[Sinue_v2]

Originally Posted by Chik'Tikka

anyway I'm done beating this dead horse, ima find a new one+^_^+

Suits me. I'm going to sleep after this anyhow.

Google "scaa optimum coffee brewing temperature"
coffee traditionally should be served at 160°F

Irrelevant, since the SCAA is concerned with optimizing flavor, not customer safety. Since McDonalds (especially at that time) burns their coffee rather than brewing fresh every half-hour, the argument from flavor doesn't hold water. McDonalds customers aren't exactly connoisseurs in any case.

Secondly, most people prefer their coffee served at about 135~155 degrees, as suggested in these two papers. The second paper, btw, recommends lowering serving temperature down to 140 degrees to improve broader customer satisfaction as well as reduce scalding/burning hazards.

really sorry about the lady that burned her lap, but she's one lady in the face of 1000s of bs cases and people.

Are there 1,000's? If you didn't look close enough at the Liebeck case to distinguish whether or not it was legit before writing it off as frivolous, why should I think any of those other ambiguous cases you're pointing to are any different?

just think how did every hair dryer end up with a label in the manual saying "do not use while sleeping"? if that doesn't scream successful scam i don't know what does+^_^+

Strangely enough, I couldn't find any actual court case (successful or not) where a plaintiff sued a hair dryer manufacturer for damages incurred while operating their product while asleep. Just a lot of sites about stupid warning labels assuming, or asserting, that it was borne out of a lawsuit... but provided no links or references. (Many of which also lead into their piece on wacky warnings by bringing up the Liebeck vs. McDonalds case as an example of frivolous lawsuits).

I don't know why such an obviously absurd warning is found in some hairdryer manuals. Why isn't there a warning about the dangers of sticking it up your rear end and inflating your colon before a farting contest? There's an awful lot of stupidity out there, and just because the warning is there doesn't mean they anticipate litigation because of it. If that were so, the instruction manual would need to be as thick as a 30-volume set of Encyclopedia Britannica... and still not be comprehensive.

Maybe it's just the warning itself that's stupid...

After all, I'm sure more people fall asleep smoking cigarettes than they do drying their hair. Why aren't cigarette packs required to put a warning on them about the dangers of sleeping while smoking? Because it would never hold up in court... and neither would the supposed hair dryer case.

[washuguy]

Originally Posted by beatrixkiddo

Oh ok. The American farming industry is one of the most government-subsidized industries in the nation. Some farmers even get paid to NOT grow crops, so that the prices don't fall.

Lets not forget the farmers that get kicked off their land unwillingly while we're at it. Some of them get paid, but don't want to leave. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/201...5/18713519.php

You think these people care wether or not farmers get paid? Power looks for weakness, and human nature has proven over and over again, that we abuse power and want to have a monopoly. I'm sure there's good honest people that don't want the prices to fall, but I'm sure that's the minority...