Zathras

You don't have Drive-Thrus in Britain? You don't think that McDonalds has a duty to tell someone that they're being handed a substance that will cause $20,000 worth of personal injuries on contact that it is dangerous? Not when it's coffee no. The only thing I have sympathy with her about (and I'm pushing it here) is that certain of the paper cup types are extremely deceptive, i.e. you can't tell the temperature because they are such good insulators, however, I just come back to the whole 'sticking a flexible cup of hot coffee between your legs while driving' issue. And you can't do anything over here in a car that will distract your attention from the road, pretty sure that would include transporting coffee between your legs. It's a pity companies can't counter sue on grounds of not having any common sense, hence every little thing is coming down to safe procedure and operating instructions. As I said above, it's a question of degrees of expeectation. She could expect some burns, but it is unreasonable to require her to expect and protect against such a severe burn from a substance that most people do not have contact with at such temperatures. Edit: Oh, and she was the passenger in the car. She sounds rather special tbh. I'm sure out of the millions of cups of coffee sold by McDonalds with no incident taking place, there was no real inclination for them to alter their serving policy. Not until some idiot didn't use the cup holder. The point is (and this is why there was such a large punitive damage award) that there had been several hundred similar incidents.

You don't have Drive-Thrus in Britain? You don't think that McDonalds has a duty to tell someone that they're being handed a substance that will cause $20,000 worth of personal injuries on contact that it is dangerous? Not when it's coffee no. The only thing I have sympathy with her about (and I'm pushing it here) is that certain of the paper cup types are extremely deceptive, i.e. you can't tell the temperature because they are such good insulators, however, I just come back to the whole 'sticking a flexible cup of hot coffee between your legs while driving' issue. And you can't do anything over here in a car that will distract your attention from the road, pretty sure that would include transporting coffee between your legs. It's a pity companies can't counter sue on grounds of not having any common sense, hence every little thing is coming down to safe procedure and operating instructions. As I said above, it's a question of degrees of expeectation. She could expect some burns, but it is unreasonable to require her to expect and protect against such a severe burn from a substance that most people do not have contact with at such temperatures. Edit: Oh, and she was the passenger in the car.

You don't have Drive-Thrus in Britain? You don't think that McDonalds has a duty to tell someone that they're being handed a substance that will cause $20,000 worth of personal injuries on contact that it is dangerous? In the same way that cigarette manufacturers have to put "smoking kills" on their boxes? "Here's your coffee maam. Now be sure not to spill it on your genitals as it might just burn..." There is a difference in degrees. One should reasonably expect coffee served to cause 1st degree burns and possibly 2nd degree burns, but it is patently unreasonable to expect coffee to cause 3rd degree burns. Had she suffered less severe injuries then there wouldn't be a cause of action because McDonalds could easily plead contributory negligence; she should expect such smaller injuries. It was not reasonable to require her to expect that kind of damage from a cup of coffee, whereas it was perfectly reasonable for McDonald's to expect such injuries were possible because they were aware of the true nature of the coffee.

You don't have Drive-Thrus in Britain? You don't think that McDonalds has a duty to tell someone that they're being handed a substance that will cause $20,000 worth of personal injuries on contact that it is dangerous?

If that's referring to the infamous coffee burn case, I feel I should point out the real facts of that case.... The woman was given coffee which was heated to over 190 degrees F (that's 88 degrees C) which is MUCH higher than the suggested safe temperature for serving a beverage (but was McDonald's standard temperature in their manual) When she was given the coffee and it spilled, she suffered 3rd degree burns on her thighs and genitals, resulting in the need for several skin grafts from her back which cost upwards of $20,000. This was not the first instance of this injury; McDonalds had had warning of the danger of serving superheated coffee yet continued to direct its employees to do so. The woman sued for ONLY the medical expenses, and the other damages were PUNITIVE. The point of punitive damages is to provide a deterrent for repeated offenses. The amount required will differ with defendants. If Gemmill beats me up, a punitive award would be less than if Kieron Dyer beat me up. It's not because Gemmill is less of a twat, it's because a fine of $5,000 is significant to Gemmill, but pocket change to Dyer. I'm not commenting on the the case in the first post, however, as I don't know the circumstances of it as yet. How hot is a cup of coffee when you pour it from a freshly boiled kettle at home? Coffee should be *brewed* at approximately 90 degrees C. It should be SERVED at about 65-75 degrees C. One serving coffee at home is not a. Serving it in a paper cup b. Sitting in a car c. unaware that it is being served at a temperature at which it is unsafe to drink because it would burn your esophagus. Agree with points a and b, but what has c got to do with it? That's just common sense to work out how hot it is before drinking it. Are you saying that if she was aware how hot it was, she wouldn't have bothered spilling it in the first place? If she knew that it was that hot, she would likely have been more careful with the cup; for instance not placing it between her legs. If you know it is too hot to drink you're more careful with a drink than if you don't know the temperature.

If that's referring to the infamous coffee burn case, I feel I should point out the real facts of that case.... The woman was given coffee which was heated to over 190 degrees F (that's 88 degrees C) which is MUCH higher than the suggested safe temperature for serving a beverage (but was McDonald's standard temperature in their manual) When she was given the coffee and it spilled, she suffered 3rd degree burns on her thighs and genitals, resulting in the need for several skin grafts from her back which cost upwards of $20,000. This was not the first instance of this injury; McDonalds had had warning of the danger of serving superheated coffee yet continued to direct its employees to do so. The woman sued for ONLY the medical expenses, and the other damages were PUNITIVE. The point of punitive damages is to provide a deterrent for repeated offenses. The amount required will differ with defendants. If Gemmill beats me up, a punitive award would be less than if Kieron Dyer beat me up. It's not because Gemmill is less of a twat, it's because a fine of $5,000 is significant to Gemmill, but pocket change to Dyer. I'm not commenting on the the case in the first post, however, as I don't know the circumstances of it as yet. How hot is a cup of coffee when you pour it from a freshly boiled kettle at home? Coffee should be *brewed* at approximately 90 degrees C. It should be SERVED at about 65-75 degrees C. One serving coffee at home is not a. Serving it in a paper cup b. Sitting in a car c. unaware that it is being served at a temperature at which it is unsafe to drink because it would burn your esophagus.

If that's referring to the infamous coffee burn case, I feel I should point out the real facts of that case.... The woman was given coffee which was heated to over 190 degrees F (that's 88 degrees C) which is MUCH higher than the suggested safe temperature for serving a beverage (but was McDonald's standard temperature in their manual) When she was given the coffee and it spilled, she suffered 3rd degree burns on her thighs and genitals, resulting in the need for several skin grafts from her back which cost upwards of $20,000. This was not the first instance of this injury; McDonalds had had warning of the danger of serving superheated coffee yet continued to direct its employees to do so. The woman sued for ONLY the medical expenses, and the other damages were PUNITIVE. The point of punitive damages is to provide a deterrent for repeated offenses. The amount required will differ with defendants. If Gemmill beats me up, a punitive award would be less than if Kieron Dyer beat me up. It's not because Gemmill is less of a twat, it's because a fine of $5,000 is significant to Gemmill, but pocket change to Dyer. I'm not commenting on the the case in the first post, however, as I don't know the circumstances of it as yet.

Got your wish then.

What the fucking fuck is fucking going on with these fucking fucks??!?

How good is Cerny? He's second behind Cech for the Czechs, so that's hardly a good indicator...

They get to play 'diddy' teams and still move up places, how fair is that? the methododly is published - all you have to do is to choose who you want to play - you still have to win mind - an England home defeat at Wembley by Andorra wouldn't help much............ I know how it works, the post was in reference to previous discussions and banter with Zathras about the good ole U.S. of A and their qualificat I know you know. But if a team wants to climb the rankings they can always choose their games to fit........... Not really true. And you should no better than to try to make such a point on such a discussion without realizing the history of the topic.

Rocky is GREAT! Utterly ridiculous turn of phrase, always good for a quote or six. As far as advancing the game at hand, he's not so great, but he's a riot. example quote: "Without penetration, it's just masturbation and they've been playing with themselves for 45 minutes."

Well, at NFL games, I suppose you need to find SOMETHING to keep your mind interested...

Thank God I wasn't there! The crowd were doing that fucking Mexican wave at the Stad De France (sp) last night - I had to press the mute button, it was so annoying. Maybe Mexico should be nuked for giving the world this most annoying activity?? Came from America originally. Which makes it an even better plan. I thought it had started during the Mexico W.C in, er '86 (?). No matter; wherever it started should be dispensed with That's where the name comes from. It was around in the US before that though. You used to see it at NFL games etc. It was around long before the '86 World Cup. That's just when you insulated Euros were exposed to its horror for the first time.

I'm just glad we have commentators that do not induce an automatic "mute" button pressing.

New Zealand are better than you'd think. ... and since the new playoff for Oceania is against the 5th place Asian team, I'd expect them to have a decent shot. Unless they lose to Vanuatu again.

They get to play 'diddy' teams and still move up places, how fair is that? Not only that, we haven't won since June!

Part four... finally http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1774305

Generally, I think they should attend games, but every game is a bit excessive. Even if I love something, if I'm spending 5 days a week doing it for 8 hours a day, (a standard work week) I'm not necessarily going to want to watch it done by others on my day off.

Definitely agree.

DaMarcus Beasely's goal against Mexico in the 9/5/05 World Cup Qualifier. Winning goal to put us into the cup against the Green Rats.... perfect.

I'm willing to be most of the English media will disagree with you on that one Because they're biased. Owens was a great goal, but at best it was 3rd behind Bergkamps and that Cameroonian guy's goal against Austria.

Always will remember that goal in 1998 vs. Argentina. Best goal of that tournament, tbh.

Franck Dumas, tbh

Is it just because I've only been able to see highlights and text commentary or is Butt getting more involved in the attack under Allardyce?