An idiot and his table saw...

[Michael A. Terrell]

Fact 4: She stuck it between her legs in her car. Who in their right mind does that?

[The Daring Dufas]

Who in their right mind thinks someone THAT stupid should be rewarded for suffering the consequences because THEY ARE THAT STUPID? O_o

TDD

[Gunner]

Third degree burns from coffee that was at the maximum...221F?

Really?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[Keith Nuttle]

That does not change the fact that she was responsible for her own burns. If she had a car wreck with the coffee between her legs would she have included the expense for that in her suit?

to paraphrase SHE IS THE MASTER OF HER FATE, THE CAPTAIN OF HER SOUL.

[Joseph Gwinn]

Here is the full story: .

My home coffeepot brews and serves at 60 C, or 140 F.

Joe Gwinn

[trader4]

I never suggested suing anyone. The thread isn't about suing anyone for anything. It's about a device that can stop a spinning saw to prevent injury. Kind of like seatbelts in cars and airbags, both of which have proven to have significant benefits.

Again, the issue was SawStop, not litigation.

That kind of Darwinian logic means we should remove all safety devices from everything and we'd be better off. Seat belts, air bags, smoke detectors..

Did you watch the video? Even the experienced woodworker didn't realize how close he came to a serious injury while making that video. Yes, there is SOME relationship between personal responsibility and accident rates. But even the most responsible person can still have an accident. I asked you before. The conservatives out there are always talking about personal responsibility. They speak out like you do about it not being right for someone to sue if they pour hot coffee on themselves. So, let's look at them. You think they are immune from accidents? MAYBE they have a somewhat lower accident rate, but I guarantee you plenty of them have had saw accidents. It's a SAFETY issue and ACCIDENTS happen] to everyone. That's why we call them accidents, not "on purposes".

Passing a test would seem to be more in line with your method, ie making people personally responsible. The only way I see a 40 year old who isn't responsible possibly becoming responsible around a saw is via education. Yeah, I know, you'd prefer he visit the hospital to learn and have all of us pay for it, right?

[trader4]

There was no context. But it is interesting that someone would drag Bush and Obama into a discussion about SawStop. Do they have a SawStop or even use a table saw?

What exactly am I stretching? Keith believes in a Darwinian system, where instead of having safety devices we rely on people cutting off their fingers, which according to him teaches them personal responsibility. That is in fact an ideology. Based on that, we should rip out all the GFCIs, seatbelts, smoke detectors, etc. Be careless around the house with a cigarette, you'll learn by dying in a fire, right? Misuse that hairdryer and you'll get shocked or killed. That will teach you.

Fool. I didn't say people should not be personally responsible. Nor did I say people should be sue happy, another red herring Keith is now draggin in here. I said that a feature like SafetyStop has nothing to with personal responsibility because accidents can and do happen to all of us.

You sure are.

[trader4]

A judge and jury say you're wrong. And having heard the actual evidence, I'd say their opinion is worth a lot more. Here are some of the facts:

"Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson=92s car having purchased a cup of McDonald=92s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.

Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald=92s for $20,000. However, McDonald=92s refused to settle for this small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio- mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation; McDonald=92s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years =97 the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail; From 1982 to 1992, McDonald=92s 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, have been burned by McDonald=92s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald=92s employees; McDonald=92s admitted at trial that its coffee is =93not fit for consumption=94 when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk; McDonald=92s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler."

Sounds to me like the jury did the right thing.

[-MIKE-]

Don't let facts get in the way of a good debate. :-) There's even more to the story...

I'm pretty sure it brews higher than that. 175 is kind of the minimum for extracting all the good oils. You may be using a "cold brewer" though, I don't know. No standard production coffee maker brews under

180, to the best of my knowledge. Many brew up past 205 which burns the coffee.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Not me. She should have been sterilized for being so stupid, hopefully before she had any idiot offspring.

[The Daring Dufas]

The hot coffee douche didn't take care of that? ^_^

TDD

[krw]

"Third degree burns" are very specific. 180F water doesn't do that sort of damage.

DOn't be absurd.

So sip it to cool it. The *fact* is that McD's isn't a sit-down restaurant. People want to take the coffee with them. McD's *DID NOT* tell her to hold the hot coffee in her crotch. That was all her idea.

Good Lord, you're stupid.

They are *TOTALLY* irrelevant to the issue. They may have provoked her to sue but they should be TOTALLY irrelevant to the issue before the courts, i.e. whether McD's was at fault.

You really should learn something about logic.

[krw]

Crap brewer. It's to be expected in this society of lawyers.

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:22:02 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Also something which McD's had been sued about before - burns from overly hot coffee.

Tissue destroyed is tissue destroyed - be it by fire, or boiling water. And in this case, he clothes acted to hold that fluid in place.

[-MIKE-]

Better than being a stupid asshole. I'll be waiting the results of your attempt to drink 180 degree water. Or even 160 degree.

[Michael A. Terrell]

It was too many years too late. Someone said she had it between her knees, in the passenger seat, yet it 'ended up in her lap'. I would hold the driver responsible.

[Attila Iskander]

Anyone who wants to brew a decent cup of coffee will use water at near boiling Presso machines actually use superheated steam

By the time a fresh brewed cup of black coffee gets to you , it's still closer to boiling than sipping temperature That's why people pour it into cold cups, add sugar and cream or milk. To cool or give the coffee time to cool to drinking temp

Most people are smart enough

- to know that a fresh-brewed cup of coffee was brewed with boiling water

- not to stick an open cup with fresh coffee between their knees while sitting in a car

- accept that if they do such a stupid thing, MacD's didn't put the cup there = THEY DID

That's why that female extortionist gets so little sympathy from the general public

[trader4]

Oh, my, I'll miss you dear....

See, a discussion would be more meaningful if you had actual facts and specifics instead of just wandering around. Never made the statements? Exactly what statements are those that you claim that I falsely ascribed to him?

That I said he dragged Bush and Obama into a discussion about SawStop?

He didn't? Then someone must have hijacked his computer when this post was made:

"Every one from obama who is still blaming President Bush for his failures to the man working in his garden. "

You then claimed that I was dragging ideology into the discussion? Better look up the definition. Keith clearly has an ideologoy of his own, that I would call misguided. His belief is that all accidents stem from lack of personal reposnibility, negating the need for safety devices, which of course is nonsense on both counts. All accidents don't stem from lack of personal responsibility and even if that were true, it still does not negate the usefullness of safety devices. Given his reference to Obama and the above, I then simply posed the question about conservatives. Virtually all of them extole the virtues of self reliance, taking personal responsibility. So, none of them have table saw accidents, right?

=A0>You should

I turned it into a philosohy? Keith has the philosophy I outlined above and posted it here. Just because I showed you it doesn't make any sense, all of a sudden, I'm the bad guy?

As for it being your last post, that's probably a good idea. Because you're incapable of addressing any specifics, and are now resorting to insults and lies.

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news:e835a6b3- [e-mail]:

Sometimes people get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, even if they always have been. It's a warning not to ever again exceed the local speed limit. Like the cop said: "Oh my, we got us a local".

[krw]

You certainly should know.

You really are an illiterate moron.