Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by pugchief » Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:13 pm

vnatale wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:19 pm
pugchief wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:30 am
vnatale wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:18 am


The highlighted, bolded above an example of the egregious nonsense one reads in things like this form of writing.

Track down the original front page Wall Street Journal article regarding this (I believe it was from the early 90s) and get all the details and you will see it presents a completely different (accurate) picture than those who write things like this at the expense of that woman who endured great suffering. But, for some, facts and details will not get in the way of a "story".

Again, this was in the Wall Street Journal. A newspaper that definitely tilts towards the business / commercial side and NOT the individual side of issues.

As I reread what the writer wrote.....if whoever wrote that then actually followed up by doing the homework of reading the article and then did not retract that line then I'd be forced to label that person as a person of no compassion or empathy. And, it'd be a case of blaming the victim.

Vinny
Can you please elaborate on this or provide a link? My memory of the incident was the usual No Personal Responsibility mantra that the tort lawyers have infected American values with.

I also know an in-house attorney for McD who spends half their time defending frivolous lawsuits against their deep pockets.
I just "Binged it" for you. Take your pick:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=mcdonald% ... HRDEF&sp=1

My 25 year old memory of reading that article said that she had something like 7 painful skin grafts. McDonald's had already had successful lawsuits won against it. Yet they decided the costs of the lawsuits were not worth losing the revenues from giving the customers coffee as hot as they wanted it.

If you read any of them, tell me if my memory was off.

Vinny
I don't need to read them. Any idiot knows that coffee is hot and you don't pull off the lid of a full cup in a moving car. If you do, you have no one but yourself to blame. Example: I burned my hand recently while cooking with hot oil because I had a momentary lapse in judgement. There was no explicit warning on the bottle of oil that if I heated it and then poured it on my skin it would burn. Should I sue the oil manufacturer? Of course not, it was my stupidity, not theirs.

And for reference, that oil was prob near 400 degrees when it hit my skin. The coffee was around 190 IIRC. I did not even need to go to the hospital, so wtf?
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10268
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by dualstow » Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:30 pm

In prison they weaponize oil with hot water and throw it on each other.

Uh... checking in. all is well here. ;)
Sony’s first AI image sensor will make cameras everywhere smarter -- the verge dot com
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by pugchief » Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:43 pm

dualstow wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:30 pm
In prison they weaponize oil with hot water and throw it on each other.

Uh... checking in. all is well here. ;)
Who is dumb enough to give them hot oil? Or hot water for that matter?
Dieter
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:51 am

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Dieter » Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:46 pm

User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10268
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by dualstow » Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:15 pm

pugchief wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:43 pm
dualstow wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:30 pm
In prison they weaponize oil with hot water and throw it on each other.

Uh... checking in. all is well here. ;)
Who is dumb enough to give them hot oil? Or hot water for that matter?
Ramen.
I forget if the oil packet is included in the ramen or if it’s from something else.
Edit: baby oil. They’re allowed baby oil.
Sony’s first AI image sensor will make cameras everywhere smarter -- the verge dot com
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2632
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by vnatale » Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:30 pm

pugchief wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:13 pm
vnatale wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:19 pm
pugchief wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:30 am
vnatale wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:18 am


The highlighted, bolded above an example of the egregious nonsense one reads in things like this form of writing.

Track down the original front page Wall Street Journal article regarding this (I believe it was from the early 90s) and get all the details and you will see it presents a completely different (accurate) picture than those who write things like this at the expense of that woman who endured great suffering. But, for some, facts and details will not get in the way of a "story".

Again, this was in the Wall Street Journal. A newspaper that definitely tilts towards the business / commercial side and NOT the individual side of issues.

As I reread what the writer wrote.....if whoever wrote that then actually followed up by doing the homework of reading the article and then did not retract that line then I'd be forced to label that person as a person of no compassion or empathy. And, it'd be a case of blaming the victim.

Vinny
Can you please elaborate on this or provide a link? My memory of the incident was the usual No Personal Responsibility mantra that the tort lawyers have infected American values with.

I also know an in-house attorney for McD who spends half their time defending frivolous lawsuits against their deep pockets.
I just "Binged it" for you. Take your pick:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=mcdonald% ... HRDEF&sp=1

My 25 year old memory of reading that article said that she had something like 7 painful skin grafts. McDonald's had already had successful lawsuits won against it. Yet they decided the costs of the lawsuits were not worth losing the revenues from giving the customers coffee as hot as they wanted it.

If you read any of them, tell me if my memory was off.

Vinny
I don't need to read them. Any idiot knows that coffee is hot and you don't pull off the lid of a full cup in a moving car. If you do, you have no one but yourself to blame. Example: I burned my hand recently while cooking with hot oil because I had a momentary lapse in judgement. There was no explicit warning on the bottle of oil that if I heated it and then poured it on my skin it would burn. Should I sue the oil manufacturer? Of course not, it was my stupidity, not theirs.

And for reference, that oil was prob near 400 degrees when it hit my skin. The coffee was around 190 IIRC. I did not even need to go to the hospital, so wtf?
"On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[11] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[2][12]

Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[12] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg) (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter.[13] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.[14][15]"

"Liebeck died on August 5, 2004, at age 91. According to her daughter, "the burns and court proceedings (had taken) their toll" and in the years following the settlement Liebeck had "no quality of life", and that the settlement had paid for a live-in nurse.[27]"
"I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2632
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by vnatale » Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:42 pm

https://web.archive.org/web/20150923195 ... coffee.pdf


FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Copr. © West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
9/1/94 WSJ A1
9/1/94 Wall St. J. A1
1994 WL-WSJ 342815
The Wall Street Journal
Copyright (c) 1994, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Thursday, September 1, 1994
A Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided That a Coffee Spill Is Worth $2.9
Million
--- McDonald's Callousness Was Real Issue, Jurors Say, In Case of Burned Woman --- How Hot Do You Like It?
By Andrea Gerlin
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- When a law firm here found itself defending
McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served
dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at
other local restaurants for comparison.
After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs
all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about
20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured,
about 180 degrees.
It should have been a warning.
But McDonald's lawyers went on to dismiss several opportunities to
settle out of court, apparently convinced that no jury would punish a
company for serving coffee the way customers like it. After all, its
coffee's temperature helps explain why McDonald's sells a billion cups
a year.
But now -- days after a jury here awarded $2.9 million to an
81-year-old woman scalded by McDonald's coffee -- some observers say
the defense was naive. "I drink McDonald's coffee because it's hot, the
hottest coffee around," says Robert Gregg, a Dallas defense attorney
who consumes it during morning drives to the office. "But I've
predicted for years that someone's going to win a suit, because I've
spilled it on myself. And unlike the coffee I make at home, it's really
hot. I mean, man, it hurts."
McDonald's, known for its fastidious control over franchisees,
requires that its coffee be prepared at very high temperatures, based
on recommendations of coffee consultants and industry groups that say
hot temperatures are necessary to fully extract the flavor during
brewing. Before trial, McDonald's gave the opposing lawyer its
operations and training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at
195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste.
Since the verdict, McDonald's has declined to offer any comment, as
have their attorneys. It is unclear if the company, whose coffee cups
warn drinkers that the contents are hot, plans to change its
preparation procedures.
Coffee temperature is suddenly a hot topic in the industry. The
Specialty Coffee Association of America has put coffee safety on the
agenda of its quarterly board meeting this month. And a spokesman for
Dunkin' Donuts Inc., which sells about 500 million cups of coffee a
year, says the company is looking at the verdict to see if it needs to
make any changes to the way it makes coffee.
Others call it a tempest in a coffeepot. A spokesman for the National
Coffee Association says McDonald's coffee conforms to industry
temperature standards. And a spokesman for Mr. Coffee Inc., the
coffee-machine maker, says that if customer complaints are any
indication, industry settings may be too low -- some customers like it
hotter. A spokeswoman for Starbucks Coffee Co. adds, "Coffee is
traditionally a hot beverage and is served hot and I would hope that
this is an isolated incident."
Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar
Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175
degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when
aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that
is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink."
Public opinion is squarely on the side of McDonald's. Polls have
shown a large majority of Americans -- including many who typically
support the little guy -- to be outraged at the verdict. And radio
talk-show hosts around the country have lambasted the plaintiff, her
attorneys and the jurors on air. Declining to be interviewed for this
story, one juror explained that he already had received angry calls
from citizens around the country.
It's a reaction that many of the jurors could have understood --
before they heard the evidence. At the beginning of the trial, jury
foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be
there to settle a coffee spill."
At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic
facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup
of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and
while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing
third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit,
filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective"
because it was so hot.
What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns.
Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and
of her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking
the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and
daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror
Jack Elliott.
Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen
such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the
past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee
burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising
from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.
Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling
coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the
plaintiff was a sympathetic figure -- an articulate, 81-year-old former
department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed
suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if
McDonald's hadn't dismissed her request for compensation for pain and
medical bills with an offer of $800.
Then there was the matter of Mrs. Liebeck's attorney. While
recuperating from her injuries in the Santa Fe home of her daughter,
Mrs. Liebeck happened to meet a pair of Texas transplants familiar with
a Houston attorney who had handled a 1986 hot-coffee lawsuit against
McDonald's. His name was Reed Morgan, and ever since he had deeply
believed that McDonald's coffee is too hot.
For that case, involving a Houston woman with third-degree burns, Mr.
Morgan had the temperature of coffee taken at 18 restaurants such as
Dairy Queen, Wendy's and Dunkin' Donuts, and at 20 McDonald's
restaurants. McDonald's, his investigator found, accounted for nine of
the 12 hottest readings. Also for that case, Mr. Morgan deposed
Christopher Appleton, a McDonald's quality assurance manager, who said
"he was aware of this risk . . . and had no plans to turn down the
heat," according to Mr. Morgan. McDonald's settled that case for
$27,500.
Now, plotting Mrs. Liebeck's case, Mr. Morgan planned to introduce
photographs of his previous client's injuries and those of a California
woman who suffered second- and third-degree burns after a McDonald's
employee spilled hot coffee into her vehicle in 1990, a case that was
settled out of court for $230,000.
Tracy McGee of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, the lawyers for
McDonald's, strenuously objected. "First-person accounts by sundry
women whose nether regions have been scorched by McDonald's coffee
might well be worthy of Oprah," she wrote in a motion to state court
Judge Robert Scott. "But they have no place in a court of law." Judge
Scott did not allow the photographs nor the women's testimony into
evidence, but said Mr. Morgan could mention the cases.
As the trial date approached, McDonald's declined to settle. At one
point, Mr. Morgan says he offered to drop the case for $300,000, and
was willing to accept half that amount. But McDonald's didn't bite.
Only days before the trial, Judge Scott ordered both sides to attend
a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended that
McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award
that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation.
Instead, McDonald's continued denying any liability for Mrs.
Liebeck's burns. The company suggested that she may have contributed to
her injuries by holding the cup between her legs and not removing her
clothing immediately. And it also argued that "Mrs. Liebeck's age may
have caused her injuries to have been worse than they might have been
in a younger individual," since older skin is thinner and more
vulnerable to injury.
The trial lasted seven sometimes mind-numbing days. Experts dueled
over the temperature at which coffee causes burns. A scientist
testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130
degrees could produce third-degree burns, so it didn't matter whether
McDonald's coffee was hotter. But a doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs.
Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160
degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three
seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15
seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees.
The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help
the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its
coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn
experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to
warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most
people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that
McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or
procedures, saying, "There are more serious dangers in restaurants."
Mr. Elliott, the juror, says he began to realize that the case was
about "callous disregard for the safety of the people."
Next for the defense came P. Robert Knaff, a human-factors engineer
who earned $15,000 in fees from the case and who, several jurors said
later, didn't help McDonald's either. Dr. Knaff told the jury that
hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the
billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually.
To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they
had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns didn't matter because they were rare.
"There was a person behind every number and I don't think the
corporation was attaching enough importance to that," says juror Betty
Farnham.
When the panel reached the jury room, it swiftly arrived at the
conclusion that McDonald's was liable. "The facts were so
overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham. "They were not
taking care of their consumers."
Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of
$200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of
the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.
The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless,
malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan
had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days
of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day.
During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued
for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the
jury settled on $2.7 million. McDonald's has since asked the judge for
a new trial. Judge Scott has asked both sides to meet with a mediator
to discuss settling the case before he rules on McDonald's request. The
judge also has the authority to disregard the jury's finding or
decrease the amount of damages.
One day after the verdict, a local reporter tested the coffee at the
McDonald's that had served Mrs. Liebeck and found it to be a
comparatively cool 158 degrees. But industry officials say they doubt
that this signals any companywide change. After all, in a series of
focus groups last year, customers who buy McDonald's coffee at least
weekly say that "morning coffee has minimal taste requirements, but
must be hot," to the point of steaming.
---- INDEX REFERENCES ----
COMPANY (TICKER): MCDONALD'S CORP.; ALLIED DOMECQ PLC (MCD U.ALL)
NEWS SUBJECT: CONSUMER ISSUES; LAWSUITS; TRADE GROUPS; WORLD EQUITY INDEX
(CSU LWS TRG WEI)
MARKET SECTOR: CONSUMER CYCLICAL; INDUSTRIAL; CONSUMER NON-CYCLICAL (CYC
IDU NCY)
INDUSTRY: BEVERAGES; DISTILLERS & BREWERS; ALL ENTERTAINMENT &
LEISURE; GENERAL INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL SERVICES;
RESTAURANTS; ALL INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL SERVICES (BVG DST
ENT ICS RES SVC)
REGION: EUROPE; ILLINOIS; NEW MEXICO; NORTH AMERICA; GREAT BRITAIN;
UNITED STATES; WESTERN EUROPE (EU IL NM NME UK US WEU)
LAYOUT CODES: PAGE ONE UMBRELLA; RIGHT LEADER (PGO RGT)
Word Count: 1911
9/1/94 WSJ A1
END OF DOCUMENT
"I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats."
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3739
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Mountaineer » Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:54 am

Good morning all. Here is something to brighten your day.
IMG_1149.png
IMG_1149.png (3.3 MiB) Viewed 160 times
I've learned that to ignore the truth does not change the truth.
Emojis are visual acryonyms. :)
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2505
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Xan » Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:35 am

Mountaineer wrote:
Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:54 am
Good morning all. Here is something to brighten your day.

IMG_1149.png
Apparently Mississippi State coach Mike Leach retweeted that very picture and it's created some controversy, costing him a player. I think we might be too sensitive.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Smith1776 » Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:48 am

Hola amigos!

Looks like today is another positive day for the markets. Capital markets are the best predictors of the future that I know of. So, perhaps the economic fallout from the Coronavirus isn't as bad we may have surmised.

I prefer to think of this as a dead cat bounce though.

I got up extra early today and did a couple hours of math study, so that's out of the way already! I got new Costco pastries (cheese garlic buns mmmmm), and am sipping coffee as I write this.

Today I'll be working on some new bits for my stand up routine, continuing on my website work, and then some singing. I'll be continuing the movie+video game tradition to end off the day as something relaxing.

Hope you guys have a good one!
For the money you can't afford to lose, why would you invest it in anything other than the PP? ???
Check out the Goldsmith PP: https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9613
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by pugchief » Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:05 am

vnatale wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:42 pm
Thursday, September 1, 1994
A Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided That a Coffee Spill Is Worth $2.9 Million
--- McDonald's Callousness Was Real Issue, Jurors Say, In Case of Burned Woman --- How Hot Do You Like It?
I still think jury awards have gotten completely out of control:

1. it is costing everyone a lot of money in the form of increased prices, and
2. giving everyone a wrongheaded attitude that anything bad that happens is someone else's fault (and if possible, they should sue)

Do you agree?
Do you agree that McD was 2.7M at fault?
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by pugchief » Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:07 am

Smith1776 wrote:
Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:48 am
Costco pastries (cheese garlic buns mmmmm), and am sipping coffee as I write this.
Do tell. That sounds more like an appetizer or meal than something you would eat with morning coffee....
Post Reply