Microsoft shortens Windows name

Archen wrote:
In article ,
The Chief wrote:


http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html


We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
tort reforms go through.

I personally don't feel that way and I don't think that has held true
throughout history. I think that if you have a legitimate case you will
be able to go forward with it. I think the subject speaks for itself
and means exactly what it says.

Archen wrote:

In article ,
The Chief wrote:

http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html

We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
tort reforms go through.

Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
someone is the common worker and his company.

The Chief wrote:

Archen wrote:

In article ,
The Chief wrote:


http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html



We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
tort reforms go through.


I personally don't feel that way and I don't think that has held true
throughout history. I think that if you have a legitimate case you will
be able to go forward with it. I think the subject speaks for itself
and means exactly what it says.


Not if the "tort reformers" get their way -- they don't recognize _any_
lawsuits not brought _by them_ as nonfrivolous.

I have some personal experience in this matter. When my mother died as
a result of clear healthcare professional negligence, she was in a state
that had passed tort reform. As a result, we were unable to sue her
murderers.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

chrisv wrote:

Archen wrote:


In article ,
The Chief wrote:


http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html

We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
tort reforms go through.


Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
someone is the common worker and his company.


So you think it's better to leave the dangerous ones alone. I disagree.

Or do you think the dangerous ones have signs on their office doors to
make them easy to identify?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

"chrisv" wrote in message
...
Archen wrote:

In article ,
The Chief wrote:

http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html

We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
tort reforms go through.

Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
someone is the common worker and his company.

Ooo ... bad example.

Malpractice insurance is optional, at least in the US, and serves only as a
safety blanket for unqualified so-called professionals.

Consider this alternative - eliminate (read: outlaw) malpractice insurance.
Any "reward" from a malpractice suit is now limited to the assets of the
so-called doctor. If the doctor is not worth his pay (read: quack), he will
abandon the profession because it is no longer profitable. The net result is
a thinning of the herd thereby strengthening the surviving members and the
overall health thereof. It the suit is tossed out, the persons filing the
suit get slapped with all the court costs and legal fees from both sides.

Does malpractice insurance do anything to benefit the consumer? No. The
absence of malpractice insurance does.

As a trickle down effect, the legal system is no longer clogged by so-called
victims chasing after their bite of the apple. Quite possibly the consumer's
cost for medical services get decreased since the doctors no longer pay the
"outlandish" insurance premiums. Yes, the choices for medical services
become limited, but the quality increases.

(And to think this whole OT subject started at the beginning of the month
when Grumble started in on the McD case not being an example of a frivolous
lawsuit. For the record, I didn't start this mess by calling the McD case
frivolous. I don't even think I've used the word "frivolous" in this thread
until this posting, but I've been wrong once before ... or maybe I was just
mistaken that one time.)

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:15:09 GMT,
(The little lost angel) wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:12:32 -0400, George Macdonald
wrote:

The question which is ignored by the Stella-phobes is why in the hell a
beverage is sold at a temp which is undrinkablegawp, by at least 20F, and
which is so hot it causes 3rd degree burns on the skin? You've just
purchased a drink which, at the temp served, *will* burn your mouth/tongue
and which has been intentionally elevated to that temp... rather than left
at the natural temp it finds in the carafe following the brewing process.

I guess the question here would be, was it an arbitary number fixed by
MacD, or they have some reasonable reasons for doing this. I think
somebody did mentioned that MacD's assumption was most of the take
away coffee would be drunk some time later when the customer arrives
at whatever place it was they were taking away to. So I would think it
wasn't an unreasonable temperature.

Hmm, how about two kinds of coffee: dangerous stuff for take-away and
consumption later... and drinkable stuff??:-)

Do they, as customers, insist they want it at that temp so they can install
it in their cup-holders and admire it for 15mins? Personally I don't want
that - when I buy a drink I want to be able drink it and taste it as
served... just like at home. While it may seem like a minor annoyance, it
is enough of one that I no longer purchase coffee from highway stops.

hehehe, personally I usually just order cold drinks if I want
something fast. Maybe I'm used to the fact hot drinks will always be
too hot to drink immediately. Otherwise, we'll call them warm drinks
no? :P

Yep - cold drinks is the only way but.... I do like a cup of moderately hot
coffee. Seems a shame that it's impossible to satisfy my needs. Am I
really in a minority on this?

The woman was 79 years old and it's likely her fingers were not as
dexterous as a younger person. AIUI she put the cup between her knees, not
thighs, possibly/probably because she couldn't get the cap off by holding
the cup in one hand and prying with the other... and thought there'd be
less chance of spillage that way.

Note also that the liar/lawyer indignation is contrived and misplaced - the
woman did not ask for punitive damages and there was no suggestion of
misuse of the legal system to gain a disproportionate monetary award; she
just had a large medical bill of $20,000.

Given this, I think MacD should had just settled out of compassion and
give her the money to cover her medical, it's a paltry sum to MacD.
Plus their marketing department can always put a wonderful spin on how
MacD didn't need to but made a goodwill payment etc etc.

Did she sue MacD first or did she ask them nicely to compensate for
the bills caused by the drinks and they refused?

There was a URL earlier which pointed to the sequence of events but I don't
recall if she actually went directly to court. In the usual scheme of
things I can't imagine she'd have gotten a satisfactory response from a
simple "nice" request anyway.

Though, personally being the klutz I am, I've always kept in mind to
open things applying force in a direction away from myself, hot drinks
or canned soda which have an annoying tendency to gush forth.
Considering my own klutziness, I don't think MacD is technically at
fault here for cups toppling?

No - not the cup toppling - the fault is only in the overheating. Err,
it's supposed to be a drink, not a dangerous booby-trap.

Since teens, I've spilled countless of drinks trying to place the tray
down on the table at fast food places like MacD & KFC. It took a while
(ok so I'm slooooow :P) before I figured out that I should hold the
drink down with one hand before I attempt the maneuver. or lower
myself parallel to the ground. How the heck do you guys do it without
tripping the cup anyway? There's no way I could figure out how with
two hands still on the tray since the hands inevitably causes the tray
to tilt at an angle.

Accidents happen to everyone, no matter how careful.shrug Here's one of
my recent ones: sitting with a lovely pint of best English bitter on the
pub table in front of me; no coasters on the table which slopes off just
slightly towards the edge and the glass is sitting in a little spilt beer
with an air bubble apparently trapped under it. Conversation is a little
animated and the table must have been rocking just a tad from time to time.
I think you'll see the problem - what a waste of beer! + slight
embarrassment since it looked like I'd had a different kind of umm,
accident.

If going by the "did the customer ask for it" argument, I could very
well sue MacD had any harm come to me, by asking "did I ask for such a
tall cup with a high center of gravity thus greater instability? Why
didn't MacD provide a large base bowl instead for their drinks?" It's
not reasonable, everybody knows that it's a common practise that
bigger drinks come in taller cups and taller cups are more prone to
falling.

Except they seem to be under some (mis)impression that everybody wants
their coffee at scalding temps?? If there is a conduit for my request, I
vote for coffee at a drinkable temp at time of purchase. Let the err,
hot-mouths use the office microwave to tweak it back up as required.:-)

Also, I think MacD does have the word HOT on these things no? So
they've warned the customer, it's not their fault if any of us don't
read it no? Though I still hope they do help out the old lady with her
medical bills.

I still think there is an expectation that a beverage should be drinkable
as served - that's still "HOT" to the skin. If it had been (drinkable),
the poor woman might have gotten a coupla mild blisters, instead of 3rd
degree burns requiring debridement [oo-oo-ooh] of the err, perineal/genital
areacringe.

Secondary effect he I'm sure people have even died for the sake of
decorum and modesty.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??