way.
>
>>Note also that the liar/lawyer indignation is contrived and misplaced - the
>>woman did not ask for punitive damages and there was no suggestion of
>>misuse of the legal system to gain a disproportionate monetary award; she
>>just had a large medical bill of $20,000.
>
>Given this, I think MacD should had just settled out of compassion and
>give her the money to cover her medical, it's a paltry sum to MacD.
>Plus their marketing department can always put a wonderful spin on how
>MacD didn't need to but made a goodwill payment etc etc.
>
>Did she sue MacD first or did she ask them nicely to compensate for
>the bills caused by the drinks and they refused?

There was a URL earlier which pointed to the sequence of events but I don't
recall if she actually went directly to court. In the usual scheme of
things I can't imagine she'd have gotten a satisfactory response from a
simple "nice" request anyway.

>Though, personally being the klutz I am, I've always kept in mind to
>open things applying force in a direction away from myself, hot drinks
>or canned soda which have an annoying tendency to gush forth.
>Considering my own klutziness, I don't think MacD is technically at
>fault here for cups toppling?

No - not the cup toppling - the fault is only in the overheating. Err,
it's supposed to be a drink, not a dangerous booby-trap.

>Since teens, I've spilled countless of drinks trying to place the tray
>down on the table at fast food places like MacD & KFC. It took a while
>(ok so I'm slooooow :P) before I figured out that I should hold the
>drink down with one hand before I attempt the maneuver. or lower
>myself parallel to the ground. How the heck do you guys do it without
>tripping the cup anyway? There's no way I could figure out how with
>two hands still on the tray since the hands inevitably causes the tray
>to tilt at an angle.

Accidents happen to everyone, no matter how careful.<shrug> Here's one of
my recent ones: sitting with a lovely pint of best English bitter on the
pub table in front of me; no coasters on the table which slopes off just
slightly towards the edge and the glass is sitting in a little spilt beer
with an air bubble apparently trapped under it. Conversation is a little
animated and the table must have been rocking just a tad from time to time.
I think you'll see the problem - what a waste of beer! + slight
embarrassment since it looked like I'd had a different kind of umm,
accident.

>If going by the "did the customer ask for it" argument, I could very
>well sue MacD had any harm come to me, by asking "did I ask for such a
>tall cup with a high center of gravity thus greater instability? Why
>didn't MacD provide a large base bowl instead for their drinks?" It's
>not reasonable, everybody knows that it's a common practise that
>bigger drinks come in taller cups and taller cups are more prone to
>falling.

Except they seem to be under some (mis)impression that everybody wants
their coffee at scalding temps?? If there is a conduit for my request, I
vote for coffee at a drinkable temp at time of purchase. Let the err,
hot-mouths use the office microwave to tweak it back up as required.:-)

>Also, I think MacD does have the word HOT on these things no? So
>they've warned the customer, it's not their fault if any of us don't
>read it no? Though I still hope they do help out the old lady with her
>medical bills.

I still think there is an expectation that a beverage should be drinkable
as served - that's still "HOT" to the skin. If it had been (drinkable),
the poor woman might have gotten a coupla mild blisters, instead of 3rd
degree burns requiring debridement [oo-oo-ooh] of the err, perineal/genital
area<cringe>.

Secondary effect here: I'm sure people have even died for the sake of
decorum and modesty.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

September 9th 04, 07:05 AM

September 9th 04, 07:05 AM

September 9th 04, 07:05 AM

September 9th 04, 07:05 AM

chrisv
September 9th 04, 03:07 PM
"MyndPhlyp" > wrote:


>Ooo ... bad example.
>
>Malpractice insurance is optional, at least in the US,

Bullsh*t. Whether legally "optional" or not, it's still effectively
required, given that one suit could wipe you out, otherwise.

Since you're too dense to figure that one out, I've *flushed* the rest
of your nonsense.

chrisv
September 9th 04, 03:09 PM
CJT > wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>
>> Archen > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>The Chief > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
>>>
>>>We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
>>>tort reforms go through.
>>
>>
>> Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
>> outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
>> passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
>> for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
>> someone is the common worker and his company.
>>
>
>So you think it's better to leave the dangerous ones alone.

Illogical.

>I disagree.

With your straw man, you mean?

>Or do you think the dangerous ones have signs on their office doors to
>make them easy to identify?

?

Scott Alfter
September 9th 04, 07:48 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article >,
> wrote:
>
>
>

Cat got your tongue?

(The quoted material is what showed up here.)

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux)

iD8DBQFBQKV0VgTKos01OwkRAmKUAJ9SFU+Fi+1fl711yLixU4 qFw5561gCeO/dh
2VXm7H7yJiJZ/8JoPaRgbWo=
=p4tO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

September 9th 04, 08:18 PM

September 9th 04, 08:18 PM

September 9th 04, 08:18 PM

keith
September 10th 04, 03:56 AM
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:48:53 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:15:09 GMT,
> (The little lost angel) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:12:32 -0400, George Macdonald
> wrote:
>>
>>>The question which is ignored by the Stella-phobes is why in the hell a
>>>beverage is sold at a temp which is undrinkable<gawp, by at least 20F, and
>>>which is so hot it causes 3rd degree burns on the skin? You've just
>>>purchased a drink which, at the temp served, *will* burn your mouth/tongue
>>>and which has been intentionally elevated to that temp... rather than left
>>>at the natural temp it finds in the carafe following the brewing process.
>>
>>I guess the question here would be, was it an arbitary number fixed by
>>MacD, or they have some reasonable reasons for doing this. I think
>>somebody did mentioned that MacD's assumption was most of the take
>>away coffee would be drunk some time later when the customer arrives
>>at whatever place it was they were taking away to. So I would think it
>>wasn't an unreasonable temperature.
>
> Hmm, how about two kinds of coffee: dangerous stuff for take-away and
> consumption later... and drinkable stuff??:-)

The question was already asked and answered. You lost, though perhaps the
nitwit who burned herself on coffe that the customers *demanded* pushes
things in your favor and away from mine. Yes I prefer 180F coffee, even
feom the cafeteria 100' from my offfice. Sure, I may sip it for a
half-hour, but that's the way I *like* it (I don't put the cup between my
legs ;).

>>>Do they, as customers, insist they want it at that temp so they can
>>>install it in their cup-holders and admire it for 15mins? Personally I
>>>don't want that - when I buy a drink I want to be able drink it and
>>>taste it as served... just like at home. While it may seem like a
>>>minor annoyance, it is enough of one that I no longer purchase coffee
>>>from highway stops.
>>
>>hehehe, personally I usually just order cold drinks if I want something
>>fast. Maybe I'm used to the fact hot drinks will always be too hot to
>>drink immediately. Otherwise, we'll call them warm drinks no? :P
>
> Yep - cold drinks is the only way but.... I do like a cup of moderately
> hot coffee. Seems a shame that it's impossible to satisfy my needs. Am
> I really in a minority on this?

Apparently, since McD's and D-n-D served it at 180F at the time. Just
because you want to drink ****-warm coffee ;-) isn't a reason to foist the
crap on me!

>>>The woman was 79 years old and it's likely her fingers were not as
>>>dexterous as a younger person. AIUI she put the cup between her knees,
>>>not thighs, possibly/probably because she couldn't get the cap off by
>>>holding the cup in one hand and prying with the other... and thought
>>>there'd be less chance of spillage that way.
>>
>>>Note also that the liar/lawyer indignation is contrived and misplaced -
>>>the woman did not ask for punitive damages and there was no suggestion
>>>of misuse of the legal system to gain a disproportionate monetary
>>>award; she just had a large medical bill of $20,000.
>>
>>Given this, I think MacD should had just settled out of compassion and
>>give her the money to cover her medical, it's a paltry sum to MacD. Plus
>>their marketing department can always put a wonderful spin on how MacD
>>didn't need to but made a goodwill payment etc etc.
>>
>>Did she sue MacD first or did she ask them nicely to compensate for the
>>bills caused by the drinks and they refused?
>
> There was a URL earlier which pointed to the sequence of events but I
> don't recall if she actually went directly to court. In the usual
> scheme of things I can't imagine she'd have gotten a satisfactory
> response from a simple "nice" request anyway.
>
>>Though, personally being the klutz I am, I've always kept in mind to
>>open things applying force in a direction away from myself, hot drinks
>>or canned soda which have an annoying tendency to gush forth.
>>Considering my own klutziness, I don't think MacD is technically at
>>fault here for cups toppling?
>
> No - not the cup toppling - the fault is only in the overheating. Err,
> it's supposed to be a drink, not a dangerous booby-trap.
>
>>Since teens, I've spilled countless of drinks trying to place the tray
>>down on the table at fast food places like MacD & KFC. It took a while
>>(ok so I'm slooooow :P) before I figured out that I should hold the
>>drink down with one hand before I attempt the maneuver. or lower myself
>>parallel to the ground. How the heck do you guys do it without tripping
>>the cup anyway? There's no way I could figure out how with two hands
>>still on the tray since the hands inevitably causes the tray to tilt at
>>an angle.
>
> Accidents happen to everyone, no matter how careful.<shrug> Here's one
> of my recent ones: sitting with a lovely pint of best English bitter on
> the pub table in front of me; no coasters on the table which slopes off
> just slightly towards the edge and the glass is sitting in a little
> spilt beer with an air bubble apparently trapped under it. Conversation
> is a little animated and the table must have been rocking just a tad
> from time to time. I think you'll see the problem - what a waste of
> beer! + slight embarrassment since it looked like I'd had a different
> kind of umm, accident.
>
>>If going by the "did the customer ask for it" argument, I could very
>>well sue MacD had any harm come to me, by asking "did I ask for such a
>>tall cup with a high center of gravity thus greater instability? Why
>>didn't MacD provide a large base bowl instead for their drinks?" It's
>>not reasonable, everybody knows that it's a common practise that bigger
>>drinks come in taller cups and taller cups are more prone to falling.
>
> Except they seem to be under some (mis)impression that everybody wants
> their coffee at scalding temps?? If there is a conduit for my request,
> I vote for coffee at a drinkable temp at time of purchase. Let the err,
> hot-mouths use the office microwave to tweak it back up as required.:-)
>
>>Also, I think MacD does have the word HOT on these things no? So they've
>>warned the customer, it's not their fault if any of us don't read it no?
>>Though I still hope they do help out the old lady with her medical
>>bills.
>
> I still think there is an expectation that a beverage should be
> drinkable as served - that's still "HOT" to the skin. If it had been
> (drinkable), the poor woman might have gotten a coupla mild blisters,
> instead of 3rd degree burns requiring debridement [oo-oo-ooh] of the
> err, perineal/genital area<cringe>.

We can disagree. I want to sip it for a while. I want it to be drinkable
in a half-hour. If I'm thursty I drink water (they frown on beer at
work ;)
>
> Secondary effect here: I'm sure people have even died for the sake of
> decorum and modesty.

....like the guy who disappeared out of the emergency room last week
after being told his penis had to be removed to save his life?

--
Keith

September 10th 04, 06:56 AM

keith
September 10th 04, 03:53 PM
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:56:40 +0000, borolad wrote:

You repeat yourself.

--
Keith

George Macdonald
September 10th 04, 09:27 PM
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 22:56:55 -0400, keith > wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:48:53 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:15:09 GMT,
>> (The little lost angel) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:12:32 -0400, George Macdonald
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The question which is ignored by the Stella-phobes is why in the hell a
>>>>beverage is sold at a temp which is undrinkable<gawp, by at least 20F, and
>>>>which is so hot it causes 3rd degree burns on the skin? You've just
>>>>purchased a drink which, at the temp served, *will* burn your mouth/tongue
>>>>and which has been intentionally elevated to that temp... rather than left
>>>>at the natural temp it finds in the carafe following the brewing process.
>>>
>>>I guess the question here would be, was it an arbitary number fixed by
>>>MacD, or they have some reasonable reasons for doing this. I think
>>>somebody did mentioned that MacD's assumption was most of the take
>>>away coffee would be drunk some time later when the customer arrives
>>>at whatever place it was they were taking away to. So I would think it
>>>wasn't an unreasonable temperature.
>>
>> Hmm, how about two kinds of coffee: dangerous stuff for take-away and
>> consumption later... and drinkable stuff??:-)
>
>The question was already asked and answered. You lost, though perhaps the
>nitwit who burned herself on coffe that the customers *demanded* pushes
>things in your favor and away from mine. Yes I prefer 180F coffee, even
>feom the cafeteria 100' from my offfice. Sure, I may sip it for a
>half-hour, but that's the way I *like* it (I don't put the cup between my
>legs ;).

Answered by whom?... you?... and "lost"... customers *demanded? Was there
a referendum while I wasn't looking?<splutter> Sorry that's not an
authoritative word on the matter... just because you prefer scalding should
not mean that I am deprived of something drinkable. Err, I like it my way
thanks.

>>>>Do they, as customers, insist they want it at that temp so they can
>>>>install it in their cup-holders and admire it for 15mins? Personally I
>>>>don't want that - when I buy a drink I want to be able drink it and
>>>>taste it as served... just like at home. While it may seem like a
>>>>minor annoyance, it is enough of one that I no longer purchase coffee
>>>>from highway stops.
>>>
>>>hehehe, personally I usually just order cold drinks if I want something
>>>fast. Maybe I'm used to the fact hot drinks will always be too hot to
>>>drink immediately. Otherwise, we'll call them warm drinks no? :P
>>
>> Yep - cold drinks is the only way but.... I do like a cup of moderately
>> hot coffee. Seems a shame that it's impossible to satisfy my needs. Am
>> I really in a minority on this?
>
>Apparently, since McD's and D-n-D served it at 180F at the time. Just
>because you want to drink ****-warm coffee ;-) isn't a reason to foist the
>crap on me!

I don't see a majority here and even if there was, there are enough people
who appreciate good coffee at the *correct* temp that we shouldn't have to
be bulldozed into submission. Then again McDs has had a long history of
pandering to minority action groups.:-)

<<snip>>

>> I still think there is an expectation that a beverage should be
>> drinkable as served - that's still "HOT" to the skin. If it had been
>> (drinkable), the poor woman might have gotten a coupla mild blisters,
>> instead of 3rd degree burns requiring debridement [oo-oo-ooh] of the
>> err, perineal/genital area<cringe>.
>
>We can disagree. I want to sip it for a while. I want it to be drinkable
>in a half-hour. If I'm thursty I drink water (they frown on beer at
>work ;)

We'll have to disagree then but it's nothing to do with thirst - it's the
taste of decent coffe which has not been stewed at elevated temps... nor
overheated to mask the gawdawful taste of the crappy over-roasted beans
they use in most places.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

The Chief
September 10th 04, 09:37 PM

The Chief
September 10th 04, 09:39 PM
I thought the Off Topic posts were supposed to stop!

Robert Redelmeier
September 10th 04, 11:48 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips The Chief > wrote:
> I thought the Off Topic posts were supposed to stop!

Why would you think this? Because some moron (cf. Kieth)
has been crapflooding? He's been killfilled.

Chief, USENET ain't the Army. There is no chain-of-command.
There are people who've build a reputation that others
respect. Not everyone, and not always.

-- Robert

keith
September 11th 04, 04:54 AM
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:27:39 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 22:56:55 -0400, keith > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:48:53 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:15:09 GMT,
>>> (The little lost angel) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:12:32 -0400, George Macdonald
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The question which is ignored by the Stella-phobes is why in the hell a
>>>>>beverage is sold at a temp which is undrinkable<gawp, by at least 20F, and
>>>>>which is so hot it causes 3rd degree burns on the skin? You've just
>>>>>purchased a drink which, at the temp served, *will* burn your mouth/tongue
>>>>>and which has been intentionally elevated to that temp... rather than left
>>>>>at the natural temp it finds in the carafe following the brewing process.
>>>>
>>>>I guess the question here would be, was it an arbitary number fixed by
>>>>MacD, or they have some reasonable reasons for doing this. I think
>>>>somebody did mentioned that MacD's assumption was most of the take
>>>>away coffee would be drunk some time later when the customer arrives
>>>>at whatever place it was they were taking away to. So I would think it
>>>>wasn't an unreasonable temperature.
>>>
>>> Hmm, how about two kinds of coffee: dangerous stuff for take-away and
>>> consumption later... and drinkable stuff??:-)
>>
>>The question was already asked and answered. You lost, though perhaps the
>>nitwit who burned herself on coffe that the customers *demanded* pushes
>>things in your favor and away from mine. Yes I prefer 180F coffee, even
>>feom the cafeteria 100' from my offfice. Sure, I may sip it for a
>>half-hour, but that's the way I *like* it (I don't put the cup between my
>>legs ;).
>
> Answered by whom?... you?... and "lost"... customers *demanded?

Exactly. Do you wonder why the suits in Chicago edicted that coffee was
to be served hot? The real secret is that *CUSTOMERS WANT IT THAT WAY*.
Oops, now I've spilled the all the coffee beans. ;-)

> Was there
> a referendum while I wasn't looking?<splutter> Sorry that's not an
> authoritative word on the matter... just because you prefer scalding
> should not mean that I am deprived of something drinkable. Err, I like
> it my way thanks.

You were sleeping apparently. THe fact is that che consumer spoke, and
then the lawyers trumped the consumer. That's the sad part of the whole
deal. Consumers *want* !!!hot!!! coffee.

>>>>>Do they, as customers, insist they want it at that temp so they
can
>>>>>install it in their cup-holders and admire it for 15mins? Personally
>>>>>I don't want that - when I buy a drink I want to be able drink it and
>>>>>taste it as served... just like at home. While it may seem like a
>>>>>minor annoyance, it is enough of one that I no longer purchase coffee
>>>>>from highway stops.
>>>>
>>>>hehehe, personally I usually just order cold drinks if I want
>>>>something fast. Maybe I'm used to the fact hot drinks will always be
>>>>too hot to drink immediately. Otherwise, we'll call them warm drinks
>>>>no? :P
>>>
>>> Yep - cold drinks is the only way but.... I do like a cup of
>>> moderately hot coffee. Seems a shame that it's impossible to satisfy
>>> my needs. Am I really in a minority on this?
>>
>>Apparently, since McD's and D-n-D served it at 180F at the time. Just
>>because you want to drink ****-warm coffee ;-) isn't a reason to foist
>>the crap on me!
>
> I don't see a majority here

Here? ...in .chips? Do you really think the McD's and D-n-D's execs
created *hot* coffee on a whim? No, the market demands hot coffee. That
is a given, even though you apparently like to drink dirty ****.

> and even if there was, there are enough
> people who appreciate good coffee at the *correct*

Now you sound like a loony-lefty. *YOU* determine what I thinkg to be
correct? Sorry, but top the back of the bus with you! Skip MD's and DnD.
...doesn't bother me a bit. Just don't get your leagal beagles to wage
war on what *I* want. *THAT* is the issue.

> temp that we shouldn't have to be bulldozed into submission. Then again McDs has had
> a long history of pandering to minority action groups.:-)

Exactly. ...trial lawyers. It hasn't stopped.

> <<snip>>
>
>>> I still think there is an expectation that a beverage should be
>>> drinkable as served - that's still "HOT" to the skin. If it had been
>>> (drinkable), the poor woman might have gotten a coupla mild blisters,
>>> instead of 3rd degree burns requiring debridement [oo-oo-ooh] of the
>>> err, perineal/genital area<cringe>.
>>
>>We can disagree. I want to sip it for a while. I want it to be
>>drinkable in a half-hour. If I'm thursty I drink water (they frown on
>>beer at work ;)
>
> We'll have to disagree then but it's nothing to do with thirst - it's
> the taste of decent coffe which has not been stewed at elevated temps...
> nor overheated to mask the gawdawful taste of the crappy over-roasted
> beans they use in most places.

You obviously drink crappy ****-water in the name of coffee.

--
Keith

keith
September 11th 04, 04:56 AM
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:37:57 -0400, The Chief wrote:

I thought blank articles were supposed to stop!

Maroon!

--
Keith

Robert Redelmeier
September 11th 04, 06:18 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
> Exactly. Do you wonder why the suits in Chicago edicted
> that coffee was to be served hot? The real secret is that
> *CUSTOMERS WANT IT THAT WAY*. Oops, now I've spilled the
> all the coffee beans. ;-)

Very close. The secret is McD makes more profit that way.
They sell more coffee because more customers let it cool
and very few sue. The problem is that many more suffer
damage than sue. McD's analysis is skewed.

I don't want the nanny state, neither through regulation
nor court precedents. But I would like some assurance that
risk managers take total damages into account, and not
just the damages they suffer. Strictly speaking, they are
now required (shareholders) to look only at the latter.

> You obviously drink crappy ****-water in the name of coffee.

Actually, the best coffees (Europe, S.Am) are served tepid
to lukewarm. And taste _great_. Only poor quality coffee
needs heat.

-- Robert

Shitheads
September 11th 04, 06:59 PM
Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>
>>Exactly. Do you wonder why the suits in Chicago edicted
>>that coffee was to be served hot? The real secret is that
>>*CUSTOMERS WANT IT THAT WAY*. Oops, now I've spilled the
>>all the coffee beans. ;-)
>
>
> Very close. The secret is McD makes more profit that way.
> They sell more coffee because more customers let it cool
> and very few sue. The problem is that many more suffer
> damage than sue. McD's analysis is skewed.
>
> I don't want the nanny state, neither through regulation
> nor court precedents. But I would like some assurance that
> risk managers take total damages into account, and not
> just the damages they suffer. Strictly speaking, they are
> now required (shareholders) to look only at the latter.
>
>
>>You obviously drink crappy ****-water in the name of coffee.
>
>
> Actually, the best coffees (Europe, S.Am) are served tepid
> to lukewarm. And taste _great_. Only poor quality coffee
> needs heat.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
>
Since this thread appears to be for ****heads, may I join in and act
like a dumbass, too?

The Chief
September 11th 04, 07:55 PM
Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> Actually, the best coffees (Europe, S.Am) are served tepid
> to lukewarm. And taste _great_. Only poor quality coffee
> needs heat.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
>
I know this is OT, but where in Europe did you get served tepid/lukewarm
coffee? (Since by definition tepid is lukewarm, there wouldn't be any
difference.) I have spent almost twenty years total in Europe and I
can't remember ever being served "tepid" coffee anywhere!

Robert Redelmeier
September 11th 04, 11:15 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips The Chief > wrote:
> I know this is OT, but where in Europe did you get served
> tepid/lukewarm coffee?

France & The Netherlands after creamer addition. The dutch
even have a special creamer (koffiemelk) that is essenitally
concentrated full milk so it does not cool off the coffee to
room temperature. BTW, I mean tepid as a temp that can be
gulped without pain. Maybe 120'F?

-- Robert

Martin Maat
September 12th 04, 09:17 AM
Robert Redelmeier wrote:

>> I know this is OT, but where in Europe did you get served
>> tepid/lukewarm coffee?

> France & The Netherlands after creamer addition. The dutch
> even have a special creamer (koffiemelk) that is essenitally
> concentrated full milk so it does not cool off the coffee to
> room temperature. BTW, I mean tepid as a temp that can be
> gulped without pain. Maybe 120'F?

This I would say is the one reason for fast food restaurants to serve tepid
coffee. They want you to drink it on your way out. The next thing is a
power-fed hose down your throat. The only reason they don't have that yet is
that it would still be a bit too much for the typical customer in today's
society. I bet though they're studying the idea, thinking of ways to
introduce it in a consumer-friendly manner.

Hmm... Could there be a patent in this? I'm afraid not, it's already done
with geese to make the stuff they serve in slow food restaurants.

Martin.

George Macdonald
September 12th 04, 09:31 AM
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:54:22 -0400, keith > wrote:

>You obviously drink crappy ****-water in the name of coffee.

Not at all - the authorities on coffee: growers, afficianados, gourmet
experts etc. who have taken time & effort to come up with the perfect
beans, perfectly roasted and brewed to the exact right temp have spoken!
The sad thing is that most people think coffee is a naturally bitter drink
which needs sugar/milk/cream to make it more pleasant and of course heat to
mask the foul taste... and it is at D-n-D, McDs and especially
Starbucks<yech>, because the fools think the only thing that matters is
HOT.

On the contrary, real coffee is a pleasant, almost sweet beverage which,
when the beans are treated with water at the correct temp of ~195F, allowed
to drip/pour into a coolish carafe and served in a room temp cup, is
perfect for drinking at ~140F and has a glorious flavor, unadulterated with
flavor killing agents. Sorry but anything else is just heresy... maybe fit
for washing the feet. Slurp away at your stewed bilge-water - I'll hold
out for something closer to the real thing.:-P

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

The Chief
September 12th 04, 01:45 PM
Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips The Chief > wrote:
>
>>I know this is OT, but where in Europe did you get served
>>tepid/lukewarm coffee?
>
>
> France & The Netherlands after creamer addition. The dutch
> even have a special creamer (koffiemelk) that is essenitally
> concentrated full milk so it does not cool off the coffee to
> room temperature. BTW, I mean tepid as a temp that can be
> gulped without pain. Maybe 120'F?
>
> -- Robert
>
Like I said before, tepid by definition is lukewarm. If you make bread
dough, an old English definition of tepid is "blood warm" which usually
equates to about 98.6F. You warm baby's milk to "tepid."

And all the coffee I drank in France and the Netherlands was definitely
served warmer than 120F, probably closer to 170 - 180 F.

Quote:
"There are people who've build a reputation that others
respect. Not everyone, and not always.

-- Robert"
End quote.

Perhaps you should find a subject you have some knowledge about if you
want to "build a reputation." I don't think very many people "respect"
an "expert" who makes erroneous remarks without engaging their brain
first! You should take a laxative and relieve some of the pressure on
your brain.

The Chief
September 12th 04, 04:36 PM
Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>
> France & The Netherlands after creamer addition. The dutch
> even have a special creamer (koffiemelk) that is essenitally
> concentrated full milk so it does not cool off the coffee to
> room temperature. BTW, I mean tepid as a temp that can be
> gulped without pain. Maybe 120'F?
>
> -- Robert
>
Oh, I forgot something before. Your "special creamer (koffiemelk)" is
sold in the U.S. as evaporated milk. You can find it at your local grocer!

George Macdonald
September 13th 04, 09:27 AM
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 08:45:04 -0400, The Chief > wrote:

>Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips The Chief > wrote:
>>
>>>I know this is OT, but where in Europe did you get served
>>>tepid/lukewarm coffee?
>>
>>
>> France & The Netherlands after creamer addition. The dutch
>> even have a special creamer (koffiemelk) that is essenitally
>> concentrated full milk so it does not cool off the coffee to
>> room temperature. BTW, I mean tepid as a temp that can be
>> gulped without pain. Maybe 120'F?
>>
>> -- Robert
>>
>Like I said before, tepid by definition is lukewarm. If you make bread
>dough, an old English definition of tepid is "blood warm" which usually
>equates to about 98.6F. You warm baby's milk to "tepid."

Neither is well defined as a scientific term - I think we got his drift.
To dwell on such trivialities is picayune.

>And all the coffee I drank in France and the Netherlands was definitely
>served warmer than 120F, probably closer to 170 - 180 F.

If you can drink coffee at 180F, without even discomfort, never mind
injury, you have a very unusual tolerance. I've spent quite a bit of time
in France over the years, including several years living there, and been
served coffee in many different settings - restaurants, cafes, homes - and
I can't imagine where you got coffee served at that temp... maybe Harry's
New York Bar?:-) but even there I'd expect better.

In Belgium in particular, I recall being served coffee in a tallish glass
with a filter device which was made to fit the top of the glass. By the
time the hot water had filtered through the coffee and filled the cup it
was only err, mildly warm... probably the coolest I've ever had coffee
served but it *was* good coffee.

>Quote:
>"There are people who've build a reputation that others
>respect. Not everyone, and not always.
>
>-- Robert"
>End quote.
>
>Perhaps you should find a subject you have some knowledge about if you
>want to "build a reputation." I don't think very many people "respect"
>an "expert" who makes erroneous remarks without engaging their brain
>first! You should take a laxative and relieve some of the pressure on
>your brain.

I've no idea which of the cross-posted NGs you normally subscribe to but I
can assure you that Robert has great respect from me, and I strongly
suspect from many others, in the c.s.i.p.h.c group. I'm afraid you've just
shat all over yourself now!.... too much laxative?

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

The Chief
September 13th 04, 12:25 PM
Thou shalt not post off-topic!

Thou shalt not Cross-post!

Rob Stow
September 13th 04, 04:31 PM
The Chief wrote:
> Thou shalt not post off-topic!
>
> Thou shalt not Cross-post!
>

Shame on you "Chief", for that cross posted OT drivel.

The Chief
September 13th 04, 04:53 PM
>
> Shame on you "Chief", for that cross posted OT drivel.

I am amazed at the participants that will chastise new comers for not
following the etiquette of UseNet, but feel they are exempt from abiding
by the standards they want others to follow.

I have seen new comers chastised for top posting, using html, cross
posting, off topic posts, etc., and the old timers chastise them for
this, but apparently feel they are above and beyond the rest of the
society and aren't obligated to follow their own advice.

Robert Redelmeier
September 14th 04, 01:52 AM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips The Chief > wrote:
> You warm baby's milk to "tepid."

No, baby's milk is warmed until is it warm, but not hot when
a few drops fall on the inside of the wrist. Probably around
95'F. Human skin has to be colder than core temp.

> And all the coffee I drank in France and the Netherlands was
> definitely served warmer than 120F, probably closer to 170 -
> 180 F.

I very much doubt it. Did you have a thermometer? Temperatures
are notoriously difficult to estimate by feel. Some people
get very upset when their HSF is the least bit warm or if
a vidchip is too hot to keep finger on. But that is only 60'C,
and those chips are usually rated for 85'C.

> Quote: "There are people who've build a reputation that
> others respect. Not everyone, and not always.
> -- Robert" End quote.

Yes, you remember accurately.

> Perhaps you should find a subject you have some knowledge
> about if you want to "build a reputation." I don't think
> very many people "respect" an "expert" who makes erroneous

Perhaps you should consider that it takes some knowledge
(not just opinion) to be able to correctly evaluate expertise.

USENET tends to respect those who supply data to back their
opinions. Agrumentation, or raw opinions are much less
respected. And flat contradiction is reviled.

> remarks without engaging their brain first! You should take
> a laxative and relieve some of the pressure on your brain.

Thank you. I will take the insult as an admission you do
not have any better logical, arguments or data. I accept
your surrender.

-- Robert

Rob Stow
September 14th 04, 03:54 AM
Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips The Chief > wrote:
>
>>You warm baby's milk to "tepid."
>
>
> No, baby's milk is warmed until is it warm, but not hot when
> a few drops fall on the inside of the wrist. Probably around
> 95'F. Human skin has to be colder than core temp.
>
>
>>And all the coffee I drank in France and the Netherlands was
>>definitely served warmer than 120F, probably closer to 170 -
>>180 F.

I've done a little measuring since this thread started.

Mostly I've been sticking the thermometer in the cup,
but a few times I've gotten friendly waitress to stick
it into the pot.

Here's the data so far. Temp's were measured in Celsius.
Numbers are in CC/FFF. To standardize the cup temps
a little bit, I used my stainless steel travel mug - so
the coffee had to heat up the mug from room temperature.



Cup Pot
Home (1) 69/156 72/162
Home (2) 70/158 N/A
7-11 Main St 68/154 72/162
7-11 13th Ave 72/162
Tim Horton's 74/165 76.7/170*
Robin's Donuts 74/165 77/171
Boston Pizza 67/153 70/158

* As reported by the staff. They didn't measure
for me - just reported what their standard is.

I've had coffee at a few other places, but I
didn't always remember to measure the temp, and
I haven't measured anything since I dropped and
broke my thermometer on Saturday.

I haven't been to Rotten Ronald's in a long time,
but I will make a point of going there just to add
them to my list.


Home (1) is freshly brewed.

Home (2) is freshly brewed, poured, then nuked
for 17 seconds - a time fined tuned to get the
*perfect* coffee temp for me. I don't do it all
the time - usually just for that first cup of
the day. This was done in ceramic mug I usually
use at home - not the stainless steel one. ;-)


Other temps I measured at home:

Neglected cup cooled off while I was busy: 56/133
Still OK. Not cool enough yet that my first
thought is that I wish it was warmer.
Same cup deliberately untouched for a while longer: 50/122
Definitely time for a fresh cup but I would still
drink it if replacing it or nuking it was not an
option.

>
>
> I very much doubt it. Did you have a thermometer? Temperatures
> are notoriously difficult to estimate by feel. Some people
> get very upset when their HSF is the least bit warm or if
> a vidchip is too hot to keep finger on. But that is only 60'C,
> and those chips are usually rated for 85'C.
>
>
>>Quote: "There are people who've build a reputation that
>>others respect. Not everyone, and not always.
>>-- Robert" End quote.
>
>
> Yes, you remember accurately.
>
>
>>Perhaps you should find a subject you have some knowledge
>>about if you want to "build a reputation." I don't think
>>very many people "respect" an "expert" who makes erroneous
>
>
> Perhaps you should consider that it takes some knowledge
> (not just opinion) to be able to correctly evaluate expertise.
>
> USENET tends to respect those who supply data to back their
> opinions. Agrumentation, or raw opinions are much less
> respected. And flat contradiction is reviled.
>
>
>>remarks without engaging their brain first! You should take
>>a laxative and relieve some of the pressure on your brain.
>
>
> Thank you. I will take the insult as an admission you do
> not have any better logical, arguments or data. I accept
> your surrender.
>
> -- Robert
>
>


--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

keith
September 14th 04, 03:59 AM
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:18:33 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>> Exactly. Do you wonder why the suits in Chicago edicted
>> that coffee was to be served hot? The real secret is that
>> *CUSTOMERS WANT IT THAT WAY*. Oops, now I've spilled the
>> all the coffee beans. ;-)
>
> Very close. The secret is McD makes more profit that way.

Then by definition, they *must* do what you abhor. Their customers like
it, their stockholders like it. You, on the other hand, seem to think you
trump both.

> They sell more coffee because more customers let it cool and very few
> sue. The problem is that many more suffer damage than sue. McD's
> analysis is skewed.

Nope, theirs is the only true analysis. An old bimbo who puts a cup of
hot coffee between her legs *TO OPEN IT* is the one that's "skewed".

> I don't want the nanny state, neither through regulation nor court
> precedents. But I would like some assurance that risk managers take
> total damages into account, and not just the damages they suffer.
> Strictly speaking, they are now required (shareholders) to look only at
> the latter.
>
>> You obviously drink crappy ****-water in the name of coffee.
>
> Actually, the best coffees (Europe, S.Am) are served tepid to lukewarm.
> And taste _great_. Only poor quality coffee needs heat.

Leave it to the Franck to pollute one's mind with ****-water! ;-)

--
Keith

keith
September 14th 04, 04:03 AM
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:59:05 -0400, ****heads wrote:

> Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>>
>>>Exactly. Do you wonder why the suits in Chicago edicted
>>>that coffee was to be served hot? The real secret is that
>>>*CUSTOMERS WANT IT THAT WAY*. Oops, now I've spilled the
>>>all the coffee beans. ;-)
>>
>>
>> Very close. The secret is McD makes more profit that way.
>> They sell more coffee because more customers let it cool
>> and very few sue. The problem is that many more suffer
>> damage than sue. McD's analysis is skewed.
>>
>> I don't want the nanny state, neither through regulation
>> nor court precedents. But I would like some assurance that
>> risk managers take total damages into account, and not
>> just the damages they suffer. Strictly speaking, they are
>> now required (shareholders) to look only at the latter.
>>
>>
>>>You obviously drink crappy ****-water in the name of coffee.
>>
>>
>> Actually, the best coffees (Europe, S.Am) are served tepid
>> to lukewarm. And taste _great_. Only poor quality coffee
>> needs heat.
>>
>> -- Robert
>>
>>
>>
> Since this thread appears to be for ****heads, may I join in and act
> like a dumbass, too?

Sure, it seems that even self-described dumbass-****heads are able
to post on the usenet. Even borolad has figured out the magic incantations
needed. ...other than adding content, of course. Are you sure your name
isn't borolad? Oh, well, your current moniker fits well enough.

--
Keith

keith
September 14th 04, 04:13 AM
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:52:30 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips The Chief > wrote:
>> You warm baby's milk to "tepid."
>
> No, baby's milk is warmed until is it warm, but not hot when
> a few drops fall on the inside of the wrist. Probably around
> 95'F. Human skin has to be colder than core temp.
>
>> And all the coffee I drank in France and the Netherlands was
>> definitely served warmer than 120F, probably closer to 170 -
>> 180 F.
>
> I very much doubt it. Did you have a thermometer? Temperatures
> are notoriously difficult to estimate by feel. Some people
> get very upset when their HSF is the least bit warm or if
> a vidchip is too hot to keep finger on. But that is only 60'C,

Tcase.

> and those chips are usually rated for 85'C.

Tjunction. There is a *huge* difference. Tjunction can be vastly
different than Tdie. Local heating can be tremendous (enough to destroy
the junction while Tc is cold)


>> Quote: "There are people who've build a reputation that
>> others respect. Not everyone, and not always.
>> -- Robert" End quote.
>
> Yes, you remember accurately.
>
>> Perhaps you should find a subject you have some knowledge
>> about if you want to "build a reputation." I don't think
>> very many people "respect" an "expert" who makes erroneous
>
> Perhaps you should consider that it takes some knowledge
> (not just opinion) to be able to correctly evaluate expertise.
>
> USENET tends to respect those who supply data to back their
> opinions. Agrumentation, or raw opinions are much less
> respected. And flat contradiction is reviled.
>
>> remarks without engaging their brain first! You should take
>> a laxative and relieve some of the pressure on your brain.
>
> Thank you. I will take the insult as an admission you do
> not have any better logical, arguments or data. I accept
> your surrender.

Oh, Robert. You nasty ol' .chips fart! You should be kinder to the kidz!
;-)

--
Keith

keith
September 14th 04, 04:26 AM
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 04:31:14 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:54:22 -0400, keith > wrote:
>
>>You obviously drink crappy ****-water in the name of coffee.
>
> Not at all - the authorities on coffee: growers, afficianados, gourmet
> experts etc. who have taken time & effort to come up with the perfect
> beans, perfectly roasted and brewed to the exact right temp have spoken!

Yeah, and the same sorts talk about wine, with their snoots in the air.
Audiophools have nothing on them. The fact is that if the consumer parts
good (no *excellent) money for your product, it's good for both. If you
can push it (whatever it[1] is) by somehow claiming "intellectual"
(read; snob) superriority that's goodness. The market speaks.

[1] "It" may be wine, audio equipment, or apparently cafeene

> The sad thing is that most people think coffee is a naturally bitter
> drink which needs sugar/milk/cream to make it more pleasant and of
> course heat to mask the foul taste... and it is at D-n-D, McDs and
> especially Starbucks<yech>, because the fools think the only thing that
> matters is HOT.

I prefer some creame in mine, because black coffee is disgusting. Some is
better than others (GMCR's "Harvard Blend" is quite good, but I can only
get it at home). And no, I don't even drink tea without milk.
Most of the time I even dring Bud Lite! *HORRORS*, though the only beer in
the fridge now is Sams. Ya' know some people are raised that way.

> On the contrary, real coffee is a pleasant, almost sweet beverage which,
> when the beans are treated with water at the correct temp of ~195F,
> allowed to drip/pour into a coolish carafe and served in a room temp
> cup, is perfect for drinking at ~140F and has a glorious flavor,

By the time I drink it I'm sure it is about 140F. Indeed most of it
likely stays close to that for the half hour I sip it. If I wanted to
chug the stuff I'd drink the above Bud Lite! ;-)

> unadulterated with flavor killing agents. Sorry but anything else is
> just heresy... maybe fit for washing the feet. Slurp away at your
> stewed bilge-water - I'll hold out for something closer to the real
> thing.:-P

YOu can drink what I wash my feet with, but no thanks. If you believe the
great unwashed shouldn't be drinking (and spending good money) on what
they *want*, then I guess you're simple an eletist Kerry-loving French
pinko. ;-)

My point is that the market speaks. <smart> corporations listen.
....which brings us back to chips and Intel. ;-)

--
Keith

The Chief
September 14th 04, 12:47 PM
Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> Thank you. I will take the insult as an admission you do
> not have any better logical, arguments or data. I accept
> your surrender.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
Surrender, Hell!

The Chief
September 14th 04, 01:47 PM
Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips The Chief > wrote:
>
>>You warm baby's milk to "tepid."
>
>
> No, baby's milk is warmed until is it warm, but not hot when
> a few drops fall on the inside of the wrist. Probably around
> 95'F. Human skin has to be colder than core temp.
>
>

"Pediatricians advise that the ideal baby food temperature is 98.6 F,
the temperature of breast milk and the body."

Shitheads
September 14th 04, 07:15 PM
keith wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:59:05 -0400, ****heads wrote:
>
>
>>Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>>
>>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Exactly. Do you wonder why the suits in Chicago edicted
>>>>that coffee was to be served hot? The real secret is that
>>>>*CUSTOMERS WANT IT THAT WAY*. Oops, now I've spilled the
>>>>all the coffee beans. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Very close. The secret is McD makes more profit that way.
>>>They sell more coffee because more customers let it cool
>>>and very few sue. The problem is that many more suffer
>>>damage than sue. McD's analysis is skewed.
>>>
>>>I don't want the nanny state, neither through regulation
>>>nor court precedents. But I would like some assurance that
>>>risk managers take total damages into account, and not
>>>just the damages they suffer. Strictly speaking, they are
>>>now required (shareholders) to look only at the latter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You obviously drink crappy ****-water in the name of coffee.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, the best coffees (Europe, S.Am) are served tepid
>>>to lukewarm. And taste _great_. Only poor quality coffee
>>>needs heat.
>>>
>>>-- Robert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Since this thread appears to be for ****heads, may I join in and act
>>like a dumbass, too?
>
>
> Sure, it seems that even self-described dumbass-****heads are able
> to post on the usenet. Even borolad has figured out the magic incantations
> needed. ...other than adding content, of course. Are you sure your name
> isn't borolad? Oh, well, your current moniker fits well enough.
>
thanks, but i m not sure if i can figure this stuff out. i keep losing
my settings and have trouble getting them to work again. but if i can
get stuff working i will feel right at home.

Scott Lurndal
September 14th 04, 11:20 PM
Robert Redelmeier > writes:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>> Exactly. Do you wonder why the suits in Chicago edicted
>> that coffee was to be served hot? The real secret is that
>> *CUSTOMERS WANT IT THAT WAY*. Oops, now I've spilled the
>> all the coffee beans. ;-)
>
>Very close. The secret is McD makes more profit that way.
>They sell more coffee because more customers let it cool
>and very few sue. The problem is that many more suffer
>damage than sue. McD's analysis is skewed.

I'm not sure what this is doing in a bunch of hardware
groups, but I'll point out that the water cooler at my work
dispenses hot water (for tea, coffee dilution, etc) at
195 degrees Fahrenheit (yes, there is a thermometer on the
front of the unit). If you want extra hot, you push a button
and get 200 degrees.

It's not just McDonalds that believe[sd] that hot is better.

I drink tea every day, too.


>Actually, the best coffees (Europe, S.Am) are served tepid
>to lukewarm. And taste _great_. Only poor quality coffee
>needs heat.

Your opinion, unless you care to back it up with some fact.

scott

The Chief
September 14th 04, 11:59 PM
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Robert Redelmeier > writes:
>
>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>>
>>>Exactly. Do you wonder why the suits in Chicago edicted
>>>that coffee was to be served hot? The real secret is that
>>>*CUSTOMERS WANT IT THAT WAY*. Oops, now I've spilled the
>>>all the coffee beans. ;-)
>>
>>Very close. The secret is McD makes more profit that way.
>>They sell more coffee because more customers let it cool
>>and very few sue. The problem is that many more suffer
>>damage than sue. McD's analysis is skewed.
>
>
> I'm not sure what this is doing in a bunch of hardware
> groups, but I'll point out that the water cooler at my work
> dispenses hot water (for tea, coffee dilution, etc) at
> 195 degrees Fahrenheit (yes, there is a thermometer on the
> front of the unit). If you want extra hot, you push a button
> and get 200 degrees.
>
> It's not just McDonalds that believe[sd] that hot is better.
>
> I drink tea every day, too.
>
>
>
>>Actually, the best coffees (Europe, S.Am) are served tepid
>>to lukewarm. And taste _great_. Only poor quality coffee
>>needs heat.
>
>
> Your opinion, unless you care to back it up with some fact.
>
> scott
>
To your 1st point: It has absolutely nothing to do with this forum.
These guys just think they don't have to abide by any standards and are
free to do whatever they want! They think they are better than the rest
of society and there are absolutely no standards that apply to them!
They get "to know each other" with their OT posts!

And for you 2nd point: Don't confuse the facts with logic! They don't
care whether what their post is factual or not! They are establishing
their "reputation" so that everyone will know they are "experts."

But you must remember: These guys are absolute experts! And your
opinion is worthless because they said so!!!

George Macdonald
September 15th 04, 01:35 AM
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:26:34 -0400, keith > wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 04:31:14 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:54:22 -0400, keith > wrote:
>>
>>>You obviously drink crappy ****-water in the name of coffee.
>>
>> Not at all - the authorities on coffee: growers, afficianados, gourmet
>> experts etc. who have taken time & effort to come up with the perfect
>> beans, perfectly roasted and brewed to the exact right temp have spoken!
>
>Yeah, and the same sorts talk about wine, with their snoots in the air.
>Audiophools have nothing on them. The fact is that if the consumer parts
>good (no *excellent) money for your product, it's good for both. If you
>can push it (whatever it[1] is) by somehow claiming "intellectual"
>(read; snob) superriority that's goodness. The market speaks.
>
>[1] "It" may be wine, audio equipment, or apparently cafeene

So anyone who appreciates what you do not is an aeshete?

<<snip>>

>> unadulterated with flavor killing agents. Sorry but anything else is
>> just heresy... maybe fit for washing the feet. Slurp away at your
>> stewed bilge-water - I'll hold out for something closer to the real
>> thing.:-P
>
>YOu can drink what I wash my feet with, but no thanks. If you believe the
>great unwashed shouldn't be drinking (and spending good money) on what
>they *want*, then I guess you're simple an eletist Kerry-loving French
>pinko. ;-)

I think you (should) know that Kerry remark to not be true. You've gone
too far. Time to move on now I think.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

Robert Redelmeier
September 15th 04, 06:17 AM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Rob Stow > wrote:
> Cup Pot
> Home (1) 69/156 72/162
> Home (2) 70/158 N/A
> 7-11 Main St 68/154 72/162
> 7-11 13th Ave 72/162
> Tim Horton's 74/165 76.7/170*
> Robin's Donuts 74/165 77/171
> Boston Pizza 67/153 70/158

Excellent data! Minor point, stainless steel has very
low heat capacity and will cool the coffee somewhat
less than a ceramic mug. As you noted (1) & (2)

> Neglected cup cooled off while I was busy: 56/133
> Still OK. Not cool enough yet that my first thought is
> that I wish it was warmer.
> Same cup deliberately untouched for a while longer: 50/122
> Definitely time for a fresh cup but I would still drink
> it if replacing it or nuking it was not an option.

Also valuable info!

-- Robert

Robert Redelmeier
September 15th 04, 06:25 AM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>> get very upset when their HSF is the least bit warm or if
>> a vidchip is too hot to keep finger on. But that is only 60'C,

> Tcase.

>> and those chips are usually rated for 85'C.

> Tjunction. There is a *huge* difference. Tjunction can be
> vastly different than Tdie. Local heating can be tremendous
> (enough to destroy the junction while Tc is cold)

Granted. Many chips are rated for Tcase 85'C, with Tj
much higher, probably around 105'C. The 440BX was rated
for Tcase 105'C, and I don't wanna think what Tj was.

> Oh, Robert. You nasty ol' .chips fart! You should be
> kinder to the kidz! ;-)

I would, but "The Chief" appears to claim s/he's US Army
retired -- an old fart by any definition. Furthermore,
I would expect that a CWO has been less-than-kind to
others in the past and might need to relearn this skill.
I grant you I'm not setting the best example, but I fear
a less forthright might not be comprehended.

-- Robert

Robert Redelmeier
September 15th 04, 06:29 AM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips The Chief > wrote:
> Surrender, Hell!


I believe the canonical reply is "Nuts!" [Gen MacAuliff 101st
Airborne to encircling Germans at Bastogne, Dec 1944]

-- Robert
>

Robert Redelmeier
September 15th 04, 06:31 AM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips The Chief > wrote:
> "Pediatricians advise that the ideal baby food temperature
> is 98.6 F, the temperature of breast milk and the body."

Very nice. Attribution please?

-- Robert

Robert Redelmeier
September 15th 04, 06:42 AM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>> Very close. The secret is McD makes more profit that way.

> Then by definition, they *must* do what you abhor.
> Their customers like it, their stockholders like it.

I'm sorry I have not made myself clear. I do not abhor
profit. It is a necessary element of the market system,
and is generally desireable.

> You, on the other hand, seem to think you trump both.

No, that would be insufferable arrogant. I am concerned
that some comsumer preferences (damages) are underweighted
or missed altogether.

> Nope, theirs is the only true analysis. An old bimbo who
> puts a cup of hot coffee between her legs *TO OPEN IT*
> is the one that's "skewed".

The precise manner of spilling is irrelevant. She could have
gotten just as severe burns from silling from another cause.
Open cup being jostled by a neighbor or car bump. The hazard
was the overheat. The manner in which it manifested are many.

-- Robert

The Chief
September 15th 04, 12:23 PM
Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips The Chief > wrote:
>
>>Surrender, Hell!
>
>
>
> I believe the canonical reply is "Nuts!" [Gen MacAuliff 101st
> Airborne to encircling Germans at Bastogne, Dec 1944]
>
> -- Robert
>

"Surrender, hell!"

Colonel William T. Warfield
The night 0f 9 - 10 June 1944
The 2nd BN. 115 INF. REGT. 29TH DIV.

The Chief
September 15th 04, 02:02 PM
Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> I would, but "The Chief" appears to claim s/he's US Army
> retired -- an old fart by any definition. Furthermore,
> I would expect that a CWO has been less-than-kind to
> others in the past and might need to relearn this skill.
> I grant you I'm not setting the best example, but I fear
> a less forthright might not be comprehended.
>
> -- Robert
>
I'll just say that you don't serve for 31 years, 7 months, and 5 days in
the manner you suggest! And you can bet that I'm extremely proud to be
an Old Fart!

George Macdonald
September 15th 04, 11:59 PM
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:20:01 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Robert Redelmeier > writes:
>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>>> Exactly. Do you wonder why the suits in Chicago edicted
>>> that coffee was to be served hot? The real secret is that
>>> *CUSTOMERS WANT IT THAT WAY*. Oops, now I've spilled the
>>> all the coffee beans. ;-)
>>
>>Very close. The secret is McD makes more profit that way.
>>They sell more coffee because more customers let it cool
>>and very few sue. The problem is that many more suffer
>>damage than sue. McD's analysis is skewed.
>
>I'm not sure what this is doing in a bunch of hardware
>groups, but I'll point out that the water cooler at my work
>dispenses hot water (for tea, coffee dilution, etc) at
>195 degrees Fahrenheit (yes, there is a thermometer on the
>front of the unit). If you want extra hot, you push a button
>and get 200 degrees.
>
>It's not just McDonalds that believe[sd] that hot is better.

Personally I find that a top-up with cold water brings coffee from the
carafe to a temp in the cup which is fine for drinking.

>I drink tea every day, too.

195F is much too cool to make decent tea. Contrary to coffee, tea requires
briskly boiling water for the infusion and as any tea-wallah will tell you,
preferably a preheated pot to prevent temp loss before the 5mins or so of
infusion.

>>Actually, the best coffees (Europe, S.Am) are served tepid
>>to lukewarm. And taste _great_. Only poor quality coffee
>>needs heat.
>
>Your opinion, unless you care to back it up with some fact.

A search at Google at any site which values coffee will turn up the desired
result on the requirements. A visit to any Euro country which serves
decent coffee will turn up the "experience" though I'm sure there are
variations by region.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

keith
September 17th 04, 04:14 AM
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:59:18 -0400, The Chief wrote:

> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Robert Redelmeier > writes:
>>
>>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Exactly. Do you wonder why the suits in Chicago edicted
>>>>that coffee was to be served hot? The real secret is that
>>>>*CUSTOMERS WANT IT THAT WAY*. Oops, now I've spilled the
>>>>all the coffee beans. ;-)
>>>
>>>Very close. The secret is McD makes more profit that way.
>>>They sell more coffee because more customers let it cool
>>>and very few sue. The problem is that many more suffer
>>>damage than sue. McD's analysis is skewed.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what this is doing in a bunch of hardware
>> groups, but I'll point out that the water cooler at my work
>> dispenses hot water (for tea, coffee dilution, etc) at
>> 195 degrees Fahrenheit (yes, there is a thermometer on the
>> front of the unit). If you want extra hot, you push a button
>> and get 200 degrees.
>>
>> It's not just McDonalds that believe[sd] that hot is better.
>>
>> I drink tea every day, too.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Actually, the best coffees (Europe, S.Am) are served tepid
>>>to lukewarm. And taste _great_. Only poor quality coffee
>>>needs heat.
>>
>>
>> Your opinion, unless you care to back it up with some fact.
>>
>> scott
>>
> To your 1st point: It has absolutely nothing to do with this forum.

Every newsgroup has its regulars, who talk about what interests them.
It's the nature of any conversational medium - people chat. You aren't
king of ****. ...get used to it. Hone your killfiles if you must.
Otherwise eat...

> These guys just think they don't have to abide by any standards and are
> free to do whatever they want! They think they are better than the rest
> of society and there are absolutely no standards that apply to them!
> They get "to know each other" with their OT posts!

You're absolutely right. If you weren't such a pup you'd understand the
nature of the beast! Friendships build over the *years*. If you don't
like it, find a new playground.

> And for you 2nd point: Don't confuse the facts with logic! They don't
> care whether what their post is factual or not! They are establishing
> their "reputation" so that everyone will know they are "experts."

That may be your excuse, but many here know each other. ...yes largely
through these groups, though often personally or via email over the *years*.

> But you must remember: These guys are absolute experts! And your
> opinion is worthless because they said so!!!

It's about time you got something right! ;-) Now, join the club of
bugger off!

--
Keith

keith
September 17th 04, 04:23 AM
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:35:14 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:26:34 -0400, keith > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 04:31:14 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:54:22 -0400, keith > wrote:
>>>
>>>>You obviously drink crappy ****-water in the name of coffee.
>>>
>>> Not at all - the authorities on coffee: growers, afficianados, gourmet
>>> experts etc. who have taken time & effort to come up with the perfect
>>> beans, perfectly roasted and brewed to the exact right temp have spoken!
>>
>>Yeah, and the same sorts talk about wine, with their snoots in the air.
>>Audiophools have nothing on them. The fact is that if the consumer parts
>>good (no *excellent) money for your product, it's good for both. If you
>>can push it (whatever it[1] is) by somehow claiming "intellectual"
>>(read; snob) superriority that's goodness. The market speaks.
>>
>>[1] "It" may be wine, audio equipment, or apparently cafeene
>
> So anyone who appreciates what you do not is an aeshete?

Exactly the opposite, there George. Anyone who tells me that I cannot
have what I want (within obvious legal restrictions) is an Donkey's ass.

> <<snip>>
>
>>> unadulterated with flavor killing agents. Sorry but anything else is
>>> just heresy... maybe fit for washing the feet. Slurp away at your
>>> stewed bilge-water - I'll hold out for something closer to the real
>>> thing.:-P
>>
>>YOu can drink what I wash my feet with, but no thanks. If you believe
>>the great unwashed shouldn't be drinking (and spending good money) on
>>what they *want*, then I guess you're simple an eletist Kerry-loving
>>French pinko. ;-)
>
> I think you (should) know that Kerry remark to not be true.

Sure, that's why it was worded as absurdly as I could, and followed by a
smiley, in case you missed the dripping sarcasm. Apparently...

> You've gone too far. Time to move on now I think.

Of course you're right (litttle new has been said), but that borolad chap
seems to be ready for a much deserved stroke.

--
Keith

George Macdonald
September 18th 04, 03:18 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:23:41 -0400, keith > wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:35:14 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:26:34 -0400, keith > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 04:31:14 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:54:22 -0400, keith > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You obviously drink crappy ****-water in the name of coffee.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all - the authorities on coffee: growers, afficianados, gourmet
>>>> experts etc. who have taken time & effort to come up with the perfect
>>>> beans, perfectly roasted and brewed to the exact right temp have spoken!
>>>
>>>Yeah, and the same sorts talk about wine, with their snoots in the air.
>>>Audiophools have nothing on them. The fact is that if the consumer parts
>>>good (no *excellent) money for your product, it's good for both. If you
>>>can push it (whatever it[1] is) by somehow claiming "intellectual"
>>>(read; snob) superriority that's goodness. The market speaks.
>>>
>>>[1] "It" may be wine, audio equipment, or apparently cafeene
>>
>> So anyone who appreciates what you do not is an aeshete?
>
>Exactly the opposite, there George. Anyone who tells me that I cannot
>have what I want (within obvious legal restrictions) is an Donkey's ass.

Agh but I just want to have a choice... not to deny you yours.

>> <<snip>>
>>
>>>> unadulterated with flavor killing agents. Sorry but anything else is
>>>> just heresy... maybe fit for washing the feet. Slurp away at your
>>>> stewed bilge-water - I'll hold out for something closer to the real
>>>> thing.:-P
>>>
>>>YOu can drink what I wash my feet with, but no thanks. If you believe
>>>the great unwashed shouldn't be drinking (and spending good money) on
>>>what they *want*, then I guess you're simple an eletist Kerry-loving
>>>French pinko. ;-)
>>
>> I think you (should) know that Kerry remark to not be true.
>
>Sure, that's why it was worded as absurdly as I could, and followed by a
>smiley, in case you missed the dripping sarcasm. Apparently...

.... so.:-( What a windbag that guy is - reminds of Hubert Humphrey.

>> You've gone too far. Time to move on now I think.
>
>Of course you're right (litttle new has been said), but that borolad chap
>seems to be ready for a much deserved stroke.

Umm, lets leave it at we've both gone far enough??:-) As for our err,
interloper: http://www.flirtbox.co.uk/dating/borolad.html ... I wonder??...
how embarrassing!!

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

keith
September 24th 04, 04:42 AM
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:45:39 +0000, borolad wrote:

> *'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ΈτΆσ - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*
>
>>To your 1st point: It has absolutely nothing to do with this forum.
>>These guys just think they don't have to abide by any standards and are
>>free to do whatever they want! They think they are better than the rest
>>of society and there are absolutely no standards that apply to them!
>>They get "to know each other" with their OT posts!
>
> And you cross post to perpetuate Chief, that make you personally all
> of the above.

My, *THAT* spam took seven days. (this time I'm responding back to x86-64
where "borolad" insists on spamming from.) ...nutcase!

--
Keith