General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,609
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

> wrote in message
...

> I seriously doubt there will ever be driverless cars here in the
> boonies, we still don't have the latest high speed internet and most
> areas don't have cable. I can just see driverless cars dealing with
> large critters on the road, gravel/dirt road.



Well, maybe those large critters will be micro chipped to avoid the
driverless cars. ;-)

Cheri

  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 357
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 1/14/2018 12:21 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 12:34:14 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> I frequently ask folks over the age of 70 about their cell phones. What I expect to see are feature phones common 10 to 15 years ago. Sometimes it's older generation iPhones which their kids gave to them that they don't know how to operate. Some people over 70 do have the latest smartphones. Typically these are big haole guys that are well off and look like they're dressed for the golf course. They're into technology. Good for them.

>
> I've got 9 years to go before I hit your benchmark. I've got an iPhone 5c.
> When I bought it, I believe the first iPhone 6 had just come out.
>
> I barely use it to make phone calls. The only app I use is spider solitaire.
>
>> I don't understand the attitude of people regarding self-driving cars. They
>> seem to completely ignore the fact that humans are terrible drivers and that
>> about 100 people die and over 10,000 are injured every day by this incredibly
>> deadly consumer product. These new cars don't have to be perfect - merely
>> better than human drivers.

>
> But I'm not one of those 100 or 10,000. I suppose when I'm ready to give up
> driving, driverless cars will have had most of the bugs worked out of them
> by the early adopters.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>


Oh no, you don't want to be a Windows 10 style beta tester who pays for
the 'privilege' of being 'first"?

Might just save your life...
  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 357
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 1/14/2018 12:57 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 9:21:56 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 12:34:14 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>>> I frequently ask folks over the age of 70 about their cell phones. What I expect to see are feature phones common 10 to 15 years ago. Sometimes it's older generation iPhones which their kids gave to them that they don't know how to operate. Some people over 70 do have the latest smartphones. Typically these are big haole guys that are well off and look like they're dressed for the golf course. They're into technology. Good for them.

>>
>> I've got 9 years to go before I hit your benchmark. I've got an iPhone 5c.
>> When I bought it, I believe the first iPhone 6 had just come out.
>>
>> I barely use it to make phone calls. The only app I use is spider solitaire.
>>
>>> I don't understand the attitude of people regarding self-driving cars. They
>>> seem to completely ignore the fact that humans are terrible drivers and that
>>> about 100 people die and over 10,000 are injured every day by this incredibly
>>> deadly consumer product. These new cars don't have to be perfect - merely
>>> better than human drivers.

>>
>> But I'm not one of those 100 or 10,000. I suppose when I'm ready to give up
>> driving, driverless cars will have had most of the bugs worked out of them
>> by the early adopters.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton

>
> Lots of people feel like that. I've been hit too many times to have that attitude. That's why I had 3 Fiat 124 Coupes. Two of them got wacked. I've never hit anybody but I am certainly aware that my driving sucks. It's only a matter of time before something bad happens.
>


Dude, that's harsh...real...but harsh...
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 357
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 1/14/2018 1:01 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 8:24:40 AM UTC-10, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>>
>> Sorry but barring actual Star Trek transporter technology I just do not
>> believe that will happen.
>>
>> And even then we'll need a human monitor in case Brundlefly gets in the
>> works...
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Cw_c748Yo

>
> I love horror films. They make me laugh. Am I a bad person?
>


Nah!

Yer a good egg.
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23,520
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

cshenk wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
>
> > Nancy Young wrote:
> > >
> > > Open that newspaper you get and see there are horrible accidents
> > > all the time now. Who knows, with driverless cars maybe it will
> > > be safe to ride a motorcycle again.

> >
> > Where's the fun in riding on a driverless motorcycle?

>
> Uh Gary, that was a woosh over your head. He had nothing about a
> riderless motocycle but about clueless drivers off the roads and it
> might be safer for motorcycles.


No Carol, my reponse was a woosh over *YOUR* head. Removing
"clueless drivers off the roads" to make the roads safer should
definitely remove motorcycle drivers off the roads too. Or are
they some special kind of better drivers?
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23,520
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> On 1/14/2018 2:40 PM, cshenk wrote:
> > Gary wrote:
> >
> >> Nancy Young wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Open that newspaper you get and see there are horrible accidents
> >>> all the time now. Who knows, with driverless cars maybe it will
> >>> be safe to ride a motorcycle again.
> >>
> >> Where's the fun in riding on a driverless motorcycle?

> >
> > Uh Gary, that was a woosh over your head. He had nothing about a
> > riderless motocycle but about clueless drivers off the roads and it
> > might be safer for motorcycles.
> >

>
> I think he had his tongue in his cheek when he wrote that.


You got my meaning, Ed.


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23,520
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Motorcycles will still find ways to get hit by driver-less cars.


I worked one winter in the home of an emergency room doctor. She
told me they had a special name for motorcycles
there...donorcycles. Many brought into the emergency rooms had
fatal accidents but still many good (reuseable) organs left
undamaged. Grim but true. Good news for those waiting for
transplants though so....silver lining to every cloud??? :-o
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 357
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 1/15/2018 9:10 AM, Gary wrote:
> cshenk wrote:
>>
>> Gary wrote:
>>
>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Open that newspaper you get and see there are horrible accidents
>>>> all the time now. Who knows, with driverless cars maybe it will
>>>> be safe to ride a motorcycle again.
>>>
>>> Where's the fun in riding on a driverless motorcycle?

>>
>> Uh Gary, that was a woosh over your head. He had nothing about a
>> riderless motocycle but about clueless drivers off the roads and it
>> might be safer for motorcycles.

>
> No Carol, my reponse was a woosh over *YOUR* head. Removing
> "clueless drivers off the roads" to make the roads safer should
> definitely remove motorcycle drivers off the roads too. Or are
> they some special kind of better drivers?
>


Things they tend not to do - hold cell phone to ear or try texting while
riding...


  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,133
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?



"Casa estilo antiguo" wrote in message news
On 1/15/2018 9:10 AM, Gary wrote:
> cshenk wrote:
>>
>> Gary wrote:
>>
>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Open that newspaper you get and see there are horrible accidents
>>>> all the time now. Who knows, with driverless cars maybe it will
>>>> be safe to ride a motorcycle again.
>>>
>>> Where's the fun in riding on a driverless motorcycle?

>>
>> Uh Gary, that was a woosh over your head. He had nothing about a
>> riderless motocycle but about clueless drivers off the roads and it
>> might be safer for motorcycles.

>
> No Carol, my reponse was a woosh over *YOUR* head. Removing
> "clueless drivers off the roads" to make the roads safer should
> definitely remove motorcycle drivers off the roads too. Or are
> they some special kind of better drivers?
>


Things they tend not to do - hold cell phone to ear or try texting while
riding...

==

Even holding your phone or being seen to be looking at it when you are (even
sitting in the car with your engine running) in the car can get you in
serious trouble with the law here.



  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 357
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 1/15/2018 9:43 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Casa estilo antiguo"Â* wrote in message news >
> On 1/15/2018 9:10 AM, Gary wrote:
>> cshenk wrote:
>>>
>>> Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Open that newspaper you get and see there are horrible accidents
>>>>> all the time now.Â* Who knows, with driverless cars maybe it will
>>>>> be safe to ride a motorcycle again.
>>>>
>>>> Where's the fun in riding on a driverless motorcycle?
>>>
>>> Uh Gary, that was a woosh over your head.Â* He had nothing about a
>>> riderless motocycle but about clueless drivers off the roads and it
>>> might be safer for motorcycles.

>>
>> No Carol, my reponse was a woosh over *YOUR* head. Removing
>> "clueless drivers off the roads" to make the roads safer should
>> definitely remove motorcycle drivers off the roads too. Or are
>> they some special kind of better drivers?
>>

>
> Things they tend not to do - hold cell phone to ear or try texting while
> riding...
>
> ==
>
> Even holding your phone or being seen to be looking at it when you are
> (even sitting in the car with your engine running) in the car can get
> you in serious trouble with the law here.
>
>
>

As well it should, and I'm not the most statist restrictions guy around.

Anything that makes you 2-8 times more likely to be in an accident
should be constrained in a car.
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,607
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 23:52:53 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:34:41 -0500, wrote:
>
>> I don't have a smart phone so I can't get texts.

>
>Text messaging on cellular phones is 25 years old, 15 years before the
>invention of the first iPhone. Practically every cellular non-smart
>phone produced in the last 20 years can receive and send SMS text
>messages. IIRC, you had something similar to the Alcatel "Big Easy"
>for old farts.
>
>
https://www.amazon.com/Alcatel-382G-.../dp/B009LRN2SK
>
>But sending messages is a PITA on numeric keypads. I was still doing
>that 6 or 7 years ago while most everybody else had been using
>alpha-numeric keyboards: 333-88-222-55-0-8-44-2-8-0-777-44-444-8 !!!
>
>-sw


In my case it matters not... I've had that phone like three years now
and I'm yet to make the first call... I'm not sure I even remember
how. The most I ever do with that phone is about every 3-4 months I
charge its battery. I only have that phone in case of an emergency,
since there are no more pay phones along highwys I have that cell
phone in case my car breaks down.
I can't comprehend what people are yakking about on those things
24-7... if I make or recieve one call a week on my land line it's a
lot. My land line is a freebie as part of the Verizon package my
wife has for all her electronics.\; her desktop, two tablets. latest
smartphone, streaming TV, and I don't know what all gizmos she uses. I
don't even do my crowsword puzzles on line, I print them so I can do
them in pen.


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 1/15/2018 3:32 PM, wrote:
> I don't even do my crowsword puzzles on line, I print them so I can do
> them in pen.
>
>

Is yer AOL broken? lol

  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,590
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
> >
> > Motorcycles will still find ways to get hit by driver-less cars.

>
> I worked one winter in the home of an emergency room doctor. She
> told me they had a special name for motorcycles
> there...donorcycles. Many brought into the emergency rooms had
> fatal accidents but still many good (reuseable) organs left
> undamaged. Grim but true. Good news for those waiting for
> transplants though so....silver lining to every cloud??? :-o


After helmets became optional (again) in Michigan, when my husband
or I sees a rider without a helmet, we say, "Oh, look! An organ
donor."

I have a friend who went head-first through a car's driver-side
rear window. If he hadn't been wearing a helmet, he'd have died.
IIRC, his father is a physician, and the guy himself is too smart
to ride without a helmet.

Cindy Hamilton
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 367
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 1/15/2018 1:51 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> And you can flip through all the messages when you're standing in line
> at Walmart.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Omelet wrote:

>
>> He hates me 'cause I never slept with him...

>
> He hates himself because he is all he has to sleep with
> I don't know, sometimes he used to seem normal, then he went petty
> trough vindictive and now I just shun contact. I have enough crazies to
> deal with in my world without encouraging those who refuse to take their
> meds.


For the record, I never once even considered sleeping with you. And
you know that. You're the one who somehow got the idea that I was
going to move in with you - and you posted that to RFC just out of the
total blue.

After having met you twice at casual austin.food gatherings 2 or 3
years ago and not giving you any indication that there was any sort of
romantic interest in the least, you somehow twisted that into MY
MOVING IN WITH YOU?

That was just way too Psycho for me. I sat there at stared at the
screen for at least 15 minutes wondering, WTF? That was just way too
spooky. I've met weird, semi-psycho women before but you win, hands
down. Mapi of austin.general still holds the male title, but at least
he announced his psychosis right there lying on the floor of the bar
at B.D. Reilly's rather than romantically obsessing over me for 2
years.

Needless to say, you need to come to terms with what happened and why
your mind works that way and stop making up excuses for your fixation
and disappointment before we become the next Yoli and Michael. I'd
prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

And Jeremy, I was just tired of your decade of bullshit and visions of
grandeur about all these things you're "working on" or have not done
in the past. Even posting a call for meetings with imaginary people
about imaginary projects of yours at "the normal time and place", as
if you are somebody important with a life. I'm pretty sure you're
manic depressive mixed with habitual liar.

Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 2018-01-15 3:53 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-5, Gary wrote:


> After helmets became optional (again) in Michigan, when my husband
> or I sees a rider without a helmet, we say, "Oh, look! An organ
> donor."
>
> I have a friend who went head-first through a car's driver-side
> rear window. If he hadn't been wearing a helmet, he'd have died.
> IIRC, his father is a physician, and the guy himself is too smart
> to ride without a helmet.


Helmets have been mandatory here since the early 1960s. I used to think
that they were useless. A helmet did nothing to protect my best friend
when a car pulled out in front of him. I dropped a bike once. I got up
and dusted myself off. The only injury I suffered was a torn rotator
cuff from angrily yanking the bike back up. I later realized that my
helmet was badly damaged. One side of it was scraped almost half through
it. Had I not been wearing the helmet, it would have been the side of
my head that was scraped off.




  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,541
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 2018-01-15 1:53 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>
>>> Motorcycles will still find ways to get hit by driver-less cars.

>>
>> I worked one winter in the home of an emergency room doctor. She
>> told me they had a special name for motorcycles
>> there...donorcycles. Many brought into the emergency rooms had
>> fatal accidents but still many good (reuseable) organs left
>> undamaged. Grim but true. Good news for those waiting for
>> transplants though so....silver lining to every cloud??? :-o

>
> After helmets became optional (again) in Michigan, when my husband
> or I sees a rider without a helmet, we say, "Oh, look! An organ
> donor."
>
> I have a friend who went head-first through a car's driver-side
> rear window. If he hadn't been wearing a helmet, he'd have died.
> IIRC, his father is a physician, and the guy himself is too smart
> to ride without a helmet.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>

I always wear a helmet when cycling. Once, in France, I hit a gravel
patch and went over the handlebars. My helmet was cracked in the
process. I can never understand why people ride without one. I'm sure
Bruce's experience in Holland will not agree.


  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 16:21:34 -0700, graham > wrote:

>On 2018-01-15 1:53 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Motorcycles will still find ways to get hit by driver-less cars.
>>>
>>> I worked one winter in the home of an emergency room doctor. She
>>> told me they had a special name for motorcycles
>>> there...donorcycles. Many brought into the emergency rooms had
>>> fatal accidents but still many good (reuseable) organs left
>>> undamaged. Grim but true. Good news for those waiting for
>>> transplants though so....silver lining to every cloud??? :-o

>>
>> After helmets became optional (again) in Michigan, when my husband
>> or I sees a rider without a helmet, we say, "Oh, look! An organ
>> donor."
>>
>> I have a friend who went head-first through a car's driver-side
>> rear window. If he hadn't been wearing a helmet, he'd have died.
>> IIRC, his father is a physician, and the guy himself is too smart
>> to ride without a helmet.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>

>I always wear a helmet when cycling. Once, in France, I hit a gravel
>patch and went over the handlebars. My helmet was cracked in the
>process. I can never understand why people ride without one. I'm sure
>Bruce's experience in Holland will not agree.


That's true. When people in the Netherlands use a bike as a means of
transport, they won't wear a helmet, just like a pedestrian wouldn't.
People would be surprised if you did. If you do it as a sport and go
at higher speed, then it's pretty common to wear one.
  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,590
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:08:26 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2018-01-15 3:53 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-5, Gary wrote:

>
> > After helmets became optional (again) in Michigan, when my husband
> > or I sees a rider without a helmet, we say, "Oh, look! An organ
> > donor."
> >
> > I have a friend who went head-first through a car's driver-side
> > rear window. If he hadn't been wearing a helmet, he'd have died.
> > IIRC, his father is a physician, and the guy himself is too smart
> > to ride without a helmet.

>
> Helmets have been mandatory here since the early 1960s. I used to think
> that they were useless. A helmet did nothing to protect my best friend
> when a car pulled out in front of him. I dropped a bike once. I got up
> and dusted myself off. The only injury I suffered was a torn rotator
> cuff from angrily yanking the bike back up. I later realized that my
> helmet was badly damaged. One side of it was scraped almost half through
> it. Had I not been wearing the helmet, it would have been the side of
> my head that was scraped off.


Yeah, helmets were mandatory here, but in 2012 the law was repealed,
except for:
€¢ 20 and younger
€¢ 21 and older with less than $20,000 in medical insurance and who have not passed a safety course or have not held an endorsement for at least two years

Those two classes of riders must wear a helmet. Toothless, really

Cindy Hamilton
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 2018-01-16 6:19 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:08:26 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:


>> Helmets have been mandatory here since the early 1960s. I used to think
>> that they were useless. A helmet did nothing to protect my best friend
>> when a car pulled out in front of him. I dropped a bike once. I got up
>> and dusted myself off. The only injury I suffered was a torn rotator
>> cuff from angrily yanking the bike back up. I later realized that my
>> helmet was badly damaged. One side of it was scraped almost half through
>> it. Had I not been wearing the helmet, it would have been the side of
>> my head that was scraped off.

>
> Yeah, helmets were mandatory here, but in 2012 the law was repealed,
> except for:
> €¢ 20 and younger
> €¢ 21 and older with less than $20,000 in medical insurance and who have not passed a safety course or have not held an endorsement for at least two years
>
> Those two classes of riders must wear a helmet. Toothless, really



I have been riding motorcycles on and off since I was 14 and they have
been mandatory since I got my license. I would not think if riding a
motorcycle without one. I also wear glasses and/or a visor.

Your motorcycle helmet laws are as toothless as our bicycle helmet laws.
They are only mandatory for kids 16 and under, cops around here will
not charge kids. I wear a helmet when I ride my bike. I used to wear it
faithfully but one day when my wife and I went for a ride on the Niagara
Parkway I had forgotten it. That was the day I got hit by a car. It was
a low speed collision and I was surprised how far I flew. Luckily, I was
unhurt.
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,676
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:34:06 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2018-01-16 6:19 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:08:26 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:

>
>>> Helmets have been mandatory here since the early 1960s. I used to think
>>> that they were useless. A helmet did nothing to protect my best friend
>>> when a car pulled out in front of him. I dropped a bike once. I got up
>>> and dusted myself off. The only injury I suffered was a torn rotator
>>> cuff from angrily yanking the bike back up. I later realized that my
>>> helmet was badly damaged. One side of it was scraped almost half through
>>> it. Had I not been wearing the helmet, it would have been the side of
>>> my head that was scraped off.

>>
>> Yeah, helmets were mandatory here, but in 2012 the law was repealed,
>> except for:
>> • 20 and younger
>> • 21 and older with less than $20,000 in medical insurance and who have not passed a safety course or have not held an endorsement for at least two years
>>
>> Those two classes of riders must wear a helmet. Toothless, really

>
>
>I have been riding motorcycles on and off since I was 14 and they have
>been mandatory since I got my license. I would not think if riding a
>motorcycle without one. I also wear glasses and/or a visor.
>
>Your motorcycle helmet laws are as toothless as our bicycle helmet laws.
>They are only mandatory for kids 16 and under, cops around here will
>not charge kids. I wear a helmet when I ride my bike. I used to wear it
>faithfully but one day when my wife and I went for a ride on the Niagara
>Parkway I had forgotten it. That was the day I got hit by a car. It was
>a low speed collision and I was surprised how far I flew. Luckily, I was
>unhurt.


We have a lot of cyclists on city streets here and I don't know when I
last saw one who was not wearing a helmet. To me if I was going to
ride a bike, the least I could do is that! If hit by a car, your head
is the thing that will hit the pavement hardest and is the most
vulnerable. Glad you were unhurt, was that what turned you into a
Harperite???
  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:38:56 -0400, wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:34:06 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>>On 2018-01-16 6:19 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:08:26 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:

>>
>>>> Helmets have been mandatory here since the early 1960s. I used to think
>>>> that they were useless. A helmet did nothing to protect my best friend
>>>> when a car pulled out in front of him. I dropped a bike once. I got up
>>>> and dusted myself off. The only injury I suffered was a torn rotator
>>>> cuff from angrily yanking the bike back up. I later realized that my
>>>> helmet was badly damaged. One side of it was scraped almost half through
>>>> it. Had I not been wearing the helmet, it would have been the side of
>>>> my head that was scraped off.
>>>
>>> Yeah, helmets were mandatory here, but in 2012 the law was repealed,
>>> except for:
>>> • 20 and younger
>>> • 21 and older with less than $20,000 in medical insurance and who have not passed a safety course or have not held an endorsement for at least two years
>>>
>>> Those two classes of riders must wear a helmet. Toothless, really

>>
>>
>>I have been riding motorcycles on and off since I was 14 and they have
>>been mandatory since I got my license. I would not think if riding a
>>motorcycle without one. I also wear glasses and/or a visor.
>>
>>Your motorcycle helmet laws are as toothless as our bicycle helmet laws.
>>They are only mandatory for kids 16 and under, cops around here will
>>not charge kids. I wear a helmet when I ride my bike. I used to wear it
>>faithfully but one day when my wife and I went for a ride on the Niagara
>>Parkway I had forgotten it. That was the day I got hit by a car. It was
>>a low speed collision and I was surprised how far I flew. Luckily, I was
>>unhurt.

>
>We have a lot of cyclists on city streets here and I don't know when I
>last saw one who was not wearing a helmet. To me if I was going to
>ride a bike, the least I could do is that! If hit by a car, your head
>is the thing that will hit the pavement hardest and is the most
>vulnerable.


Pedestrians can be hit by cars too. Why don't they wear helmets?
People fall off stairs. Helmets on stairs should be compulsory too.
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,609
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

"Bruce" > wrote in message

> Pedestrians can be hit by cars too. Why don't they wear helmets?
> People fall off stairs. Helmets on stairs should be compulsory too.



Don't laugh, that could very well be next with all these "we only want to
protect you from your stupid selves laws.

Cheri

  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

Am Dienstag, 16. Januar 2018 20:46:19 UTC+1 schrieb Cheri:
> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>
> > Pedestrians can be hit by cars too. Why don't they wear helmets?
> > People fall off stairs. Helmets on stairs should be compulsory too.

>
>
> Don't laugh, that could very well be next with all these "we only want to
> protect you from your stupid selves laws.


"The cyclist's legs were crushed by the wheels of a truck. He didn't wear
a helmet." - From a police-report for the press...

Bye, Sanne.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:46:00 -0800, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>"Bruce" > wrote in message
>
>> Pedestrians can be hit by cars too. Why don't they wear helmets?
>> People fall off stairs. Helmets on stairs should be compulsory too.

>
>
>Don't laugh, that could very well be next with all these "we only want to
>protect you from your stupid selves laws.


Yes, where to draw the line.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,425
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-10, sanne wrote:
>
> "The cyclist's legs were crushed by the wheels of a truck. He didn't wear
> a helmet." - From a police-report for the press...
>
> Bye, Sanne.


Was he using an iPhone?


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 2018-01-16 2:46 PM, Cheri wrote:
> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>
>> Pedestrians can be hit by cars too. Why don't they wear helmets?
>> People fall off stairs. Helmets on stairs should be compulsory too.

>
>
> Don't laugh, that could very well be next with all these "we only want
> to protect you from your stupid selves laws.


Maybe we need laws and regulations to encourage people to do the smart
thing instead of having a system where careless idiots can sue other
people for megabucks instead of accepting the outcome of their own
stupidity. Sometimes there just has to be laws on the books as a way to
educate people for their own good.



  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

Am Dienstag, 16. Januar 2018 23:24:26 UTC+1 schrieb dsi1:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-10, sanne wrote:
> >
> > "The cyclist's legs were crushed by the wheels of a truck. He didn't wear
> > a helmet." - From a police-report for the press...
> >
> > Bye, Sanne.

>
> Was he using an iPhone?


That would have been mentioned in the report.

Bye, Sanne.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,609
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2018-01-16 2:46 PM, Cheri wrote:
>> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Pedestrians can be hit by cars too. Why don't they wear helmets?
>>> People fall off stairs. Helmets on stairs should be compulsory too.

>>
>>
>> Don't laugh, that could very well be next with all these "we only want to
>> protect you from your stupid selves laws.

>
> Maybe we need laws and regulations to encourage people to do the smart
> thing instead of having a system where careless idiots can sue other
> people for megabucks instead of accepting the outcome of their own
> stupidity. Sometimes there just has to be laws on the books as a way to
> educate people for their own good.


If some people are so stupid that they need laws to teach them common sense,
then they are too stupid to follow laws on the books. You can't legislate
stupidity away.

Cheri

  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 2018-01-17 2:14 AM, Cheri wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2018-01-16 2:46 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Pedestrians can be hit by cars too. Why don't they wear helmets?
>>>> People fall off stairs. Helmets on stairs should be compulsory too.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't laugh, that could very well be next with all these "we only
>>> want to protect you from your stupid selves laws.

>>
>> Maybe we need laws and regulations to encourage people to do the smart
>> thing instead of having a system where careless idiots can sue other
>> people for megabucks instead of accepting the outcome of their own
>> stupidity. Sometimes there just has to be laws on the books as a way
>> to educate people for their own good.

>
> If some people are so stupid that they need laws to teach them common
> sense, then they are too stupid to follow laws on the books. You can't
> legislate stupidity away.


That may be, but you have a litigation prone society where courts will
award outrageous sums of money to people who are authors of their own
misfortune. A prime example is the woman who sued McDonalds after she
held a cup of hot coffee between her thighs. I know about the argument
about them having been advised the coffee was too hot. She had ordered a
hot beverage that comes in a flimsy cup. Goodness knows what possessed
her to think she had prehensile thighs.


  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 1/17/2018 8:20 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2018-01-17 2:14 AM, Cheri wrote:
>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2018-01-16 2:46 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>>> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> Pedestrians can be hit by cars too. Why don't they wear helmets?
>>>>> People fall off stairs. Helmets on stairs should be compulsory too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't laugh, that could very well be next with all these "we only
>>>> want to protect you from your stupid selves laws.
>>>
>>> Maybe we need laws and regulations to encourage people to do the
>>> smart thing instead of having a system where careless idiots can sue
>>> other people for megabucks instead of accepting the outcome of their
>>> own stupidity. Sometimes there just has to be laws on the books as a
>>> way to educate people for their own good.

>>
>> If some people are so stupid that they need laws to teach them common
>> sense, then they are too stupid to follow laws on the books. You can't
>> legislate stupidity away.

>
> That may be,Â* but you have a litigation prone society where courts will
> award outrageous sums of money to people who are authors of their own
> misfortune. A prime example is the woman who sued McDonalds after she
> held a cup of hot coffee between her thighs.Â*Â* I know about the argument
> about them having been advised the coffee was too hot. She had ordered a
> hot beverage that comes in a flimsy cup. Goodness knows what possessed
> her to think she had prehensile thighs.
>
>

Golly, an old person who made mistake, there's a first, eh Mr.
Compassionate?

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the
cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the
cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into
her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety
ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at
substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally
135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
....

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.


  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,609
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2018-01-17 2:14 AM, Cheri wrote:
>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2018-01-16 2:46 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>>> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> Pedestrians can be hit by cars too. Why don't they wear helmets?
>>>>> People fall off stairs. Helmets on stairs should be compulsory too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't laugh, that could very well be next with all these "we only want
>>>> to protect you from your stupid selves laws.
>>>
>>> Maybe we need laws and regulations to encourage people to do the smart
>>> thing instead of having a system where careless idiots can sue other
>>> people for megabucks instead of accepting the outcome of their own
>>> stupidity. Sometimes there just has to be laws on the books as a way to
>>> educate people for their own good.

>>
>> If some people are so stupid that they need laws to teach them common
>> sense, then they are too stupid to follow laws on the books. You can't
>> legislate stupidity away.

>
> That may be, but you have a litigation prone society where courts will
> award outrageous sums of money to people who are authors of their own
> misfortune. A prime example is the woman who sued McDonalds after she held
> a cup of hot coffee between her thighs. I know about the argument about
> them having been advised the coffee was too hot. She had ordered a hot
> beverage that comes in a flimsy cup. Goodness knows what possessed her to
> think she had prehensile thighs.



I agree that doing away with personal stupidity lawsuits would be a great
start, but it will never happen. Once the first person stepped off a ladder
because it had grease on a rung, and there was no warning tag that it could
be slippery in that event, it was all over. <G>

Cheri

Cheri

  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,676
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:05:16 -0800, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2018-01-17 2:14 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 2018-01-16 2:46 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pedestrians can be hit by cars too. Why don't they wear helmets?
>>>>>> People fall off stairs. Helmets on stairs should be compulsory too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't laugh, that could very well be next with all these "we only want
>>>>> to protect you from your stupid selves laws.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we need laws and regulations to encourage people to do the smart
>>>> thing instead of having a system where careless idiots can sue other
>>>> people for megabucks instead of accepting the outcome of their own
>>>> stupidity. Sometimes there just has to be laws on the books as a way to
>>>> educate people for their own good.
>>>
>>> If some people are so stupid that they need laws to teach them common
>>> sense, then they are too stupid to follow laws on the books. You can't
>>> legislate stupidity away.

>>
>> That may be, but you have a litigation prone society where courts will
>> award outrageous sums of money to people who are authors of their own
>> misfortune. A prime example is the woman who sued McDonalds after she held
>> a cup of hot coffee between her thighs. I know about the argument about
>> them having been advised the coffee was too hot. She had ordered a hot
>> beverage that comes in a flimsy cup. Goodness knows what possessed her to
>> think she had prehensile thighs.

>
>
>I agree that doing away with personal stupidity lawsuits would be a great
>start, but it will never happen. Once the first person stepped off a ladder
>because it had grease on a rung, and there was no warning tag that it could
>be slippery in that event, it was all over. <G>
>
>Cheri
>
>Cheri

I hate how that womans name is always used. She was severely scalded
and elected to take McDogs to court to try and prevent it happening to
others, McDogs had already paid off half a dozen people with the same
accident. It would seem that McDogs was the ONLY window that served
beverages at that high temperature and that's what happened.

True she was awarded a grotesque amount but she never received that.
After all the shouting was done she had her legal bills and also
medical bills repaid and a small compensation sum.

Google her and read it for yourself.
  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 1/17/2018 11:30 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:05:16 -0800, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2018-01-17 2:14 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 2018-01-16 2:46 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pedestrians can be hit by cars too. Why don't they wear helmets?
>>>>>>> People fall off stairs. Helmets on stairs should be compulsory too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't laugh, that could very well be next with all these "we only want
>>>>>> to protect you from your stupid selves laws.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we need laws and regulations to encourage people to do the smart
>>>>> thing instead of having a system where careless idiots can sue other
>>>>> people for megabucks instead of accepting the outcome of their own
>>>>> stupidity. Sometimes there just has to be laws on the books as a way to
>>>>> educate people for their own good.
>>>>
>>>> If some people are so stupid that they need laws to teach them common
>>>> sense, then they are too stupid to follow laws on the books. You can't
>>>> legislate stupidity away.
>>>
>>> That may be, but you have a litigation prone society where courts will
>>> award outrageous sums of money to people who are authors of their own
>>> misfortune. A prime example is the woman who sued McDonalds after she held
>>> a cup of hot coffee between her thighs. I know about the argument about
>>> them having been advised the coffee was too hot. She had ordered a hot
>>> beverage that comes in a flimsy cup. Goodness knows what possessed her to
>>> think she had prehensile thighs.

>>
>>
>> I agree that doing away with personal stupidity lawsuits would be a great
>> start, but it will never happen. Once the first person stepped off a ladder
>> because it had grease on a rung, and there was no warning tag that it could
>> be slippery in that event, it was all over. <G>
>>
>> Cheri
>>
>> Cheri

> I hate how that womans name is always used. She was severely scalded
> and elected to take McDogs to court to try and prevent it happening to
> others, McDogs had already paid off half a dozen people with the same
> accident. It would seem that McDogs was the ONLY window that served
> beverages at that high temperature and that's what happened.
>
> True she was awarded a grotesque amount but she never received that.
> After all the shouting was done she had her legal bills and also
> medical bills repaid and a small compensation sum.
>
> Google her and read it for yourself.
>

+1


https://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the
cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the
cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into
her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety
ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at
substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally
135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
....

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,851
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 1/17/2018 1:39 PM, casa de los sueños wrote:

> https://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
>
> Â*There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
> one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
> important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
> the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
> scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
> and muscle. Here's the whole story.



>
> McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
> advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
> maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety
> ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at
> substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally
> 135 to 140 degrees.
>
> Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
> actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
> degrees, plus or minus five degrees.


Don't come to my house for coffee. After a recent discussion of this I
checked and it was 187 degrees in the carafe. Actual brewing is about
200. I'll have to check the cup but I often heat that a little on cold
mornings.
  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default Do Men Hate Using Coupons?

On 1/17/2018 12:17 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/17/2018 1:39 PM, casa de los sueños wrote:
>
>> https://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
>>
>> Â*Â*There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
>> one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it
>> is important to understand some points that were not reported in most
>> of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it
>> was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin,
>> flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.

>
>
>>
>> McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
>> advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit
>> to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
>> safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
>> coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home
>> is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
>>
>> Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the
>> company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot
>> at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees.

>
> Don't come to my house for coffee.Â* After a recent discussion of this I
> checked and it was 187 degrees in the carafe. Actual brewing is about
> 200.Â*Â* I'll have to check the cup but I often heat that a little on cold
> mornings.



But you're not sending it out in a styrofoam cup in a moving vehicle
either...

And a MickeyD's cup isn't near as well designed as Starbux$.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT - not going to say I hate summer but I hate bugs Cheryl[_3_] General Cooking 29 07-07-2011 08:01 PM
Coupons. Aussie[_4_] General Cooking 30 09-01-2011 04:42 PM
Coupons ImStillMags General Cooking 85 25-03-2010 06:07 PM
coupons Virginia Tadrzynski General Cooking 6 16-11-2007 04:18 AM
coupons [email protected] Vegan 0 14-11-2007 10:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"