Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:35:46 GMT, JC Dill wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:53:27 -0800, "Peter Pan"
> <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> MCDONALD'S COFFEE CASE --- What Are The Facts?
>>
>>Sign of the times.. If you do something stupid, blame someone else and
>>sue... never take responsibility for your own actions... <sigh>
>
> Sign of the times... why bother to read the material and understand it
> when you can just sneer that someone didn't take responsibility for
> "their actions" when they were injured by a defective product and had
> to sue to be compensated because the manufacturer of the product
> refused to be responsible for THEIR actions. <sigh> indeed.
>
> jc

The bottom line is:

1. Coffee is supposed to be hot. It wasn't defective, just hot.
2. Spilled coffee can burn. Common knowledge.
3. Don't spill coffee on yourself. Common sense.

Did McDonalds err in making the coffee very hot? Probably.

Did the lady err in playing with the coffee lid while the cup was near her
body? Yes.

Did I ever spill hot coffee on myself? Yes.

Did I run to the courts or the store where I bought it for satisfaction?
No. I wrote it off as stupidity on my part.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <TXOLd.4829$m31.64289@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Fact #9 - The trial judge thought the verdict was too high and
> reduced the verdict to about $400,000 at McDonald's request.

$480,000 to be exact--in addition to the base award of $160,000 (which
was 80% of the initial award because the jury held her to be 20% at
fault).

> (This is one fact that the insurance lawyers and McDonald's
> corporate lawyers never mention.)

Fact #10 - Both sides settled out of court instead of either side
appealing the amount, and the results of that settlement are secret, so
we do not know how much, if anything, Stella actually received.

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <re2essezxi4m$.www1ft7hluir$.dlg@40tude.net>,
CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote:

> 1. Coffee is supposed to be hot. It wasn't defective, just hot.

There are degrees of hot. (In both senses of the expression.) If
McDonalds had heated the coffee in a pressure cooker so it was more than
212 degrees F, would it still just be "hot"?

> 2. Spilled coffee can burn. Common knowledge.

But not 3rd degree burns.

> Did the lady err in playing with the coffee lid while the cup was
> near her body? Yes.

She wasn't playing with the lid; she was removing it. Did you ever try
to put lightener or sweetener in a cup of coffee while the lid was on?
For that matter, did you ever try to remove the lid from a cup while the
cup was not near your body? I'd hazard a guess that it was within arms
length.

> Did I ever spill hot coffee on myself? Yes.
>
> Did I run to the courts or the store where I bought it for
> satisfaction?

Did you ever get third degree burns from the spilled coffee?

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <NEHLd.4774$m31.64095@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Bluetooth in the V710 does support data transfer, just not the
> particular kind you want.

You can redefine "data" to suit your argument all you want; that does
not change the generally accepted definition.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <3EHLd.4773$m31.64012@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Nothing misleading about that -- the V710 can in fact do both voice
> and data over Bluetooth.

Voice *and* data? I thought you said that voice is data. Make up your
mind.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <VAHLd.4772$m31.64116@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Perhaps the concern is that Bluetooth could be used phone-to-phone,
> thus facilitating "casual sharing" (copying), unlike a USB cable.

Bluetooth doesn't copy files; people copy files.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:X1ILd.4780$m31.63900@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <3Zudnd0wfpdEpGXcRVn-gw@adelphia.com> on Wed, 26 Jan 2005
17:46:49 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:eDTJd.3821$m31.53117@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> >> In <C-ednbymaYOPxG3cRVn-rA@adelphia.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
18:22:16 -0700,
> >> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Wait- I may have answered my own question. You were called as an
expert to
> >> >compare computer code and only to compare computer code. 1986? SEA
and
> >> >PKWARE? ...
> >>
> >> Nice start (and good for you for actually doing some homework rather
than just
> >> the usual wild mud slinging), but far from the only time I've been
qualified
> >> as an expert. Keep digging.
> >
> >Two things- first, I haven't been mud slinging.
>
> Baloney.

Says you.

>
> >I have posted in response
> >to your own words.
>
> That doesn't make it any less mud slinging.

Call it what you will.

>
> >And I have not stooped to the level of being totally
> >non-responsive to posts- something which you seem to have resorted to in
> >other threads.
>
> That's hardly a sin, and certainly nothing compared to your mud slinging.

Not a sin, but a pretty good measure of credibility.

>
> >Second, you have yet to post any credentials to back up your
> >claim that your status as an expert witness was based on anything in play
> >here.
>
> So be skeptical. I'm not interested in responding to pointless
challenges,
> since it's now clear that you'll simply dismiss whatever I say.

Its only pointless to you. I believe that is probably due to the absolute
void of expertise you can provide.

>
> >I've cited the only publicly documented association of your name with
> >any legal action,
>
> No, you're just cited the only one you've been able to find

>
> >... How about citing the cases where you were
> >called as an expert witness specifically in the areas of contract law,
> >copyright protection and truth in advertising? ...
>
> I'm not going to play your game.

Of course not- you have nothing to play with.

>
> >Of course, I can save you the trouble if you'd like. You see, I have an
old
> >high school buddy that is a Princeton professor and has access to their
Law
> >Library. We plugged your name in and found no instance where you were
> >called as an expert in any of the three areas mentioned above. I'll even
> >translate that for you- you have no recognizable knowledge, expertise or
> >experience in the areas of contract law, copyright protection and truth
in
> >advertising. I'd say that my digging is complete.
>
> ROTFL. Even if you've actually done that, rather than just make it up,
all
> you've proved is neither you nor your Princeton professor understand the
> serious limitations of that kind of research. My testimony is a matter of
> public record, and can be found, but that's not how to do it. I testified
in
> one of the biggest and most important anti-trust cases, yet you both
somehow
> missed that. ;-)

Again, you don't read very well. There is no public record of you
testifying in any case where you were called as an expert in the areas of
copyright law, truth in advertising or contract law. You have been called
in cases where these topics were discussed, but your testimony was in other
areas and you were not called as an expert in any of these three areas. For
you to continue the charade is actually really funny now. I should take
your attitude- I can fill my gas tank, so that makes me an expert at
automotive repair.

>
> >Feel free to refute, although you'll need to cite specific instances that
> >can be verified independently.
>
> I'm not going to play your game.

Again- you can't. You have nothing to play with.

>
> >My money is on the fact that you will never
> >do it (because there is nothing to cite) and simply resort to evasion,
name
> >calling or out of context replies- all things you seem to be excelling at
> >these days.
>
> Pot ... kettle ... ;-)

Oooo- that hurt. Not really, but I guess that was the response you were
looking for.

>
> You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which ought to
give
> you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant
experience,
> unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone that I'm not the
right
> kind of expert witness to suit you is pretty pathetic.
>
> --

How is the comparison of computer code relevent to anything mentioned here?
You have totally lost your mind- and with a statement like that any
credibility you had left. Is it really your assertion that your testimony
in that case as a computer code expert makes you an expert on any of the
legal areas mentioned above?

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news9ILd.4783$m31.64101@typhoon.sonic.net...

>
> >Although I noticed that you chose to respond to this post but ignore the
one
> >asking you to cite specific examples of expertise you implied possessing.
> >Should we consider that lack of silence as a lack of said expertise or
the
> >inability to admit error?
>
> No, just unwillingness to play your game. You now know that I have
testified
> as an expert witness in IP. That you came up with so little is your
problem,
> not mine.
>
> --
But you are the one with the true problem, claiming that that testimony
alone qualifies you as an expert in other areas of the law. That is truly a
problem.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:46:53 GMT, CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com>
wrote:


>1. Coffee is supposed to be hot. It wasn't defective, just hot.

It was hot enough to cause serious burns that put her in the hospital
for 2 weeks and required skin grafts.

>2. Spilled coffee can burn. Common knowledge.

It is NOT common knowledge that spilling coffee will lead to severe
burns, weeks of hospitalization, and skin grafts.

>3. Don't spill coffee on yourself. Common sense.
>
>Did McDonalds err in making the coffee very hot? Probably.

No "probably" about it. They did it intentionally, knowing that it
was injuring people, knowing it was too hot to safely drink. They had
800 prior burn claims before this case, they knew that their coffee
was causing serious burns and they did nothing to make their product
safe.

>Did the lady err in playing with the coffee lid while the cup was near her
>body? Yes.
>
>Did I ever spill hot coffee on myself? Yes.

Hot enough to cause serious burns, hospitalization, skin grafts???

>Did I run to the courts or the store where I bought it for satisfaction?

She didn't run to the courts, she filed a claim with McDonalds asking
ONLY for reimbursement of her medical bills. Only after McDs ignored
their liability by serving dangerously hot (defective) coffee did she
sue.

>No. I wrote it off as stupidity on my part.

If the coffee was much hotter than you expected, and it caused burns
that were much more serious than prior burns (those caused by spilling
"normal" hot coffee), you might be singing a different tune.

jc

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <michelle-D22D96.18354301022005@news.west.cox.net> on Tue, 01 Feb 2005
18:35:43 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <NEHLd.4774$m31.64095@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Bluetooth in the V710 does support data transfer, just not the
>> particular kind you want.
>
>You can redefine "data" to suit your argument all you want; that does
>not change the generally accepted definition.

Dial-Up Networking is clearly data to anyone without an axe to grind. ;-)

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <36ac2qF4ufqsfU1@individual.net> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:53:27 -0800, "Peter
Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> MCDONALD'S COFFEE CASE --- What Are The Facts?>>
>
>Sign of the times.. If you do something stupid, blame someone else and
>sue... never take responsibility for your own actions... <sigh>

Next time read *before* ranting.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <michelle-4CBA8D.18362401022005@news.west.cox.net> on Tue, 01 Feb 2005
18:36:24 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <3EHLd.4773$m31.64012@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Nothing misleading about that -- the V710 can in fact do both voice
>> and data over Bluetooth.
>
>Voice *and* data?

Yes.

>I thought you said that voice is data. Make up your
>mind.

You apparently have me confused with someone else. I said Dial-Up Networking
is data, and it is.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <re2essezxi4m$.www1ft7hluir$.dlg@40tude.net> on Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:46:53
GMT, CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:35:46 GMT, JC Dill wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:53:27 -0800, "Peter Pan"
>> <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>> MCDONALD'S COFFEE CASE --- What Are The Facts?
>>>
>>>Sign of the times.. If you do something stupid, blame someone else and
>>>sue... never take responsibility for your own actions... <sigh>
>>
>> Sign of the times... why bother to read the material and understand it
>> when you can just sneer that someone didn't take responsibility for
>> "their actions" when they were injured by a defective product and had
>> to sue to be compensated because the manufacturer of the product
>> refused to be responsible for THEIR actions. <sigh> indeed.
>
>The bottom line is:
>
>1. Coffee is supposed to be hot.

There are greatly different degrees of hot. Read the article.

>It wasn't defective, just hot.

It was excessively hot.

>2. Spilled coffee can burn. Common knowledge.

Not when the temperature is appropriate. You can't drink coffee so hot that
it will burn.

>3. Don't spill coffee on yourself. Common sense.

Accidents happen.

>Did McDonalds err in making the coffee very hot? Probably.
>
>Did the lady err in playing with the coffee lid while the cup was near her
>body? Yes.

Nonsense -- she was just trying to take the lid off.

>Did I ever spill hot coffee on myself? Yes.

Me too. But I don't make it so hot as to get third degree burns, and I don't
buy coffee at McDonalds, so it's never been a big deal.

>Did I run to the courts or the store where I bought it for satisfaction?
>No. I wrote it off as stupidity on my part.

When I'm injured by the act of someone else, I expect that someone else to be
responsible for my injury.

Are you equally laid back when electrocuted by an insufficiently grounded
product? Do you fully live by the Law of the Jungle?

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>