Dateline Cochran, GA

"G. Ross" <[email protected]> wrote:
> We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight the
> weather radio came on and said there "was the potential of flash
> flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you experience flooding
> move to higher ground."
>
> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
> must be brilliant to get that job.

I once told my son that the professions that had the least pressure of
being right all of the time was weather forecasters and medical.

On 5/17/2014 8:55 AM, Leon wrote:
> Your new coffee machine brews at between 187 and 192 degrees, depending
> on which setting you chose.

Don't know how accurate that is because strangely enough, and according
to this supposedly highly accurate digital medical thermometer used in
chemotherapy applications, the coffee had a range of 138.4 to 128.8F
temperature as it hits the cup:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/0q0AdEIQNKmp4cwwPMWvXNMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

The coffee grounds, immediately after brewing, read 142F.

Focused on the stream of water, on the "Hot Water" setting, held a
steady 164.8F:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/lK1jIkD75L6WPKntel_kLtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

Cool thermometer ... I have requisitioned it from the "cold cap" box of
goodies we give out to chemo patients to keep them from losing their
hair. There is a very narrow range they must achieve to keep their scalp
from frost bite, so these things are extremely accurate.

Also been known to use it to test AC vents for the proper temperature.

>
> IMHO this conversation is starting to sound like the law suite brought
> against Ryobi by the guy that cut his finger off because he did not use
> the equipment properly.

Or the civil lawsuits against the car manufacturers regarding seat belts
and rear end collisions; or tire manufacturers, or ... ad infinitum.
<g,d &r>

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 11:37 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 5/17/2014 9:22 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>> There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that the
>> temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
>> government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.
>
> ??
>
> Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.

I know, tomato, tomaato.... The government was still involved in
allowing the proceedings.


Sorry, I should have said that the government run court room oversaw
the proceedings brought to it and a government appointed judge guided
those proceedings according to law.

>
> No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
> anticipated or ever even suggested.

Was the court room a private building or a public government building?
Was the judge that overruled some of the damages and over saw the
proceedings according to law hired by the attorneys or appointed by a
government entity?



I guess the point I am trying to make here is that many sided with the
lady that did not insure against spilling coffee on herself and most of
those have admitted that they don't care for McDonald's and or
McDonald's doesn't give a rat's ass about the consumers safety.

On a similar point a lot of people like Ryobi, many here promote their
good experiences with the product. I used to have a great AP-10 Ryobi
planer. When the flooring guy cut his digit off because he was not
careful, the fact that he won the suite against Ryobi for his own
carelessness was about the most ridiculous thing any of us had heard of.

Now if the same guy had overridden the safety stop and done the same
with the SawStop i think many here may have sided with the idiot because
of the past tactics used by SawStop to bring their product to market.

>
> Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider is a
> proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to the
> reality of the situation.
>
> When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
> based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you change
> those questionable business practices.

Yes you do, But where do you draw the line? Should restraints risk
loosing 99.990% of their customers to protect against the possibility of
the other .001% harming themselves?

If I burned my self by spilling coffee made in my correctly operating
coffee maker, sued the manufacturer, and won, would you expect for that
manufacturer to recall your coffee maker and readjust it so that it no
longer heated water hotter than a 130 degrees, which will cause 3rd
degree burns, instead of the 187~192 degrees that it operates at now?






>
> As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
> system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
> practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.
>
> End of story...
>

On 5/17/2014 10:15 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> dadiOH wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>> I confess I've come into work and microwaved the coffee that was
>>> leftover from yesterday! ;)
>>
>> <gag> :)
>
> Even more gag! That just ain't right!
>


I have raised a "one of many floater" office coffee cups and saw
something floating and growing in there before actually taking a sip....

On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:58:35 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 5/16/2014 7:47 AM, phorbin wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> says...
>>
>>> It certainly does for me. If the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd
>>> degree burns through clothing, it would have unarguably caused the same
>>> burns on the lips and tongue with the first unsuspecting sip.
>>
>> Clothing holds the fluid and heat against the skin longer.
>>
>> Clothing mediated burns are worse.
>
>Coming up with these little tidbits of googlefu'ed wisdom is fine and
>dandy for your egos, but the fucking POINT is that there is NO damned
>excuse to serve a DRINK at that kind of temperature ... in this case the
>temperature of the served coffee was actually hot enough to melt the
>nylon strands in the fabric of her clothes into her burned skin.

Gotta disagree. I *Want* my coffee served at 180F. When this whole
thing happened, a friend owned a DD shop. He said the home office
sent inspectors regularly (some surprise visits) to check out his
operation. One thing high on the list was coffee temperature. It had
to be 180 +/-3F or it was a major ding. It's unlikely to get coffee
at a DD at 120F, anymore.

>Not to mention you're on the wrong side of the historical, already
>accomplished, facts of the issue.

Tweet it, Barak.

Leon wrote:
> On 5/15/2014 9:59 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> G. Ross wrote:
>>> We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight
>>> the weather radio came on and said there "was the potential of flash
>>> flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you experience flooding
>>> move to higher ground."
>>
>> In my immediate area, the rains have not been that severe, but just a county
>> away (or two), they received 5 inches overnight, with all of the resultant
>> flooding. Poor bastards - more rain on the way, of (nearly) equal
>> intensity.
>>
>>>
>>> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
>>> must be brilliant to get that job.
>>
>> It's only getting worse. I've been observing that the local news has been
>> re-staffing to present more younger reporters, anchors, etc. The result is
>> an embarassing level of ignorance published on our local airwaves, daily.
>> These younger people are all about some sort of "excitement" in what they
>> are doing. Not at all about the heritage of the press that included good
>> reporting, good investigation before reporting, (god forbid...) a command of
>> the english language and something that even resembles proper grammar, and a
>> professional level of hiding one's own feelings/emotions on a topic while
>> reporting on it. Now it's 20-30 somethings, getting all giddy on-air, and
>> trying to attract an equally ignorant audience. The very content of the
>> not-so-newsworthy spots has become almost rediculous. Reporters that are
>> incapable of stringing together a complete sentence, but handed a mic and a
>> camera crew, to capture them climbing a rock wall in a mall - and this is
>> only slightly secondary to mentioning national or international news.
>>
>> Alright - I'll shut up. Turn off my rant. Good Lord - give me back Walter
>> Cronkite...
>>
>
>
> My favorite reporting is the kind where the guy/gal at the scene of the
> pot hole filled with rain water spends 5 minutes describing the scene
> in as many ways and angles as possible.
>
> Or with our recent rain and the "sure to happen" street flooding at
> Fondren and HY59 the reporter described every vehicle that drove by in
> the treacherous conditions. As a side note, this location gets high
> water if it is foggy or some ones toilet backs up.
>
> If I were the reporter at this same location and there for the same
> reason I could simply point and shout "LOOK", over and over and the
> viewing audience would get so much more out of the coverage.
>

I used to live just off HWY59 (Marshall) and your mentioning it
reminds me. We were driving south on 59 and nearly everyone was
speeding. Along comes a State Patrolman and he would pull up beside a
speeder and motion them to pull over (which they did), then he would
rush off and pull another one over. When he had about 4 he finally
stopped the last one and the others drifted up behind on the shoulder
to get their tickets. (we were not one of them).
Last time I was out there we saw deputys in trucks with the lights
in the grill so you wouldn't notice them except for the markings on
the door. Perfect camouflage for Texas.


--
 GW Ross 

 I got lost in thought, it was 
 unfamiliar territory. 

On Fri, 16 May 2014 12:12:43 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:58:35 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Not to mention you're on the wrong side of the historical, already
>>> accomplished, facts of the issue.
>>
>> Yup, and so am I apparently. I guess the biggest fault here wasn't
>> that McDonalds was serving hot coffee, but the fact that they didn't
>> accede to here original claims for compensation.
>>
>> Guess they were afraid of the torrent of new claims that would follow.
>> So, either way, they were going to have to pay. That means, that
>> you're right, there coffee was too hot. Not INHO that it was
>> undrinkable, but that it's hotness left them open for being sued. :)
>
>Or that a law-suit-i'm-not-responsible society was gaining ground in
>America.

Gaining?

On 5/16/2014 9:05 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 5/16/2014 8:53 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Coffee is supposed to be hot, not luke warm, hot.
>
> I agree. However, please provide a precise, universally accepted
> definition.temperature of "hot".
>
> And who the hell is "luke"??
>
> Thanks. ;)
>
Your new coffee machine brews at between 187 and 192 degrees, depending
on which setting you chose.

IMHO this conversation is starting to sound like the law suite brought
against Ryobi by the guy that cut his finger off because he did not use
the equipment properly.

Is placing a closed container, containing a known hot product, between
your legs to secure it while opening it not an accident waiting to happen?

It is mentioned that in a 10 year period that 700 people have been
burned by spilling coffee in genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and
buttocks. I don't recall seeing any mention of body parts being burned
when the coffee was applied to the intended body parts. ;~)

One buys "hot" coffee vs. iced coffee because it is hot beverage. If
you buy a hot product you should take care not to pour it all over your
self. Pizza is classically served HOT. You pull out a piece and place
it right into your mouth and scald the inside of your mouth, is the
establishment at fault?


IMHO regardless of temperature, different parts of your body are going
to burn more easily, at lower temperatures that others. I can easily
put something much hotter in my mouth than I can stand to hold on to.
Ones mouth and lips are accustomed to having hot things placed into it/them.

Do you think that if the coffee that is hot, but you can sip it, gets
thrown on your hand that you will not burn?

One also has to wonder that if the fabric melted what kept the plastic
cup from melting.. ;~)


Now having said that if the cup of coffee was stilling boiling when the
lady was attempting to open the cup between her legs I could see that
being a problem with the temperature being served but according to the
article 130 degrees is hot enough to cause a burn. I'm thinking that
one would not accept a cup of coffee that is served at that low temperature.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 5/16/2014 8:53 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Coffee is supposed to be hot, not luke warm, hot.
>
> I agree. However, please provide a precise, universally accepted
> definition.temperature of "hot".
>
I am not going to get involved in any kind of discussion with the resident
troll. But I wanted to comment.

Years ago, I was involved in the specialty coffee biz for a while. There
was a big push at that time to "standardize" coffee brewing temperatures.
Considerable money and time was spent to determine the "optimal brewing
temperature". And it was short of boiling.

In fact a number of procedures and monitoring equipment was devised to
achieve this mathematical ideal. The consensus of the McDonalds incident
was that it had to be crap coffee if it was brewed at those kinds of
temperature. McDonalds has greatly improved their coffee since those days,
because they found out that it brought people in the doors. All they had to
do was to sell it cheaper than Starbucks. Which is not hard to do.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 5/16/2014 8:53 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Coffee is supposed to be hot, not luke warm, hot.
>>>
>>> I agree. However, please provide a precise, universally accepted
>>> definition.temperature of "hot".
>>>
>> I am not going to get involved in any kind of discussion with the
>> resident troll. But I wanted to comment.
>>
>> Years ago, I was involved in the specialty coffee biz for a while. There
>> was a big push at that time to "standardize" coffee brewing
>> temperatures. Considerable money and time was spent to determine the
>> "optimal brewing temperature". And it was short of boiling.
>>
>> In fact a number of procedures and monitoring equipment was devised
>> to achieve this mathematical ideal. The consensus of the McDonalds
>> incident was that it had to be crap coffee if it was brewed at those
>> kinds of temperature. McDonalds has greatly improved their coffee
>> since those days, because they found out that it brought people in
>> the doors. All they had to do was to sell it cheaper than Starbucks.
>> Which is not hard to do.
>
> Which completely contradicts almost every coffee brewing standard or
> recommendation out there. So... what was the recommended brewing
> temperature that your group came up with?
>
>
It wasn't one particular group. A variety of folks in the industry got this
discussion going. I wrote a couple articles on it. It was a long time ago.
I don't remember the numbers. And this was the specialty coffee people.
The high end places. The general consensus was if the water boiled, the
coffee was being brewed at a temperature that degraded the flavor. This was
for brewed coffee. Espresso was something else. There was also some
variation depending on the variety of coffee as well.

Actually, a lot of folks just went to espresso in the high end places. As
long as you stopped the shot at the right time, the "crema" was flavorful.
Even if the original coffee was burnt. The idea was to get the good flavors
out before you got to the bitterness.

On 05/17/2014 07:01 AM, Leon wrote:

>
>
> You develop a tolerance for the heat in your mouth, The body adapts
> areas that are repeatedly subject to high temp. Work with your hands
> and get calluses. If I pick up a hot french fry and it burns my fingers
> my first thought is to put it in my mouth. My mouth is much more
> tolerant to heat than my hands. Perhaps if I ate with my hands vs using
> a fork my hands would become accustomed to the heat too.
>
> AND I am not suggesting that you eat all our meals with your fingers. ;~)

If you do a lot of cooking, your hands and fingers will become heat
tolerant as the accumulated burns destroy the nerve endings. You still
burn hands and fingers, but it doesn't hurt as much.

On 05/17/2014 11:58 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 5/17/2014 12:31 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> On 05/17/2014 07:01 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You develop a tolerance for the heat in your mouth, The body adapts
>>> areas that are repeatedly subject to high temp. Work with your hands
>>> and get calluses. If I pick up a hot french fry and it burns my fingers
>>> my first thought is to put it in my mouth. My mouth is much more
>>> tolerant to heat than my hands. Perhaps if I ate with my hands vs using
>>> a fork my hands would become accustomed to the heat too.
>>>
>>> AND I am not suggesting that you eat all our meals with your fingers.
>>> ;~)
>>
>> If you do a lot of cooking, your hands and fingers will become heat
>> tolerant as the accumulated burns destroy the nerve endings. You still
>> burn hands and fingers, but it doesn't hurt as much.
>
>
> Absolutely agree, a tolerance has been developed. And while I agree
> that a chef/cook probably gets burned quite often I'm certain those
> burns are not as numerous or severe as those gotten when he began
> cooking/burning himself. ;~) I am sure calluses too over the years
> offer a layer of protection which perhaps a person near his or her
> crotch may or may not have developed. ;~)

Perhaps practitioners of the oldest occupation develop callouses there ;-)

On 05/17/2014 11:58 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 5/17/2014 12:31 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> On 05/17/2014 07:01 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You develop a tolerance for the heat in your mouth, The body adapts
>>> areas that are repeatedly subject to high temp. Work with your hands
>>> and get calluses. If I pick up a hot french fry and it burns my fingers
>>> my first thought is to put it in my mouth. My mouth is much more
>>> tolerant to heat than my hands. Perhaps if I ate with my hands vs using
>>> a fork my hands would become accustomed to the heat too.
>>>
>>> AND I am not suggesting that you eat all our meals with your fingers.
>>> ;~)
>>
>> If you do a lot of cooking, your hands and fingers will become heat
>> tolerant as the accumulated burns destroy the nerve endings. You still
>> burn hands and fingers, but it doesn't hurt as much.
>
>
> Absolutely agree, a tolerance has been developed. And while I agree
> that a chef/cook probably gets burned quite often I'm certain those
> burns are not as numerous or severe as those gotten when he began
> cooking/burning himself. ;~) I am sure calluses too over the years
> offer a layer of protection which perhaps a person near his or her
> crotch may or may not have developed. ;~)

I have noticed it is mostly my left hand/fingers that have the reduced
feeling, probably because I'm right handed and I tend to grab the pan
handles with my left hand while flipping/dishing the pan contents with a
spatula with the right hand. Or, I'm just getting old and parts are
wearing out :-(

On 5/15/2014 10:01 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2014 07:53:01 -0400, "G. Ross" <[email protected]>
>>> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
>>> must be brilliant to get that job.
>>
>> Look at it this way. There's bound to be a number of people who won't
>> move unless someone tells them to.
>>
>> And considering the litigious reputation the US has, what is the
>> possibility that someone would sue a radio station for not advising
>> the obvious? You just never know.
>
> Unfortunately Dave - the underlying principle you allude to is all to true.
> The only exception I might take is in your pointing to the US. Hell man -
> it's a global thing... at least in the developed global world.
>

O! M! G! You have hit directly on the next "the sky is falling" fad.
And unfortunately this is true according to all the scientists except in
this case this really is real. I'm not joking....

Global Stupidity!

And of course as the politically correct get finished with inscribing
their trophies the term will be changed to ...

Intelligence Change

<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:01:35 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Unfortunately Dave - the underlying principle you allude to is all to true.
>> The only exception I might take is in your pointing to the US. Hell man -
>> it's a global thing... at least in the developed global world.
>
> Hey, no one else had the McDonald's coffee lawsuit case. Other people
> in the developed global world have done some damned stupid things and
> sued for them, but none of them have awarded someone three million
> dollars for driving and spilling a cup of coffee between their legs.
>
> Hell, I'm willing to bet that if the coffee was too cold, she'd have
> sued for that and won even more money. :) :) :)

Not to be uncharitable, but you apparently fell for the spin the media put
for the stupid on that issue, and I know damned good and well you're not in
that category. ;)

I thought so at first also ... until I saw the photos of the burns on her
thighs from that coffee. IIRC, she wasn't driving, was a passenger in the
car, and they were stopped in the parking lot.

https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts

Photo of the burn here. Careful if you're squeamish.

http://www.scarymommy.com/message-board/index.php?p=/discussion/15842/mcdonalds-hot-coffee-burns-lawsuit-graphic-content-warning/p1

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

On Thu, 15 May 2014 07:53:01 -0400, "G. Ross" <[email protected]>
>I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
>must be brilliant to get that job.

Look at it this way. There's bound to be a number of people who won't
move unless someone tells them to.

And considering the litigious reputation the US has, what is the
possibility that someone would sue a radio station for not advising
the obvious? You just never know.

"G. Ross" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 5/15/2014 6:53 AM, G. Ross wrote:
>>> We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight the
>>> weather radio came on and said there "was the potential of flash
>>> flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you experience flooding
>>> move to higher ground."
>>>
>>> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
>>> must be brilliant to get that job.
>>
>> You must not live by a "freeway" ... the most illustrative example of
>> just how fucking stupid this culture is.
>>
> Nope. Saw one one time. Didn't like it.

Stay away from them. How stupid is it? Only place in the country where it
is against the law to obey the law.

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

On 5/16/2014 5:37 PM, dadiOH wrote:

> Used to
> drink coffee with just sugar but after I got hooked on lecheros - strong
> coffee and hot milk - in Mexico I started making coffee about double
> strength and adding milk.

A neighbor from Brazil makes extra strong, freshly ground coffee and
uses this:

http://chriskam5.mercadoshops.com.co/leche-en-polvo-venezolanas-la-campina-la-campesina-mas_4xJM

I've had plenty of coffee in a couple of trips around the globe and
nothing compares.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Fri, 16 May 2014 00:27:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>G. Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>>We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight the
>>weather radio came on and said there "was the potential of flash
>>flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you experience flooding
>>move to higher ground."
>
>Not sure what you're objecting to. Not everybody puts two and two
>together and realizes that a lot of rain = potential flood. In fact,
>I'd wager that most people don't make that connection unless they've
>been told, or witnessed a flood first-hand. And likewise, a lot of
>people might not make the connection that a little flooding now
>could lead to a lot of flooding in a few hours.

However, how many people who are "experiencing flooding" go to
low-lying areas without such warning?

>So it makes perfect sense to broadcast a two-sentence warning on
>the radio.

The second sentence is the issue.

On 5/17/2014 2:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 5/17/2014 2:50 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2014 8:55 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>> Your new coffee machine brews at between 187 and 192 degrees,
>>>> depending on which setting you chose.
>>>
>>> Don't know how accurate that is because strangely enough, and
>>> according to this supposedly highly accurate digital medical
>>> thermometer used in chemotherapy applications, the coffee had a range
>>> of 138.4 to 128.8F temperature as it hits the cup:
>>
>> Very interesting. All of the manufacturers I've taken any time to
>> look at
>> tell that they brew at ~190. This is a very interesting little bit of
>> information.
>>
>> So now I have to wonder if home units brew at the same temperature as
>> commercial units. There sure is a lot of information out there that
>> supports the notion of brewing coffee at ~190 - commercially, at least.
>>
>> Maybe I should feel like I'm getting ripped off with my home unit...
>
> I would not discount the fact that, for quality control purposes, there
> is a range of acceptable parameters and that not all units are at the
> higher end of that temperature range.
>
> Appears, and depending the accuracy of Leon and my respective
> thermometers, that my unit does not serve up water as hot as Leon's.
>
> Then again, the same could be applicable to thermometers. ;)
>


I am thinking the right tool for the job in this case. You are taking a
2 dimensional reading and I am taking a 3 dimensional reading. I have
not noticed a difference in the temp of coffee you serve than what mine
puts out according to my tongue.

On 5/15/2014 12:20 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

> It goes without saying that 190 degree liquids will create quite a burn -
> but is that the fault of the vendor? That was and largely is the
> temperature of coffee. This woman could have done the same thing to herself
> in the privacy of her own kitchen. The ugliness of the photo should not be
> the basis for fault. Yes - she was parked as I recall, and she was the
> passenger. But she put the cup between her legs to add condiments or
> something similar, squeezed too hard and popped the top off the cup. All
> was fine until she did that. Does not add up for me that McDonalds should
> have been found at fault.

It certainly does for me. If the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd
degree burns through clothing, it would have unarguably caused the same
burns on the lips and tongue with the first unsuspecting sip.

That the coffee, a drink, was provably too hot to be "drinkable" without
causing burns, was the fault on one but McDonalds.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 10:19 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> IMHO regardless of temperature, different parts of your body are going
>> to burn more easily, at lower temperatures that others. I can easily
>> put something much hotter in my mouth than I can stand to hold on to.
>> Ones mouth and lips are accustomed to having hot things placed into
>> it/them.
>
> Geezus Leon - you had to go drag a perfectly docile conversation right down
> into the gutter, didn't you?
>
>
>


I walk up to the powder keg of hornets very slowly and cautiously. I
know that any minute that the situation could turn nasty.

I sneak closer and in one fell swoop, I whack it with a stick! LOL

On Thu, 15 May 2014 13:20:46 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Swingman wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:01:35 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> Unfortunately Dave - the underlying principle you allude to is all
>>>> to true. The only exception I might take is in your pointing to the
>>>> US. Hell man - it's a global thing... at least in the developed
>>>> global world.
>>>
>>> Hey, no one else had the McDonald's coffee lawsuit case. Other people
>>> in the developed global world have done some damned stupid things and
>>> sued for them, but none of them have awarded someone three million
>>> dollars for driving and spilling a cup of coffee between their legs.
>>>
>>> Hell, I'm willing to bet that if the coffee was too cold, she'd have
>>> sued for that and won even more money. :) :) :)
>>
>> Not to be uncharitable, but you apparently fell for the spin the
>> media put for the stupid on that issue, and I know damned good and
>> well you're not in that category. ;)
>>
>> I thought so at first also ... until I saw the photos of the burns on
>> her thighs from that coffee. IIRC, she wasn't driving, was a
>> passenger in the car, and they were stopped in the parking lot.
>>
>> https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts
>>
>> Photo of the burn here. Careful if you're squeamish.
>>
>> http://www.scarymommy.com/message-board/index.php?p=/discussion/15842/mcdonalds-hot-coffee-burns-lawsuit-graphic-content-warning/p1
>
>It goes without saying that 190 degree liquids will create quite a burn -
>but is that the fault of the vendor? That was and largely is the
>temperature of coffee. This woman could have done the same thing to herself
>in the privacy of her own kitchen. The ugliness of the photo should not be
>the basis for fault. Yes - she was parked as I recall, and she was the
>passenger. But she put the cup between her legs to add condiments or
>something similar, squeezed too hard and popped the top off the cup. All
>was fine until she did that. Does not add up for me that McDonalds should
>have been found at fault.

+1

Maybe McDs should have put a disclaimer on the cup saying that coffee
is hot. ...so now we're forced to drink cold coffee.

On 5/17/2014 12:06 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 5/17/2014 9:22 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that
>>> the temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
>>> government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.
>>
>> ??
>>
>> Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.
>>
>> No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
>> anticipated or ever even suggested.
>>
>> Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider
>> is a proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to
>> the reality of the situation.
>>
>> When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
>> based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you
>> change those questionable business practices.
>>
>> As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
>> system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
>> practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.
>>
>> End of story...
>
> Not so much the end of the story Karl. By your own admission, you prefer
> your coffee at exactly the same temperature that McD served their coffee at.
> It would be safe to assume that a large majority of America does so,
> likewise - or else they would have served at a temperature more in keeping
> with American tastes. You can't say on one hand that said temperature is
> extreme while on the other hand you say that you prefer your coffee at
> exactly that temperature; I think you are seriously contradicting your own
> position on this matter.

Charitably speaking, is possible that you interposed what you thought
onto what I actually said, and in the context I said it in?

In short, be careful what you think is "safe to assume".

Here's a simplified version to clear up your misunderstanding:

I DO take exception to the ignorant MYTH fostered by the media
surrounding the incident; as well as the complete disregard by the
media, and the ignorant public, for the actual facts of the case.

EVERYTHING I have stated thus far is in reference to, and based on, said
actual FACTS, and even quoted as same as a matter of record.

Including the FACT that I prefer my coffee at a higher temperature ...
which, offered as an aside, has the impact of a fart in a hurricane on
the reality of the final outcome of the case.

> Provably injurious is a fairly meaningless term. It seems to work when we
> want to present a statement, but civil cases do no prove anything. They
> result more in the emotional appeal to the jury - and that is no proof of
> anything. Your very own contradictions in this thread would disquqlify
> either postion you have taken - just based on the fact that you contradict
> yourself. To whit... you want coffee at 180 degrees but you have gone on
> record as stating the this very temperature is beyond the level at which
> people can safely consume it.

Again, it makes no difference what I, or you, like or feel:

>> When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
>> based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you
>> change those questionable business practices.
>>
>> As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
>> system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
>> practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

Once again ... end of story. Fait accompli. What you feel, or how hot I
like my coffee, has no bearing on the reality of the outcome.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 2:43 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

> Except that that simple fact makes you totally unbelieveable - just like my
> wife. There's just got to be something wrong with people who can do that...

LOL Ya got me there.

> That is absolutely correct. The discussion was not so much about the
> outcome of the case as it was about statements that the coffee was served
> too hot for anyone to consume - which is proven wrong by your own preferred
> temperature for coffee. And - was not agreed to even by people like me who
> don't like pipng hot coffee.

Fair enough... assuming pipng is a Vietnamese relative of luke. <g,d&r>

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 3:54 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 5/17/2014 3:52 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 5/17/2014 3:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder how much Karl was getting done on the cabinets this after noon
>>> while yielding his mighty sword at the keyboard?
>>
>> Worked hard all week, It's Saturday, went on strike.
>>
>
>
> Probably that 2 hour search for room tired you all out. ;~)

Just the thought of it...


--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

DAYUM!

An argument rages on the wRec, and with nothing stronger than a "Good
grief", and an "Oh brother."??

WTF's with that?

;)

ITMT, I'm gonna go take a nap and get ready for my weekly ass whipping,
by either my wife, or Leon's.

Enjoyed the arguments one and all, learned something, hope no hard/hot
feelings left on the coffee table. ;)

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 3:50 PM, Leon wrote:

> I wonder how much Karl was getting done on the cabinets this after noon
> while yielding his mighty sword at the keyboard?

Worked hard all week, It's Saturday, went on strike.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
> On 5/15/2014 6:53 AM, G. Ross wrote:
>> We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight the
>> weather radio came on and said there "was the potential of flash
>> flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you experience flooding
>> move to higher ground."
>>
>> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
>> must be brilliant to get that job.
>
> You must not live by a "freeway" ... the most illustrative example of
> just how fucking stupid this culture is.
>
Nope. Saw one one time. Didn't like it.

--
 GW Ross 

 We are born naked, wet and hungry. 
 Then things get worse. 

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

> It certainly does for me. If the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd
> degree burns through clothing, it would have unarguably caused the same
> burns on the lips and tongue with the first unsuspecting sip.

Clothing holds the fluid and heat against the skin longer.

Clothing mediated burns are worse.

On 5/16/2014 12:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:

> Gotta disagree. I*Want* my coffee served at 180F.

As do I. AAMOF, Starbucks has honored my request to serve my coffee to
me at exactly that temperature.

> When this whole
> thing happened, a friend owned a DD shop. He said the home office
> sent inspectors regularly (some surprise visits) to check out his
> operation. One thing high on the list was coffee temperature. It had
> to be 180 ±3F or it was a major ding. It's unlikely to get coffee
> at a DD at 120F, anymore.
>
>> >Not to mention you're on the wrong side of the historical, already
>> >accomplished, facts of the issue.

> Tweet it, Barak.

You put way too much credence in this culture being anything but stone
ass stupid. Here's your tweet, Barak. The below quoted facts are a
matter of trial record:

~ McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its
coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

~ Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in
three to seven seconds;

~ It was shown that the coffee at McDonald's that day was closer to the
top of their mandatory range of 180 to 190.

~ McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was
brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no
avail;

~ From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many
receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and
buttocks;

~ Not only men and women, but also children and infants, had been burned
by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent
spillage by McDonald’s employees;

~ McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for
consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;

~ McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers are unaware of the extent
of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s
then required temperature;

~ McDonald’s admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and
extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;

Once again, there is simply no excuse for serving the general public a
DRINK that is capable of causing immediate third degree burns to the
drinker.

Despite all the arguments hereabouts to the contrary, it is irrevocably
and without question an established fact that the practice was proven
dangerous, unwise, and no is longer considered a tenable practice due to
proven injuries.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 2:43 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 5/17/2014 12:06 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/2014 9:22 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think
>>>>> that the temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and
>>>>> that the government getting involved to prosecute the provider is
>>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>> ??
>>>>
>>>> Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.
>>>>
>>>> No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
>>>> anticipated or ever even suggested.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider
>>>> is a proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to
>>>> the reality of the situation.
>>>>
>>>> When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
>>>> based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you
>>>> change those questionable business practices.
>>>>
>>>> As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL
>>>> legal system punished a questionable, and provably injurious,
>>>> business practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.
>>>>
>>>> End of story...
>>>
>>> Not so much the end of the story Karl. By your own admission, you
>>> prefer your coffee at exactly the same temperature that McD served
>>> their coffee at. It would be safe to assume that a large majority of
>>> America does so, likewise - or else they would have served at a
>>> temperature more in keeping with American tastes. You can't say on
>>> one hand that said temperature is extreme while on the other hand
>>> you say that you prefer your coffee at exactly that temperature; I
>>> think you are seriously contradicting your own position on this
>>> matter.
>>
>> Charitably speaking, is possible that you interposed what you thought
>> onto what I actually said, and in the context I said it in?
>>
>> In short, be careful what you think is "safe to assume".
>>
>> Here's a simplified version to clear up your misunderstanding:
>>
>> I DO take exception to the ignorant MYTH fostered by the media
>> surrounding the incident; as well as the complete disregard by the
>> media, and the ignorant public, for the actual facts of the case.
>>
>
> Somewhere in this interchange. I think something either got mixed up or it
> got twisted upon itiself. I was sure that you had made the abosolute
> statement that it was unecessary to serve coffee that was so hot it could
> not be drunk. But then you said you drink your coffee at the same
> temperature that McD served theis at. I got lost in your point, at that
> point. I seem to recall you saying that it was unnecessary to serve coffee
> at the very temperatures that you desire your own coffee at. But like I
> say - I may have lost track of things in this conversation. I can do that
> you know...
>
>
>> EVERYTHING I have stated thus far is in reference to, and based on,
>> said actual FACTS, and even quoted as same as a matter of record.
>
> I agree - I don't think there has been any real discouse on the facts of the
> case - they pretty much are what they are. Frankly, I think everyone who
> has participated in this thread has done a pretty good job of sticking to
> the facts of the case.
>
>>
>> Including the FACT that I prefer my coffee at a higher temperature ...
>> which, offered as an aside, has the impact of a fart in a hurricane on
>> the reality of the final outcome of the case.
>
> Except that that simple fact makes you totally unbelieveable - just like my
> wife. There's just got to be something wrong with people who can do that...

Noooooooooooo, not unbelievable. There is always one in the family that
wears the pants. :~)

On 5/15/2014 9:59 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> G. Ross wrote:
>> We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight
>> the weather radio came on and said there "was the potential of flash
>> flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you experience flooding
>> move to higher ground."
>
> In my immediate area, the rains have not been that severe, but just a county
> away (or two), they received 5 inches overnight, with all of the resultant
> flooding. Poor bastards - more rain on the way, of (nearly) equal
> intensity.
>
>>
>> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
>> must be brilliant to get that job.
>
> It's only getting worse. I've been observing that the local news has been
> re-staffing to present more younger reporters, anchors, etc. The result is
> an embarassing level of ignorance published on our local airwaves, daily.
> These younger people are all about some sort of "excitement" in what they
> are doing. Not at all about the heritage of the press that included good
> reporting, good investigation before reporting, (god forbid...) a command of
> the english language and something that even resembles proper grammar, and a
> professional level of hiding one's own feelings/emotions on a topic while
> reporting on it. Now it's 20-30 somethings, getting all giddy on-air, and
> trying to attract an equally ignorant audience. The very content of the
> not-so-newsworthy spots has become almost rediculous. Reporters that are
> incapable of stringing together a complete sentence, but handed a mic and a
> camera crew, to capture them climbing a rock wall in a mall - and this is
> only slightly secondary to mentioning national or international news.
>
> Alright - I'll shut up. Turn off my rant. Good Lord - give me back Walter
> Cronkite...
>


My favorite reporting is the kind where the guy/gal at the scene of the
pot hole filled with rain water spends 5 minutes describing the scene
in as many ways and angles as possible.

Or with our recent rain and the "sure to happen" street flooding at
Fondren and HY59 the reporter described every vehicle that drove by in
the treacherous conditions. As a side note, this location gets high
water if it is foggy or some ones toilet backs up.

If I were the reporter at this same location and there for the same
reason I could simply point and shout "LOOK", over and over and the
viewing audience would get so much more out of the coverage.

On 5/17/2014 1:47 PM, Leon wrote:

> I have a voltage meter with a temp probe. should I bring it tonight? LOL

Depends upon where you are planning on sticking it? LOL!

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/15/2014 11:35 AM, G. Ross wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 5/15/2014 9:59 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> G. Ross wrote:
>>>> We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight
>>>> the weather radio came on and said there "was the potential of flash
>>>> flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you experience flooding
>>>> move to higher ground."
>>>
>>> In my immediate area, the rains have not been that severe, but just
>>> a county
>>> away (or two), they received 5 inches overnight, with all of the
>>> resultant
>>> flooding. Poor bastards - more rain on the way, of (nearly) equal
>>> intensity.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
>>>> must be brilliant to get that job.
>>>
>>> It's only getting worse. I've been observing that the local news
>>> has been
>>> re-staffing to present more younger reporters, anchors, etc. The
>>> result is
>>> an embarassing level of ignorance published on our local airwaves,
>>> daily.
>>> These younger people are all about some sort of "excitement" in what
>>> they
>>> are doing. Not at all about the heritage of the press that included
>>> good
>>> reporting, good investigation before reporting, (god forbid...) a
>>> command of
>>> the english language and something that even resembles proper
>>> grammar, and a
>>> professional level of hiding one's own feelings/emotions on a topic
>>> while
>>> reporting on it. Now it's 20-30 somethings, getting all giddy
>>> on-air, and
>>> trying to attract an equally ignorant audience. The very content of
>>> the
>>> not-so-newsworthy spots has become almost rediculous. Reporters
>>> that are
>>> incapable of stringing together a complete sentence, but handed a
>>> mic and a
>>> camera crew, to capture them climbing a rock wall in a mall - and
>>> this is
>>> only slightly secondary to mentioning national or international news.
>>>
>>> Alright - I'll shut up. Turn off my rant. Good Lord - give me back
>>> Walter
>>> Cronkite...
>>>
>>
>>
>> My favorite reporting is the kind where the guy/gal at the scene of the
>> pot hole filled with rain water spends 5 minutes describing the scene
>> in as many ways and angles as possible.
>>
>> Or with our recent rain and the "sure to happen" street flooding at
>> Fondren and HY59 the reporter described every vehicle that drove by in
>> the treacherous conditions. As a side note, this location gets high
>> water if it is foggy or some ones toilet backs up.
>>
>> If I were the reporter at this same location and there for the same
>> reason I could simply point and shout "LOOK", over and over and the
>> viewing audience would get so much more out of the coverage.
>>
>
> I used to live just off HWY59 (Marshall) and your mentioning it reminds
> me. We were driving south on 59 and nearly everyone was speeding.
> Along comes a State Patrolman and he would pull up beside a speeder and
> motion them to pull over (which they did), then he would rush off and
> pull another one over. When he had about 4 he finally stopped the last
> one and the others drifted up behind on the shoulder to get their
> tickets. (we were not one of them).
> Last time I was out there we saw deputys in trucks with the lights in
> the grill so you wouldn't notice them except for the markings on the
> door. Perfect camouflage for Texas.
>
>

Meadows police department next to SW Houston uses white vehicles with
White metal flake paint for the text. Easier to see at night when the
light reflects but during the day you can be sitting next to the patrol
car and not easily see the lettering.

On 5/17/2014 2:31 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 5/17/2014 1:47 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>> I have a voltage meter with a temp probe. should I bring it tonight?
>> LOL
>
> Depends upon where you are planning on sticking it? LOL!
>


where ever you like! LOL. Ill bring it. You may gave a dysfunctional
coffee maker.

On 5/17/2014 2:21 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 5/17/2014 1:47 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 5/17/2014 1:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2014 8:55 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>> Your new coffee machine brews at between 187 and 192 degrees, depending
>>>> on which setting you chose.
>>>
>>> Don't know how accurate that is because strangely enough, and according
>>> to this supposedly highly accurate digital medical thermometer used in
>>> chemotherapy applications, the coffee had a range of 138.4 to 128.8F
>>> temperature as it hits the cup:
>>
>> I think a more accurate reading might be gotten with the thermometer
>> sitting inside a fresh brewed Styrofoam cup. You are getting a surface
>> temp exposed to the ambient temp.
>
>
> I used to develop my own slide film.
>> It evolved a large glass thermometer as the water temp in the sink had
>> to be darn close to what was called for. I had to warm the sink for
>> quite a while to get a consistent temp reading and IIRC the thermometer
>> instructions wanted a 3~4 minute submerfed exposure to give an accurate
>> reading. I think you are going to need a probe to submerge in the
>> coffee to get a true overall temperature reading.
>
> On the other hand: ;)
>
> Using your argument, the vessel itself, being cooler than the hot water,
> will have cooled the water slightly at lower levels in my measurements.

Yes. And you had a vessel that will change temperatures more slowly as
it absorbed the heat from the liquid. Styrofoam cups like the ones MD
uses are designed to not absorb heat rather to contain the heat.



>
> The hot water stream as it enters the cup will indeed be somewhat
> effected by your "ambient" air temperature on the way down to the
> surface, but, without an additional source of heat, and until the vessel
> reaches an equilibrium temperature with the liquid as your sink did, the
> temperature of the water stream at the entry point will still be at its
> highest temperature ... and that point of entry is not within the
> scientific definition of "surface temperature" of a liquid.

I think the problem here is that your sensor "spot" focused on the water
from the faucet and or coffee maker was in a disrupted stream. I I
don't think that the spot focus was always hitting water rather an
airreated water air mix and you were probably getting some type of average.


>
> IIRC my physics classes, "surface temperatures" are not necessarily
> lower than at lower depths, quite common in boiling water with the
> nucleate film effect that vapor causes.

Yes, the surface temp is not going to be cooler or hotter than other
points. However the surface whether it be the bottom or top is where
the transference of heat is going to take place which ever direction it
is transferring in. In this case the transference of the heat is from
the liquid top surface to the air which will have a cooling effect.
Below the surface the temperature is ever changing and more so when
exposed to different temp surfaces.
The surface reading, where the heat is escaping to a much cooler
atmosphere, is going to be cooler.

Did you look at my probe readings??? ;~)

I got much closer to predicted/expected temp readings using the probe
away from the outer surface.

On 5/17/2014 3:02 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 5/17/2014 2:55 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 5/17/2014 2:31 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2014 1:47 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a voltage meter with a temp probe. should I bring it tonight?
>>>> LOL
>>>
>>> Depends upon where you are planning on sticking it? LOL!
>>>
>>
>>
>> where ever you like! LOL. Ill bring it.
>
> Please don't ... bad enough getting our asses whipped with estrogen
> fueled dominoes, AND having to run scientific experiments on top of
> that. Sheeeeesh!!
>
> ITMT, just enjoying the arguing while waiting for that inevitable ass
> whipping. ;)
>


I was thinking to my self earlier, but was was interrupted by a convoy
of 18 wheelers headed south from here, I wonder how much Karl was
getting done on the cabinets this after noon while yielding his mighty
sword at the keyboard?

Kim got home 30 minutes ago and needed help bringing in groceries. I
opened the trunk of her car and the mystery of where the trucks were
headed was solved. Kroger needed to be restocked.

On 5/17/2014 3:52 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 5/17/2014 3:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>> I wonder how much Karl was getting done on the cabinets this after noon
>> while yielding his mighty sword at the keyboard?
>
> Worked hard all week, It's Saturday, went on strike.
>


Probably that 2 hour search for room tired you all out. ;~)

On 5/17/2014 3:28 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 05/17/2014 11:58 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 5/17/2014 12:31 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> On 05/17/2014 07:01 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You develop a tolerance for the heat in your mouth, The body adapts
>>>> areas that are repeatedly subject to high temp. Work with your hands
>>>> and get calluses. If I pick up a hot french fry and it burns my fingers
>>>> my first thought is to put it in my mouth. My mouth is much more
>>>> tolerant to heat than my hands. Perhaps if I ate with my hands vs
>>>> using
>>>> a fork my hands would become accustomed to the heat too.
>>>>
>>>> AND I am not suggesting that you eat all our meals with your fingers.
>>>> ;~)
>>>
>>> If you do a lot of cooking, your hands and fingers will become heat
>>> tolerant as the accumulated burns destroy the nerve endings. You still
>>> burn hands and fingers, but it doesn't hurt as much.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely agree, a tolerance has been developed. And while I agree
>> that a chef/cook probably gets burned quite often I'm certain those
>> burns are not as numerous or severe as those gotten when he began
>> cooking/burning himself. ;~) I am sure calluses too over the years
>> offer a layer of protection which perhaps a person near his or her
>> crotch may or may not have developed. ;~)
>
> Perhaps practitioners of the oldest occupation develop callouses there ;-)


That was on my mind but I was not going to go there. LOL

On 5/16/2014 8:58 AM, Swingman wrote:

> excuse to serve a DRINK at that kind of temperature ... in this case the
> temperature of the served coffee was actually hot enough to melt the
> nylon strands in the fabric of her clothes into her burned skin.

Before someone wants to demonstrate their GoogleFu again ... "nylon"
should read "synthetic".

I don't know for a fact it was actually "nylon", but at my age (well
before Mr. Robinson whispered "plastics" into Dustin Hoffman's ear)
anything that was synthetic was called "nylon".

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 12:31 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 05/17/2014 07:01 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You develop a tolerance for the heat in your mouth, The body adapts
>> areas that are repeatedly subject to high temp. Work with your hands
>> and get calluses. If I pick up a hot french fry and it burns my fingers
>> my first thought is to put it in my mouth. My mouth is much more
>> tolerant to heat than my hands. Perhaps if I ate with my hands vs using
>> a fork my hands would become accustomed to the heat too.
>>
>> AND I am not suggesting that you eat all our meals with your fingers.
>> ;~)
>
> If you do a lot of cooking, your hands and fingers will become heat
> tolerant as the accumulated burns destroy the nerve endings. You still
> burn hands and fingers, but it doesn't hurt as much.


Absolutely agree, a tolerance has been developed. And while I agree
that a chef/cook probably gets burned quite often I'm certain those
burns are not as numerous or severe as those gotten when he began
cooking/burning himself. ;~) I am sure calluses too over the years
offer a layer of protection which perhaps a person near his or her
crotch may or may not have developed. ;~)

On 5/17/2014 9:22 AM, Leon wrote:

> There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that the
> temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
> government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.

??

Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.

No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
anticipated or ever even suggested.

Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider is a
proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to the
reality of the situation.

When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you change
those questionable business practices.

As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

End of story...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/16/2014 4:45 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> Apparently the point being missed is that there is, to most folks, a
>> relatively large difference in the "brewing" temperature, and
>> "serving" temperature.
>>
>> For the record, I'm like your wife. I like my drinks, and food, at
>> high temperature. AAMOF, my nightly soup, on the rare occasion I
>> don't serve it myself, is served to me immediately after it is
>> brought to a boil and put in the bowl. Too much time elapses and I go
>> heat it back up.
>> And my usual request from Starbuck's when ordering my favorite hot
>> drink, Cafe Mocha Valencia, that it be given to me at 180 degrees, and
>> they are happy to comply.
>
> So... that's pretty much the temperature that McD's served their coffee at.
> I still don't get how you guys can drink that stuff that hot though... We
> hit Dunkin' Donuts when we do a road trip and I'm at least 20 miles down the
> road before I can even start sipping my coffee. Shelly has almost killed
> hers by then. Sheese...
>


You develop a tolerance for the heat in your mouth, The body adapts
areas that are repeatedly subject to high temp. Work with your hands
and get calluses. If I pick up a hot french fry and it burns my fingers
my first thought is to put it in my mouth. My mouth is much more
tolerant to heat than my hands. Perhaps if I ate with my hands vs using
a fork my hands would become accustomed to the heat too.

AND I am not suggesting that you eat all our meals with your fingers. ;~)

On Fri, 16 May 2014 14:46:25 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>east sip it even before adding cream. That is because after it was brewed
>it was put in pots that sat on a warmer to keep them at a reasonable
>temperature (or otherwise kept at said reasonable temperature).

I don't drink coffee, but I've seen the advertisements for Tim
Horton's coffee. I visit one of their stores for lunch three times a
week. Tim Horton's guarantees a new pot of coffee every twenty minutes
if it isn't finished first. Just for the hell of it, I watched during
the lunchtime rush as a new pot of coffee got emptied within six
minutes. I don't know how fast a pot would cool, but I'm reasonably
sure it would still be pretty damned hot that entire six minutes. ~
enough so to burn skin on contact.

On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:01:35 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>Unfortunately Dave - the underlying principle you allude to is all to true.
>The only exception I might take is in your pointing to the US. Hell man -
>it's a global thing... at least in the developed global world.

Hey, no one else had the McDonald's coffee lawsuit case. Other people
in the developed global world have done some damned stupid things and
sued for them, but none of them have awarded someone three million
dollars for driving and spilling a cup of coffee between their legs.

Hell, I'm willing to bet that if the coffee was too cold, she'd have
sued for that and won even more money. :) :) :)

On 5/16/2014 11:18 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 5/16/2014 8:53 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Coffee is supposed to be hot, not luke warm, hot.
>>>
>>> I agree. However, please provide a precise, universally accepted
>>> definition.temperature of "hot".
>>>
>> I am not going to get involved in any kind of discussion with the
>> resident troll. But I wanted to comment.
>
>> Years ago, I was involved in the specialty coffee biz for a while. There
>> was a big push at that time to "standardize" coffee brewing
>> temperatures. Considerable money and time was spent to determine the
>> "optimal brewing temperature". And it was short of boiling.
>>
>> In fact a number of procedures and monitoring equipment was devised
>> to achieve this mathematical ideal. The consensus of the McDonalds
>> incident was that it had to be crap coffee if it was brewed at those
>> kinds of temperature. McDonalds has greatly improved their coffee
>> since those days, because they found out that it brought people in
>> the doors. All they had to do was to sell it cheaper than Starbucks.
>> Which is not hard to do.
>
> Which completely contradicts almost every coffee brewing standard or
> recommendation out there. So... what was the recommended brewing
> temperature that your group came up with?


Apparently the point being missed is that there is, to most folks, a
relatively large difference in the "brewing" temperature, and "serving"
temperature.

For the record, I'm like your wife. I like my drinks, and food, at high
temperature. AAMOF, my nightly soup, on the rare occasion I don't serve
it myself, is served to me immediately after it is brought to a boil and
put in the bowl. Too much time elapses and I go heat it back up.

And my usual request from Starbuck's when ordering my favorite hot
drink, Cafe Mocha Valencia, that it be given to me at 180 degrees, and
they are happy to comply.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/17/2014 1:47 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 5/17/2014 1:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 5/17/2014 8:55 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> Your new coffee machine brews at between 187 and 192 degrees, depending
>>> on which setting you chose.
>>
>> Don't know how accurate that is because strangely enough, and according
>> to this supposedly highly accurate digital medical thermometer used in
>> chemotherapy applications, the coffee had a range of 138.4 to 128.8F
>> temperature as it hits the cup:
>
> I think a more accurate reading might be gotten with the thermometer
> sitting inside a fresh brewed Styrofoam cup. You are getting a surface
> temp exposed to the ambient temp.


I used to develop my own slide film.
> It evolved a large glass thermometer as the water temp in the sink had
> to be darn close to what was called for. I had to warm the sink for
> quite a while to get a consistent temp reading and IIRC the thermometer
> instructions wanted a 3~4 minute submerfed exposure to give an accurate
> reading. I think you are going to need a probe to submerge in the
> coffee to get a true overall temperature reading.

On the other hand: ;)

Using your argument, the vessel itself, being cooler than the hot water,
will have cooled the water slightly at lower levels in my measurements.

The hot water stream as it enters the cup will indeed be somewhat
effected by your "ambient" air temperature on the way down to the
surface, but, without an additional source of heat, and until the vessel
reaches an equilibrium temperature with the liquid as your sink did, the
temperature of the water stream at the entry point will still be at its
highest temperature ... and that point of entry is not within the
scientific definition of "surface temperature" of a liquid.

IIRC my physics classes, "surface temperatures" are not necessarily
lower than at lower depths, quite common in boiling water with the
nucleate film effect that vapor causes.

;)

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 15 May 2014 15:33:01 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 5/15/2014 11:35 AM, G. Ross wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 5/15/2014 9:59 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> G. Ross wrote:
>>>>> We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight
>>>>> the weather radio came on and said there "was the potential of flash
>>>>> flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you experience flooding
>>>>> move to higher ground."
>>>>
>>>> In my immediate area, the rains have not been that severe, but just
>>>> a county
>>>> away (or two), they received 5 inches overnight, with all of the
>>>> resultant
>>>> flooding. Poor bastards - more rain on the way, of (nearly) equal
>>>> intensity.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
>>>>> must be brilliant to get that job.
>>>>
>>>> It's only getting worse. I've been observing that the local news
>>>> has been
>>>> re-staffing to present more younger reporters, anchors, etc. The
>>>> result is
>>>> an embarassing level of ignorance published on our local airwaves,
>>>> daily.
>>>> These younger people are all about some sort of "excitement" in what
>>>> they
>>>> are doing. Not at all about the heritage of the press that included
>>>> good
>>>> reporting, good investigation before reporting, (god forbid...) a
>>>> command of
>>>> the english language and something that even resembles proper
>>>> grammar, and a
>>>> professional level of hiding one's own feelings/emotions on a topic
>>>> while
>>>> reporting on it. Now it's 20-30 somethings, getting all giddy
>>>> on-air, and
>>>> trying to attract an equally ignorant audience. The very content of
>>>> the
>>>> not-so-newsworthy spots has become almost rediculous. Reporters
>>>> that are
>>>> incapable of stringing together a complete sentence, but handed a
>>>> mic and a
>>>> camera crew, to capture them climbing a rock wall in a mall - and
>>>> this is
>>>> only slightly secondary to mentioning national or international news.
>>>>
>>>> Alright - I'll shut up. Turn off my rant. Good Lord - give me back
>>>> Walter
>>>> Cronkite...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My favorite reporting is the kind where the guy/gal at the scene of the
>>> pot hole filled with rain water spends 5 minutes describing the scene
>>> in as many ways and angles as possible.
>>>
>>> Or with our recent rain and the "sure to happen" street flooding at
>>> Fondren and HY59 the reporter described every vehicle that drove by in
>>> the treacherous conditions. As a side note, this location gets high
>>> water if it is foggy or some ones toilet backs up.
>>>
>>> If I were the reporter at this same location and there for the same
>>> reason I could simply point and shout "LOOK", over and over and the
>>> viewing audience would get so much more out of the coverage.
>>>
>>
>> I used to live just off HWY59 (Marshall) and your mentioning it reminds
>> me. We were driving south on 59 and nearly everyone was speeding.
>> Along comes a State Patrolman and he would pull up beside a speeder and
>> motion them to pull over (which they did), then he would rush off and
>> pull another one over. When he had about 4 he finally stopped the last
>> one and the others drifted up behind on the shoulder to get their
>> tickets. (we were not one of them).
>> Last time I was out there we saw deputys in trucks with the lights in
>> the grill so you wouldn't notice them except for the markings on the
>> door. Perfect camouflage for Texas.
>>
>>
>
>Meadows police department next to SW Houston uses white vehicles with
>White metal flake paint for the text. Easier to see at night when the
>light reflects but during the day you can be sitting next to the patrol
>car and not easily see the lettering.

The police around here have the same cars, in black on black.

On 5/17/2014 10:16 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 5/16/2014 1:39 PM, dadiOH wrote:
>>>
>>> 4. In order to drink the undrinkably hot coffee, one has to remove
>>> the top. Which is what she was trying to do.
>>
>> Do you often place hot liquids served in squishy styrofoam cup between
>> your legs to open them?
>>
> She was trying to add cream & sugar.

Actually she was removing the lid.



>
> For the real story:
> http://segarlaw.com/blog/myths-and-facts-of-the-mcdonalds-hot-coffee-
> case/
> http://tinyurl.com/lx7r6g7

from your link,

After their order was completed, her grandson pulled the car forward out
of the drive-through lane and stopped again to allow Stella to add cream
and sugar to her coffee. Stella placed the coffee between her knees so
she could use both hands to open the lid and add her sugar. While
removing the lid the cup tipped over and poured the entire cup of 190
degree coffee all over her sweatpants, which absorbed the hot liquid and
held it against her skin.



>
> Do note:
> "Stella Liebeck's lawsuit was turned into a punch-line as many news
> outlets overlooked the critical facts of the case including the nearly
> 700 other complaints that McDonalds had received about their hot coffee."

Actually the details of these 700 complaints were covered in a more
complete article where many of those 700 complaints mentioned burns that
were received to parts of the body that coffee is not intended to be
administered.

https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many
receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and
buttocks;



>
> And:
> "Fact: Stella suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind of
> burns) over her lap, which included large portions of her inner thighs
> and other sensitive areas. She was hospitalized for 8 days and endured
> several very painful procedures to clean her wounds. She required skin
> grafts and suffered serious and permanent scarring."

This happens pretty often when you pour scalding liquids on yourself.

Try pouring a cup of scalding hot water from you kitchen sink, which is
approximately 35% cooler than a normal cup of coffee onto your crotch.

On 5/15/2014 6:53 AM, G. Ross wrote:
> We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight the
> weather radio came on and said there "was the potential of flash
> flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you experience flooding
> move to higher ground."
>
> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
> must be brilliant to get that job.

You must not live by a "freeway" ... the most illustrative example of
just how fucking stupid this culture is.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 5/16/2014 1:39 PM, dadiOH wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:58:35 -0500, Swingman
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Not to mention you're on the wrong side of the
>>>> historical, already accomplished, facts of the issue.
>>>
>>> Yup, and so am I apparently. I guess the biggest fault
>>> here wasn't that McDonalds was serving hot coffee, but
>>> the fact that they didn't accede to here original
>>> claims for compensation. Guess they were afraid of the torrent of new
>>> claims
>>> that would follow. So, either way, they were going to
>>> have to pay. That means, that you're right, there
>>> coffee was too hot. Not INHO that it was undrinkable,
>>> but that it's hotness left them open for being sued. :)
>>
>> Or that a law-suit-i'm-not-responsible society was
>> gaining ground in America.
>
> Let me see...
>
> 1. McDonalds wants their coffee to be really, REALLY hot. Undrinkably hot.

Define undrinkably hot. Would you serve a drink to a five year old at
the same temperature that you might drink it?

>
> 2. They serve it in a squishy styrofoam cup.
>
> 3. They put a lid on that cup (maybe just for take out, don't know, I don't
> go to McDonalds)
>
> 4. In order to drink the undrinkably hot coffee, one has to remove the top.
> Which is what she was trying to do.

Do you often place hot liquids served in squishy styrofoam cup between
your legs to open them?



>
> McDonalds knows all about #1 - #3 or - if they don't - they are incredibly
> stupid. Not to hard to foretell what happened to her. It seems to me that
> McD just doesn't give a rat's ass which is one reason I don't go there (the
> main reason is that their burgers suck, ditto BurgerKing).

This is not directed at you. I avoid both establishment too, not
because of the temperature of their products but because the products
them selves long term are more harmful than any thing else.


Most wood working tool manufacturers turned down the opportunity to sell
a safer saw and continue to sell saws that are more dangerous to operate
than other brands. Do they not give a rat's ass about our safety should
we attempt to use them in an unsafe manner? ;~)

There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that the
temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.

So does that mean that we don't want the government to do something to
protect us to begin with, SawStop, and that we would rather sue later if
we are harmed doing something that we should not have been doing in the
first place, opening hot coffee between our legs?

On 5/15/2014 7:53 AM, G. Ross wrote:
> We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight the
> weather radio came on and said there "was the potential of flash
> flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you experience flooding
> move to higher ground."
>
> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
> must be brilliant to get that job.

One thing that is missing in today's culture is "Common Sense".

Today most people live in a virtual reality of computer games, videos,
and TV programs. You do not learn self preservation in a video game.

There are those that do not realize the chicken wing they love to eat
comes from a living breathing animal.

G. Ross wrote:
> We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight
> the weather radio came on and said there "was the potential of flash
> flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you experience flooding
> move to higher ground."

In my immediate area, the rains have not been that severe, but just a county
away (or two), they received 5 inches overnight, with all of the resultant
flooding. Poor bastards - more rain on the way, of (nearly) equal
intensity.

>
> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
> must be brilliant to get that job.

It's only getting worse. I've been observing that the local news has been
re-staffing to present more younger reporters, anchors, etc. The result is
an embarassing level of ignorance published on our local airwaves, daily.
These younger people are all about some sort of "excitement" in what they
are doing. Not at all about the heritage of the press that included good
reporting, good investigation before reporting, (god forbid...) a command of
the english language and something that even resembles proper grammar, and a
professional level of hiding one's own feelings/emotions on a topic while
reporting on it. Now it's 20-30 somethings, getting all giddy on-air, and
trying to attract an equally ignorant audience. The very content of the
not-so-newsworthy spots has become almost rediculous. Reporters that are
incapable of stringing together a complete sentence, but handed a mic and a
camera crew, to capture them climbing a rock wall in a mall - and this is
only slightly secondary to mentioning national or international news.

Alright - I'll shut up. Turn off my rant. Good Lord - give me back Walter
Cronkite...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 07:53:01 -0400, "G. Ross" <[email protected]>
>> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
>> must be brilliant to get that job.
>
> Look at it this way. There's bound to be a number of people who won't
> move unless someone tells them to.
>
> And considering the litigious reputation the US has, what is the
> possibility that someone would sue a radio station for not advising
> the obvious? You just never know.

Unfortunately Dave - the underlying principle you allude to is all to true.
The only exception I might take is in your pointing to the US. Hell man -
it's a global thing... at least in the developed global world.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"G. Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight the
> weather radio came on and said there
> "was the potential of flash flooding in Cochran and
> Bleckley County, If you experience flooding move to
> higher ground."
> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like
> that. They must be brilliant to get that job.

Where have you been the last few decades? Have you not observed that people
have become fuckin' stupid?

Here in Florida they still buy lake bottom - bottom, not front - land and
moan to the government when the lake rises to normal levels..gotta tell them
that if their property floods, all the snakes that live there will be
looking for higher ground...gotta tell them not to feed the alligators (they
do anyway and then wonder what happened to their dog/cat...gotta explain
that a "sink hole" is not the drain in their kitchen sink.

Common sense took a LONG sabbatical years ago, fortunately so for the
Nigerian scammers.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

Swingman wrote:
> On 5/15/2014 6:53 AM, G. Ross wrote:
>> We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight
>> the weather radio came on and said there "was the potential of flash
>> flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you experience flooding
>> move to higher ground."
>>
>> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
>> must be brilliant to get that job.
>
> You must not live by a "freeway" ... the most illustrative example of
> just how fucking stupid this culture is.

No kidding - thousands of people sitting in their cars - fully aware of what
they were going to get into, listening to some idiot in a news helicopter
telling them that traffic is tied up. I guess it makes for good texting
fodder...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

G. Ross wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 5/15/2014 6:53 AM, G. Ross wrote:
>>> We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About
>>> midnight the weather radio came on and said there "was the
>>> potential of flash flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you
>>> experience flooding move to higher ground."
>>>
>>> I can't believe someone gets paid to broadcast gems like that. They
>>> must be brilliant to get that job.
>>
>> You must not live by a "freeway" ... the most illustrative example of
>> just how fucking stupid this culture is.
>>
> Nope. Saw one one time. Didn't like it.

Me neither. Around here we have Interstate 81 (which is the major
north-south freeway) and Interstate 690 (which is the major east-west
freeway). By a long shot, 81 is the more trafficed highway. We accept the
fact that the definition of rush-hour traffic around Syracuse is when
traffic on 81 slows to 65mph...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:01:35 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Unfortunately Dave - the underlying principle you allude to is all
>> to true. The only exception I might take is in your pointing to the
>> US. Hell man - it's a global thing... at least in the developed
>> global world.
>
> Hey, no one else had the McDonald's coffee lawsuit case. Other people
> in the developed global world have done some damned stupid things and
> sued for them, but none of them have awarded someone three million
> dollars for driving and spilling a cup of coffee between their legs.

Ummmmm... as you said - others have done some damned stupid things and sued
for them. What does it matter that the particular was not that they sued
McDonalds? Really?


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Swingman wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:01:35 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> Unfortunately Dave - the underlying principle you allude to is all
>>> to true. The only exception I might take is in your pointing to the
>>> US. Hell man - it's a global thing... at least in the developed
>>> global world.
>>
>> Hey, no one else had the McDonald's coffee lawsuit case. Other people
>> in the developed global world have done some damned stupid things and
>> sued for them, but none of them have awarded someone three million
>> dollars for driving and spilling a cup of coffee between their legs.
>>
>> Hell, I'm willing to bet that if the coffee was too cold, she'd have
>> sued for that and won even more money. :) :) :)
>
> Not to be uncharitable, but you apparently fell for the spin the
> media put for the stupid on that issue, and I know damned good and
> well you're not in that category. ;)
>
> I thought so at first also ... until I saw the photos of the burns on
> her thighs from that coffee. IIRC, she wasn't driving, was a
> passenger in the car, and they were stopped in the parking lot.
>
> https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts
>
> Photo of the burn here. Careful if you're squeamish.
>
> http://www.scarymommy.com/message-board/index.php?p=/discussion/15842/mcdonalds-hot-coffee-burns-lawsuit-graphic-content-warning/p1

It goes without saying that 190 degree liquids will create quite a burn -
but is that the fault of the vendor? That was and largely is the
temperature of coffee. This woman could have done the same thing to herself
in the privacy of her own kitchen. The ugliness of the photo should not be
the basis for fault. Yes - she was parked as I recall, and she was the
passenger. But she put the cup between her legs to add condiments or
something similar, squeezed too hard and popped the top off the cup. All
was fine until she did that. Does not add up for me that McDonalds should
have been found at fault.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Swingman wrote:

>
> It certainly does for me. If the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd
> degree burns through clothing, it would have unarguably caused the
> same burns on the lips and tongue with the first unsuspecting sip.

Go figure... for me - I can't drink any cup of coffee when it's poured. I
have to let it cool for a good bit before I can drink it. My wife on the
other hand can and does drink it immediately. She can take soup straight
from the pot - boiling on the stove, pour up a bowl and devour it. I can't
figure it out - I'd be in agony. The clothing part though is really more of
the problem. It's when hot liquids are trapped by clothing that they create
the worst burns because they keep the concentrated heat right there. So -
though it may be intuitive that clothing might seem protective, it's really
quite the opposite. More damage is done by the clothing than if the liquid
had simply spilled on bare skin.

>
> That the coffee, a drink, was provably too hot to be "drinkable"
> without causing burns, was the fault on one but McDonalds.

Unless it involves people like my wife. I just don't get how those people
can drink that stuff when it is that hot.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
> Swingman wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:01:35 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> > > > Unfortunately Dave - the underlying principle you
> > > > allude to is all to true. The only exception I
> > > > might take is in your pointing to the US. Hell man
> > > > - it's a global thing... at least in the developed
> > > > global world.
> > >
> > > Hey, no one else had the McDonald's coffee lawsuit
> > > case. Other people in the developed global world have
> > > done some damned stupid things and sued for them, but
> > > none of them have awarded someone three million
> > > dollars for driving and spilling a cup of coffee
> > > between their legs. Hell, I'm willing to bet that if the coffee was
> > > too
> > > cold, she'd have sued for that and won even more
> > > money. :) :) :)
> >
> > Not to be uncharitable, but you apparently fell for the
> > spin the media put for the stupid on that issue, and I
> > know damned good and well you're not in that category.
> > ;) I thought so at first also ... until I saw the photos
> > of the burns on her thighs from that coffee. IIRC, she
> > wasn't driving, was a passenger in the car, and they
> > were stopped in the parking lot.
> > https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts
> >
> > Photo of the burn here. Careful if you're squeamish.
> >
> > http://www.scarymommy.com/message-board/index.php?p=/discussion/15842/mcdonalds-hot-coffee-burns-lawsuit-graphic-content-warning/p1
>
> It goes without saying that 190 degree liquids will
> create quite a burn - but is that the fault of the
> vendor? That was and largely is the temperature of
> coffee.

Not my coffee...not after it gets in my cup. No way could I drink coffee at
thet temperature - can you? - so why not serve it at a drinkable temperature
rather than brew temperature?


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

dadiOH wrote:

>
> Not my coffee...not after it gets in my cup. No way could I drink
> coffee at thet temperature - can you? - so why not serve it at a
> drinkable temperature rather than brew temperature?

Nope - I sure can't. As I said in a reply to Karl, I have to let it cool a
lot before I can drink it. But - a lot of people like my wife take it right
straight away and drink it. I have no idea how they can do that, but they
do.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

[email protected] wrote:

> Maybe McDs should have put a disclaimer on the cup saying that coffee
> is hot. ...so now we're forced to drink cold coffee.

The killer is that the coffee cup did have that disclaimer, but apparently
it wasn't big enough or loud enough or something. As if that really would
have made any difference...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>,
G. Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>We got 6 1/2 inches of rain last evening and night. About midnight the
>weather radio came on and said there "was the potential of flash
>flooding in Cochran and Bleckley County, If you experience flooding
>move to higher ground."

Not sure what you're objecting to. Not everybody puts two and two
together and realizes that a lot of rain = potential flood. In fact,
I'd wager that most people don't make that connection unless they've
been told, or witnessed a flood first-hand. And likewise, a lot of
people might not make the connection that a little flooding now
could lead to a lot of flooding in a few hours.

So it makes perfect sense to broadcast a two-sentence warning on
the radio.

--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

Swingman wrote:

>
> Coming up with these little tidbits of googlefu'ed wisdom is fine and
> dandy for your egos,

Have to disagree with you here Karl - this is information that I know from
having been a Paramedic in a past life. This knowledge has nothing at all
to do with google.

>but the fucking POINT is that there is NO damned
> excuse to serve a DRINK at that kind of temperature

Again, I have to disagre. It is accepted practice to brew coffee at this
temperature. Now - that does differ from whether one should actually drink
it at this temperature, but that's where individual intelligence comes into
play. Really - who does not understand that fresh brewed or fresh served
coffee is really freahin' hot? That's where I fault her. It did not, nor
does it take a lot of common sense to understand that a drink like coffee is
going to be too hot when initially served. She really was old enough to
have understood this. It's hot because that's how you have to make it. You
have to wait a bit to drink it. Who really does not understand that?



... in this case
> the temperature of the served coffee was actually hot enough to melt
> the nylon strands in the fabric of her clothes into her burned skin.

Ok - that might be true, but does that fact really matter? I have not
looked into this enough to even know if that is really true but I'm taking
your word for it in this discussion. What though, does nylon have to do
with skin?

>
> Not to mention you're on the wrong side of the historical, already
> accomplished, facts of the issue.

Well - yeah, and not so much. This case was severly reduced in the
settlement, so there is much more worth examining.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:58:35 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Not to mention you're on the wrong side of the historical, already
>> accomplished, facts of the issue.
>
> Yup, and so am I apparently. I guess the biggest fault here wasn't
> that McDonalds was serving hot coffee, but the fact that they didn't
> accede to here original claims for compensation.
>
> Guess they were afraid of the torrent of new claims that would follow.
> So, either way, they were going to have to pay. That means, that
> you're right, there coffee was too hot. Not INHO that it was
> undrinkable, but that it's hotness left them open for being sued. :)

Or that a law-suit-i'm-not-responsible society was gaining ground in
America.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Swingman wrote:
> On 5/16/2014 8:53 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Coffee is supposed to be hot, not luke warm, hot.
>
> I agree. However, please provide a precise, universally accepted
> definition.temperature of "hot".
>
> And who the hell is "luke"??
>

Luke is an asshole - I think I met him somewhere sometime. If I remember
correctly, I didn't like him. But - the industry (however anyone choses to
define that...) generally agrees that coffee should be brewed at 180-190F.
Should it now become a requirement that after brewing coffee, we allow it to
cool to some other temperature? Hell Karl - everyone knows coffee is hot...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]