Re: OT Humour, The Stella Awards

Bill wrote:

"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:119kvejedmfuh07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill wrote:

Also, though people like to make fun of it, there was some merit in her case and 12 ordinary jurors found so. The problem was not that she spilled coffee on herself but that it was 20 to 30 degrees hotter than it should have been and thus caused much more damage than it would have had it been at the around the correct temperature.

Oh, bull***. Get your facts straight.

Nothing in your references disputes what I said. (Or point out precisely where it does.) That the coffee was served hotter that it should have been. No where
is the temp. stated.

Sure it is. All you have to do is read it. This comes from the reference you left in, below, from the post to which you're replying: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Corporation>

"During the case it was discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius)."

And...

" the National Coffee Association of USA recommends that coffee be brewed at 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit and, if not drunk immediately, should be maintained at a temperature of 180-190 for optimal flavor."

And...

"To put this into context, this represents one injury per 24 million cups of coffee sold by McDonald's."

In another post, I set up a hypothetical situation based on bad reportage that offers a different ratio. In either case, the odds are truly astronomical that you won't be stupid enough to pour hot coffee on yourself.

Why do you need to be impolite? Particularly when you have no facts at all to back up what you say.

Because I don't suffer fools gladly. And facts are there for the taking. I note you declined.

In fact your references leads to the following:

"McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat."

Does that not suggest you are wrong?

No. It doesn't suggest that "the coffee was served hotter that it should have been." My reference says it was as hot as everybody else's coffee and that it was in keeping with the standards of the National Coffee Institute. It suggests that *everybody's coffee* is hot enough to burn people. *Hot* drinks are brewed and served *hot*. A burn hazard exists above 130°F and *no one* serves coffee at that temperature.

Your comment above implies that McD's deliberately set their temperature higher than normal when that's simply not true. Commercial coffee brewing equipment allows no such tampering. I've had literally dozens of them in my restaurants and they came set from the factory to the same industry standards that McD's uses.

If you are so sure of yourself why did you not post a reference that disproves what I said rather than make disparaging remarks in an attempt to prove your case?

I'm sure of myself because the references you seem unable to read bear it out. The disparaging remarks were just an extra perq for me.

Pastorio

The temperature was exactly what the manufacturer set at the factory. Just like every other Bunn coffeemaker they make. Just like the National Coffee Institute says it should be. Just like every other restaurant sells. Read the transcripts and see who distorted what. McD's had lousy lawyers working the case.
Here's a summary:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Corporation>

Here's a discussion that went on for a while in another group. <http://tinyurl.com/c66xx>

And 12 ordinary jurors routinely send innocent people to jail and death row.

Pastorio 
.