In article >, cathy1234
@mailinator.com says...
> Peter A wrote:
> > In article >, cathy1234
> > @mailinator.com says...
> >>> Suppose you went to a hardware store and asked for 1000 pound cable
> >>> and they sold you 250 pound cable, and as a result someone was killed.
> >>> Should you have checked?
> >>>
> >> Yes. It's called "taking responsibility for your own actions".
> >>
> >>
> >
> > That applies to the hardware store as well as to the buyer.
> >
> > Will you please explain why an individual must be responsible for his
> > own actions while a business does not?
>
> As usual, you missed the point completely. Shit happens. People working
> for businesses make mistakes (not the businesses themselves). If I was
> "critically allergic" to cheese, I wouldn't care if the Creator of the
> Universe himself told me it didn't contain cheese. I'd check.
>
>

Chatty, you are a sweet lady but but you are totally clueless.

It's an accepted point of law, for ages, that a business is responsible
for mistakes that its employees make. There is no difference between an
employee and the "business itself." The employee represents the business
and therefore his/her actions are legally actions of the business.


--
Peter Aitken

Dave Smith said...

> He is the one with the problem that is so extremely serious, so he should
> be checking things himself before putting them in his mouth. I don't think
> that anyone here expects the guy to be perfect in his action, but he
> expects perfection from a fast food joint. I think it is only fair to judge
> MacDonalds by the same standards he accepts for himself.


We know that it wasn't his first time eating at McD. He knew there was a
chance it could come with cheese. He "obsessed" supposedly about no cheese.

So he's ordered that way before and in the light would obvious check for
cheese. That he was in the dark this once and didn't check is an absurd
excuse to defraud McD.

Andy

In article >,
says...
>

> The guy should have checked the burger himself before eating. Mix-ups do
> happen and if the allergy was that bad, he needed to be sure for his own
> safety.
>
> I can't have any milk or milk products like cheese and ice cream. When I
> order a baked potato I always state NO SOUR CREAM, guess what. Out comes the
> potato WITH sour cream. I like my ice tea unsweetened and without lemon.
> That is how I order it. Out comes the tea WITH lemon. I eat my salads
> without dressing. When I order I always state NO DRESSING. The next thing
> out of the waiter's mouth is "what type of dressing?" I think that folks in
> the food service area just do things automatically and don't hear or pay
> attention to something that falls out of their normal zone. I have returned
> a lot of food simply because the kitchen staff didn't follow what I had
> ordered. I check everything since I know what the results can be for me. It
> is my responsibility to take care of myself. Gee, maybe I won't the next
> time so I can file a large lawsuit.
>


Bully for you. But let me ask you this: just because someone is not as
careful as you, does that mean they are responsible for mistakes made by
the restaurant they are paying?

--
Peter Aitken

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> big fish wrote:
> >>
> > The guy should have checked the burger himself before eating. Mix-ups do
> > happen and if the allergy was that bad, he needed to be sure for his own
> > safety.
>
>
> I feel the same way about birth control. I know that a lot of women will
> disagree with me, but I think that the ultimate responsibility for birth
> control is the female's. She is the one who is going to get pregnant. She
> is the one who is going to be saddled down with an unwanted child. She
> could trust the guy to pull out in time, to use a condom that has been
> rotting in his wallet for ten years, or believe that he had a vasectomy.
> If she has sex with a stranger or near stranger, he is not going to be
> around when she needs financial and other support. I am not saying that
> men should not take any action or any responsibility, but if I were the one
> who would left holding the bag when things go bad, I would want not be
> prepared to trust someone else.

Responsible women carry condoms in their purses.
The trick is getting a guy to wear them. Many men hate them.

The She condoms are not widely available.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Aug 13, 8:24?am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> "Sheldon" > wrote
>
> > Of course the fast food joints may not be serving actual cheese, odds
> > are more likely it's a vegetable fat product containing no cheese
> > whatsoever. But it's still the responsibility of the patron to find
> > out.
>
> It's not as if it's invisible. People just look for any way to scam
> money. If he was that desperate for no cheese that he told
> them eight million times No cheese, he would have looked.
> He's just a big fat liar. Heh.

Any normal brained individual with a serious cheee allergy should know
better than to order a burger from a joint that serves
cheeseburgers... matters not that no cheese was deliberately applied,
matters not that you don't see any cheese... you can bet your bippee
there will very likely be trace amounts of cheese in every burger they
sell.

Not an hour ago I bought a pound of Di Lusso Genoa salami from the
local stupidmarket deli. When I opened the package to make a sandwich
for lunch there were a few small slivers of some kind of cheese inside
the waxed paper right up against the first slice of salami, I just
brushed them off. And they use separate slicers for meat and cheese,
but there are always crumbs that migrate, it's not a perfect world.
Were I deathly allergic to cheese I wouldn't be buying cold cuts from
a deli that sells cheese.

Sheldon

Peter A wrote:

>
> Chatty, you are a sweet lady but but you are totally clueless.

Gee, another backhanded compliment. You are a real "peach" Peter.
>
> It's an accepted point of law, for ages, that a business is responsible
> for mistakes that its employees make. There is no difference between an
> employee and the "business itself." The employee represents the business
> and therefore his/her actions are legally actions of the business.
>
>
In an "ideal world", yes. However, most of the employees (in the real
world) who work at burger joints (or any other company for that matter)
don't give a hoot about who is responsible for what - they are just
there to earn a living. They know full well that if anybody is going to
be sued, it's not the employees - it's the company. So consequentially,
they (the employees) make mistakes and don't lose much sleep over it.
People like our Mr. Allergic-to-Cheese know that too, hence the lawsuit.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible

On Aug 13, 2:17?pm, Peter A > wrote:
> In article >, cathy1234
> @mailinator.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Peter A wrote:
> > > In article >, cathy1234
> > > @mailinator.com says...
> > >>> Suppose you went to a hardware store and asked for 1000 pound cable
> > >>> and they sold you 250 pound cable, and as a result someone was killed.
> > >>> Should you have checked?
>
> > >> Yes. It's called "taking responsibility for your own actions".
>
> > > That applies to the hardware store as well as to the buyer.
>
> > > Will you please explain why an individual must be responsible for his
> > > own actions while a business does not?
>
> > As usual, you missed the point completely. Shit happens. People working
> > for businesses make mistakes (not the businesses themselves). If I was
> > "critically allergic" to cheese, I wouldn't care if the Creator of the
> > Universe himself told me it didn't contain cheese. I'd check.
>
> Chatty, you are a sweet lady but but you are totally clueless.
>
> It's an accepted point of law, for ages, that a business is responsible
> for mistakes that its employees make. There is no difference between an
> employee and the "business itself." The employee represents the business
> and therefore his/her actions are legally actions of the business.


Nonsense. If a patron is allergic to milk and orders milk how can any
employee be in error? No restaurant (in the US anyway) is required
to cater to anyone's allergies so no employee can make an error in
that regard. If someone slips on a wet floor then the business is
liable, if food is not served/stored at safe temperatures then the
business is liable, and a whole host of other violations... but not
catering to someones food allergy is not a violation... not unless
there is a specific contract entered into for such by the parties,
like if a hospital doesn't follow the doctor's orders to the
dietician. When you dine at Booger King there is no such contract,
only that the food will be wholesome, not that it offends somene's
personal allergy. Folks are solely responsible for catering to their
allergies themselves.. no different from someone allergic to bee
stings gets stung in their butt, who yer gonna sue, Mother Nature...
well damn, yer ass shouldn't be where there're bees. If you go
swimming in the ocean and a shark bites your ass off. who yer gonna
sue, all you can sue is your own dumb ass... but sheesh, now you ain't
got one.. yer still just as dumb but now you ain't got an ass. If
people could be punished just for being dumb they'd reopen death row
at Alcatraz just for Peter.

Sheldon

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:04:09 -0500, in rec.food.cooking, David Fetter
wrote:

>jmcquown > wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/2x2xq8
>>
>> So, he ordered two quarter pounders without cheese. And the excuse
>> for this lawsuit is he didn't notice it had cheese on it because he
>> was eating in a dark room. What?!
>>
>> If you place a special order shouldn't you check it before you leave
>> the establishment? I eat my burgers plain. It's been a long time
>> since I was at a McD's but I always checked to make sure my burger
>> was to order before I drove off. I guess it's a good thing for
>> McDonald's he didn't order coffee, too.
>
>The real coffee story is a lot less flattering to McDonalds than you
>appear to assume here.
>
>http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

That's the old ATLA, Association of Trial Lawyers of America, now calling
themselves The American Association for Justice, originally the National
Association of Claimants’ Compensation Attorneys. But as John Fabian Witt,
Professor Law and History at Columbia, wrote, "At KFC (né Kentucky Fried
Chicken), the chicken is still fried. At Altria (né Philip Morris), the
cigarettes still cause cancer. And at the American Association for
Justice, some will say that the trial lawyers are still chasing
ambulances." Some people might call the name Orwellian, I couldn't
possibly comment.
>
>Eating at McDonalds at all is a poor decision on several grounds, some
>listed below:
>
>* What little taste there is in the stuff is awful.

Some stuff they do is tasty, other stuff they do I don't like. Taste is
personal. I like some of their new baguettes.

>* It's expensive compared to, say, a taco truck or whatever else is local to you.

And you think that's guaranteed tasty and healthful? If so, I've a bridge
I'd like to sell you.

>* The "food" is jammed with ingredients like HFCS which is *really* bad for you.

Yes, sugar can be bad for you. It's McDonald's fault people overeat, they
make the food so cheap and tasty it can't be resisted. Oh, no, sorry, it's
nasty and expensive. That's how they get people to overeat those bad
things like HFCS which no one else of course uses, especially local taco
trucks which use only organic and healthy ingredients.

>Cheers,
>David (a former McDonalds employee)

And maybe a very disgruntled one who things they done him wrong?

Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

On Aug 13, 9:33?am, "Virginia Tadrzynski" > wrote:
> "Elisa" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>http://tinyurl.com/2x2xq8
>
> >> So, he ordered two quarter pounders without cheese. And the excuse for
> >> this
> >> lawsuit is he didn't notice it had cheese on it because he was eating in
> >> a
> >> dark room. What?!
>
> >> If you place a special order shouldn't you check it before you leave the
> >> establishment? I eat my burgers plain. It's been a long time since I
> >> was
> >> at a McD's but I always checked to make sure my burger was to order
> >> before I
> >> drove off. I guess it's a good thing for McDonald's he didn't order
> >> coffee,
> >> too.
>
> >> Jill
>
> > This will make you laugh: my daughter doesn't like cheese on her burgers
> > (no allergy, just a preference). I have ordered a hamburger many times
> > for her at McDonald's and it ALWAYS has cheese on it. Then, I tried
> > saying "hamburger, no cheese" and they get it right. So, now I order it
> > that redundant way every time.
>
> > Elisa (it did get quite annoying!)
>
> FBS is lactose intolerant. He has had hamburgers from McD's come with
> cheese. The only way he has managed to get a burger without cheese, and I
> swear this is true, at our 'local' is to order a double cheeseburger - hold
> the cheese. That's the ONLY way he gets a burger without cheese.

Me too. I don't like cheese burgers either, not unless it's a quality
well aged sharp gorgonzola. But even so I much prefer my burger
smothered in lots of well caramelized onion.

I don't call those mystery meat tiny poker chip sized thingies sold at
fast food joints burgers anyway, they should be held liable for
pawning off a lower grade than Alpo.

Sheldon

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:23:31 -0400, in rec.food.cooking, Peter A wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>>
>
>> The guy should have checked the burger himself before eating. Mix-ups do
>> happen and if the allergy was that bad, he needed to be sure for his own
>> safety.
>>
>> I can't have any milk or milk products like cheese and ice cream. When I
>> order a baked potato I always state NO SOUR CREAM, guess what. Out comes the
>> potato WITH sour cream. I like my ice tea unsweetened and without lemon.
>> That is how I order it. Out comes the tea WITH lemon. I eat my salads
>> without dressing. When I order I always state NO DRESSING. The next thing
>> out of the waiter's mouth is "what type of dressing?" I think that folks in
>> the food service area just do things automatically and don't hear or pay
>> attention to something that falls out of their normal zone. I have returned
>> a lot of food simply because the kitchen staff didn't follow what I had
>> ordered. I check everything since I know what the results can be for me. It
>> is my responsibility to take care of myself. Gee, maybe I won't the next
>> time so I can file a large lawsuit.
>>
>
>
>Bully for you. But let me ask you this: just because someone is not as
>careful as you, does that mean they are responsible for mistakes made by
>the restaurant they are paying?

No, they are responsible for their own actions though. Anyone with a
possibly deadly intolerance for something so obvious shouldn't rely on
anyone else.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:04:09 -0500, (David Fetter)
wrote:

>jmcquown > wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/2x2xq8
>>
>> So, he ordered two quarter pounders without cheese. And the excuse
>> for this lawsuit is he didn't notice it had cheese on it because he
>> was eating in a dark room. What?!
>>
>> If you place a special order shouldn't you check it before you leave
>> the establishment? I eat my burgers plain. It's been a long time
>> since I was at a McD's but I always checked to make sure my burger
>> was to order before I drove off. I guess it's a good thing for
>> McDonald's he didn't order coffee, too.
>
>The real coffee story is a lot less flattering to McDonalds than you
>appear to assume here.
>
>http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
>

good luck on trying to educate folks on the coffee lawsuits. it fits
too well in their favorite 'frivolous lawsuit' and 'take
responsibility' narratives. the third-degree burns don't slow them
down.

i do notice that mcdougal's has learned something from the experience
in that they offered to pay this putz's medical expenses.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:16:18 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>In article >,
> (David Fetter) wrote:
>> The real coffee story is a lot less flattering to McDonalds than you
>> appear to assume here.
>>
>> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
>
>An interesting read. Thank you.

tell your friends.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
says...
> >Bully for you. But let me ask you this: just because someone is not as
> >careful as you, does that mean they are responsible for mistakes made by
> >the restaurant they are paying?
>
> No, they are responsible for their own actions though. Anyone with a
> possibly deadly intolerance for something so obvious shouldn't rely on
> anyone else.
>
>

But it's not their own actions, it's someone else's actions. You are
asking an individual to be responsible for someone else's mistake. How
is that right?

It is certainly prudent for a person with a serious allergy to take
precautions, but that does not make it OK for restaurants to serve food
that is not what they say it is.

It is impossible to go through life without relying on other people. If
you offer a product then you assume responsibility that the product is
what you say it is. Responsibility works both ways.

--
Peter Aitken

blake murphy wrote:
>
>
> >The real coffee story is a lot less flattering to McDonalds than you
> >appear to assume here.
> >
> >http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
> >
>
> good luck on trying to educate folks on the coffee lawsuits. it fits
> too well in their favorite 'frivolous lawsuit' and 'take
> responsibility' narratives. the third-degree burns don't slow them
> down.

I think we all know by now that MacDonald's coffee was a little hotter than
some other outlets. In fact, we probably all know that coffee is a hot
beverage and that there are better appendages for holding hot drinks than
thighs.

Peter A said...

> It is certainly prudent for a person with a serious allergy to take
> precautions, but that does not make it OK for restaurants to serve food
> that is not what they say it is.


It's not at all intentional. It's fast food! You know better and should drop
that train of thought! Ya BUM!!!

Andy

Peter A wrote:

> But it's not their own actions, it's someone else's actions. You are
> asking an individual to be responsible for someone else's mistake. How
> is that right?

Christ man, it's not as if the cheese was cleverly disguised inside the
burger. It was sitting right on top.

Maybe it is in the way he asked..... if he asked at all. We have nothing
other than his word that he even ordered it personally or that he specified
no cheese. I confess to being unaware of the MacDonalds menu and ordering
system because it has been a long, long time since I have been to one.
Orders through a remote speaker at the drive thru can get screwed up
because of poor sound quality, and repeatedly saying the word "cheese"
could cause the staff to think he asked for it.

My wife used to get frustrated at coffee counters. She does not use sugar.
I don't know how many times she asked for sugar substitute and ended up
getting sugar. I suggested to her that she was confusing them by using the
word sugar, because when they are busy and the place is noisy and they are
used to people asking for sugar, they listen for key words and when you say
"sugar substitute" they unconsciously black the "substitute and hear only
"sugar". She started asking for coffee with sweetener and she stopped
getting sugar.



> It is certainly prudent for a person with a serious allergy to take
> precautions, but that does not make it OK for restaurants to serve food
> that is not what they say it is.

I think that they make a reasonable effort to get their orders straight. It
is still up to the customer to check. I don't know about MacDonalds but any
fast food restaurant and any dive thru I have been to, the counter person
repeats your order as they hand the stuff to you. That is your opportunity
to check to make sure that you get what you ordered.

In this case, we are talking a serious allergic reaction. If we are to
believe the man's story he, he has a serious allergic reaction to cheese. I
have never heard of anyone being so violently allergic to cheese, but if it
is true that he reacts so violently, he should check. If I had a serious
problem like that you can bet that I would be checking. I can't ever
remember eating a burger without flipping it open to have a look at it.

Dark room? Give me a break. If it was light enough for him to see the
remote for the VCR and TV and to reach for his burger, it was light enough
for him to see a slice of melted cheese on top of the meat.

The man should be forced to eat a cheeseburger to prove that he really is
allergic, and if the results are fatal another person too stupid t o breed
will have been removed from the gene pool.







>
> It is impossible to go through life without relying on other people. If
> you offer a product then you assume responsibility that the product is
> what you say it is. Responsibility works both ways.
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

Dave Smith wrote:
> Peter A wrote:
>
>> But it's not their own actions, it's someone else's actions. You are
>> asking an individual to be responsible for someone else's mistake. How
>> is that right?
>
> Christ man, it's not as if the cheese was cleverly disguised inside the
> burger. It was sitting right on top.
>
Don't the wrappers on the burgers signify the contents also? I know the
hamburger wrappers are white whereas the cheeseburger wrappers are yellow.
At least that is what I recall on the basic hamburger?

Dave Smith said...

>> It is impossible to go through life without relying on other people. If
>> you offer a product then you assume responsibility that the product is
>> what you say it is. Responsibility works both ways.
>>
>> --
>> Peter Aitken


Peter A,

You're redundantly playing stupid for no good reason.

I myself have been reluctantly not heard for realistic legal ramifications.

Andy

In article >, Andy <q> says...
> Peter A said...
>
> > It is certainly prudent for a person with a serious allergy to take
> > precautions, but that does not make it OK for restaurants to serve food
> > that is not what they say it is.
>
>
> It's not at all intentional. It's fast food! You know better and should drop
> that train of thought! Ya BUM!!!
>
> Andy
>

Huh?

What does intention have to do with it? Just because an action is
unintentional does not remove responsibility.

--
Peter Aitken

Peter A said...

> In article >, Andy <q> says...
>> Peter A said...
>>
>> > It is certainly prudent for a person with a serious allergy to take
>> > precautions, but that does not make it OK for restaurants to serve
>> > food that is not what they say it is.
>>
>>
>> It's not at all intentional. It's fast food! You know better and should
>> drop that train of thought! Ya BUM!!!
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
> Huh?
>
> What does intention have to do with it? Just because an action is
> unintentional does not remove responsibility.


Well, Peter, by all means flip your coin with the same problem to your
fried Jeremy!!!

Get real!!!

Andy

In article >,
says...
> Peter A wrote:
>
> > But it's not their own actions, it's someone else's actions. You are
> > asking an individual to be responsible for someone else's mistake. How
> > is that right?
>
> Christ man, it's not as if the cheese was cleverly disguised inside the
> burger. It was sitting right on top.
>

Why do you avoid responding to my points?

Do you peel apart all your food to see what's inside? Or, do feel that
you should be able to trust the restaurant to give you what you ordered?

Then you come up with these feeble-minded scenarios about the "remote
speaker" and so on. Give us a break.

None of us knows the real details about this situation. We are
discussing what has been reported, true or false, and speculating about
what might have really happened or not happened is just mental
masturbation. The report is that a person ordered a certain item, with
many repetitions of the order, and got something else that made him
sick. Yet you and many others think that it is his fault and not the
restaurant's.

I suspect all you treacle-brains listen to Rush. What an easy substitute
for thinking.

--
Peter Aitken

Peter A said...

> Why do you avoid responding to my points?


Because your hair conceals them!!! Ya PINHEAD!!!

Andy

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> http://tinyurl.com/2x2xq8
>
> So, he ordered two quarter pounders without cheese. And the excuse for
this
> lawsuit is he didn't notice it had cheese on it because he was eating in a
> dark room. What?!
>
> If you place a special order shouldn't you check it before you leave the
> establishment? I eat my burgers plain. It's been a long time since I was
> at a McD's but I always checked to make sure my burger was to order before
I
> drove off. I guess it's a good thing for McDonald's he didn't order
coffee,
> too.


What's changed at McDs since the last time I consumed there? Back in the
day they had something called hamburgers and something else called
cheeseburgers. The wrappers were different colors, the cheeseburger being
yellow. So if the guy wanted a hamburger why did he order a cheeseburger?
And also, if somebody is so allergic as to be at risk of dying from a
reaction, don't they carry epi-pens? I know that people with gluten
allergies can't even eat in restaurants because of the fact that foods
intermingle and you just cannot avoid it. Any deathly allergic person would
know this. And they don't scrub the grill down at McDs between each batch
of hamburgers.

I'm nobody to let irresponsible corporations off the hook, but this person
clearly failed to exercise due diligence. Knowing you'll die from cheese
should make you avoid places that sell it or prepare it. This reeks of
opportunistic setup.

And since when does McDs even use real cheese? I thought it was a "cheese
product" meaning it could have no cheese in it at all.

Paul

Peter A wrote:
The report is that a person ordered a certain item, with
> many repetitions of the order, and got something else that made him
> sick. Yet you and many others think that it is his fault and not the
> restaurant's.


Peter,


I believe you have a point but that it doesn't apply in this particular
situation. In real life, there are many sides to a situation. Given a
family argument, I'll want to listen to everyone, get everyone's point
of view, and can concede that everyone is partly right. But a court of
law isn't like that. When deciding blame for who pays damages, one side
is right, and the other side is wrong. I don't always like that, but it
is the way it is with our legal system. Once the allergic to cheese man
decided to sue, it became a matter of either his being right or the fast
food restaurant.


So if the courts weren't being brought into it, I'd agree with you. I'd
say both parties share the blame. The people who work in the restaurant
have a responsibility to get orders right, and the person who orders has
a responsibility to check to make sure he doesn't eat something that has
the potential to hurt him. I'd say there was enough blame to go around.


However, the courts ARE being brought into it. A judge is going to have
to decide where the ultimate responsibility lies, and if I were the
judge, going on the evidence I have from the article, I'd say Cheese Man
is more responsible for checking his order than the workers who can be
expected to make a few mistakes in the course of the day.


While I think Cheese Man is an idiot, he has my sympathy, too. I live
in a world where people are incompetent all the time. I dream of how
easy life would be if people would just do their jobs. I further dream
of a world where people could be held responsible for getting the small
things right. Wouldn't it be great if even the minimum wage fast food
workers took pride in their jobs and made an effort to do them
professionally. I'd love to force people to own up to their mistakes.
I imagine that's what Cheese Man is dreaming too: Hey, you screwed up.
Don't shrug your shoulders. Admit it; take responsibility, and don't
do it again.


Alas, he's fighting a losing battle. Like me with the telemarketers.


--Lia

Paul M. Cook said...

> And since when does McDs even use real cheese? I thought it was a "cheese
> product" meaning it could have no cheese in it at all.


Paul, c'mon! You can't really be THAT lazy!?? You can manage a mcdonalds +
nutrition search, can't ya? I did. Took 10 seconds. Longer than you took to
type your trype.

But if you're honestly that helpless, cheese was listed second in the McD
American processed cheese ingredients list.

Ya BUM!!!

Andy

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote

> What's changed at McDs since the last time I consumed there? Back in the
> day they had something called hamburgers and something else called
> cheeseburgers. The wrappers were different colors, the cheeseburger being
> yellow. So if the guy wanted a hamburger why did he order a cheeseburger?
> And also, if somebody is so allergic as to be at risk of dying from a
> reaction, don't they carry epi-pens? I know that people with gluten
> allergies can't even eat in restaurants because of the fact that foods
> intermingle and you just cannot avoid it. Any deathly allergic person
> would
> know this. And they don't scrub the grill down at McDs between each batch
> of hamburgers.
>
> I'm nobody to let irresponsible corporations off the hook, but this person
> clearly failed to exercise due diligence. Knowing you'll die from cheese
> should make you avoid places that sell it or prepare it. This reeks of
> opportunistic setup.

The story stinks to high heaven. Wonder what part of his anatomy they
pulled that 10 million dollar figure from, too. The whole scenario reeks.

nancy

Peter A wrote:

> >
> > > But it's not their own actions, it's someone else's actions. You are
> > > asking an individual to be responsible for someone else's mistake. How
> > > is that right?
> >
> > Christ man, it's not as if the cheese was cleverly disguised inside the
> > burger. It was sitting right on top.
> >
>
> Why do you avoid responding to my points?
>
> Do you peel apart all your food to see what's inside? Or, do feel that
> you should be able to trust the restaurant to give you what you ordered?

As I said in another post, I do open up burgers to see what is in them, I
sometimes remove excess onion and tomato. If I was subject to serious
allergic reactions from something that is commonly in burgers I would most
certainly make a point of checking them.



> Then you come up with these feeble-minded scenarios about the "remote
> speaker" and so on. Give us a break.
>
> None of us knows the real details about this situation. We are
> discussing what has been reported, true or false, and speculating about
> what might have really happened or not happened is just mental
> masturbation. The report is that a person ordered a certain item, with
> many repetitions of the order, and got something else that made him
> sick. Yet you and many others think that it is his fault and not the
> restaurant's.

It is true that we have only the media report and I know that most
reporters can screw up the Lord's prayer trying to make an article look
more interesting. The report did say that the room was dark because they
were watching a movie. In order to get as movie going in a VCR or DVD they
would have to use the remote controls, and if there was enough light to
find the remotes and to find the right buttons then there was enough light
to see if there was cheese on the burger.



> I suspect all you treacle-brains listen to Rush. What an easy substitute
> for thinking.


Actually, I have listen to Rush a few times, just enough to realize what an
idiot he is.

"Andy" <q> wrote in message ...
> Peter A said...
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >> I'm not absolving McD's of anything, simply saying gee, didn't someone
> >> look? I mean if this guy's allergy to cheese is *that* bad you'd think
> >> someone (including himself) would have checked his order. It's not
> >> like cheese is invisible.
> >>
> >
> > I agree in part - the guy "should" have looked. I would have. But, the
> > fact that he did not look doesn't absolve McD's of its responsibility.
> > They made a mistake, they are responsible for that mistake.
> >
> > Situations such as this are rarely clear cut. No one party is totally at
> > fault while the other is totally blameless. You and others seem to think
> > that because the victim did not behave perfectly that the responsibility
> > is all his. Why not reverse that? The business did not behave perfectly
> > so the responsibility is all their's.
>
>
> All signs point to a mistake made amongst the three plaintiffs in the dark
> of the car as they drove away and passed around burgers!
>
> His lawyer's claims are too easily staged and the case is filed almost two
> years later! That's a familiar practice. Where evidence is missing,
> witnesses don't remember. This becomes a "he said, we said" run-around.
The
> plaintiff's will have to prove it with evidence. A simple receipt is not
> good enough. They could've circled the drive-thru twice, a minute apart!
> Then used only the reciept that supposedly proves the allergic reaction.
>
> Trusting a bunch of McD employees to spare or destroy his life over a
slice
> or two of cheese is pure folly! It's his fault and the other participants
> in the vehicle in cahoots to fraudently sue McD for their mistake or dirty
> deed.


And one more thing: since when does McDs even make anything to order? They
cook up batches of burgers and keep them under heat lamps. Which is why
they look like porpoise hork when you unwrap them.

Paul

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (David Fetter) wrote:
> >> The real coffee story is a lot less flattering to McDonalds than you
> >> appear to assume here.
> >>
> >> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
> >
> > An interesting read. Thank you.
>
>
> It may be interesting, but it's full of half-truths and lies.
>
> McD's screwed up bigtime by not taking the case seriously, and they got
> out-lawyered. Being right is not necessarily a good defense.
>
> Coffee is brewed at about 200 degrees. To serve it at 135 to 140
> degrees, they would have to chill it, otherwise the temperature would be
> inconsistent from one cup to another, depending on how fresh it was (and
> they would still be exposed to liability if a customer happened to get a
> fresh cup.) The coffee also has to be served hot enough that someone
> can add cream to it and still have a hot beverage instead of just warm.
'

I've worked food service and restaurants. The coffee pots, urns, whatever
always have temperature controls. The brewing water was 190F and the heat
pad temperature was usually around 150 or so. Plus or minus 5 degrees.
That was the way it was done wherever I worked. The coffee really cools off
very fat especially while it is dripping into the pot from the brew basket.
To keep it at 190 or 200 meant that the water would evaporate very quickly
and the coffee would have a terrible burned taste. People would send it
back and the whole pot would get tossed.

Paul

Paul M. Cook said...

>
> "Andy" <q> wrote in message ...
>> Peter A said...
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > says...
>> >> I'm not absolving McD's of anything, simply saying gee, didn't
>> >> someone look? I mean if this guy's allergy to cheese is *that* bad
>> >> you'd think someone (including himself) would have checked his
>> >> order. It's not like cheese is invisible.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I agree in part - the guy "should" have looked. I would have. But,
>> > the fact that he did not look doesn't absolve McD's of its
>> > responsibility. They made a mistake, they are responsible for that
>> > mistake.
>> >
>> > Situations such as this are rarely clear cut. No one party is totally
>> > at fault while the other is totally blameless. You and others seem to
>> > think that because the victim did not behave perfectly that the
>> > responsibility is all his. Why not reverse that? The business did not
>> > behave perfectly so the responsibility is all their's.
>>
>>
>> All signs point to a mistake made amongst the three plaintiffs in the
>> dark of the car as they drove away and passed around burgers!
>>
>> His lawyer's claims are too easily staged and the case is filed almost
>> two years later! That's a familiar practice. Where evidence is missing,
>> witnesses don't remember. This becomes a "he said, we said" run-around.
> The
>> plaintiff's will have to prove it with evidence. A simple receipt is
>> not good enough. They could've circled the drive-thru twice, a minute
>> apart! Then used only the reciept that supposedly proves the allergic
>> reaction.
>>
>> Trusting a bunch of McD employees to spare or destroy his life over a
> slice
>> or two of cheese is pure folly! It's his fault and the other
>> participants in the vehicle in cahoots to fraudently sue McD for their
>> mistake or dirty deed.
>
>
> And one more thing: since when does McDs even make anything to order?
> They cook up batches of burgers and keep them under heat lamps. Which
> is why they look like porpoise hork when you unwrap them.
>
> Paul


Paul,

Actually, if you order a custom burger from McD, they stick a special
custom paper receipt to that burger box so you can at a glace tell which
one is custom.

In the dark you can also feel it.

Andy

On Aug 13, 1:07 pm, Sheldon > wrote:
> On Aug 13, 10:00?am, The Truthful Assh0le > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 6:53 am, Sheldon > wrote:
>
> > > Andy <q> wrote:
> > > > jmcquown said...
>
> > > > > If you place a special order shouldn't you check it before you leave the
> > > > > establishment? I eat my burgers plain. It's been a long time since I
> > > > > was at a McD's but I always checked to make sure my burger was to order
> > > > > before I drove off. I guess it's a good thing for McDonald's he didn't
> > > > > order coffee, too.
>
> > > > It's his own bozo fault for not actually checking. If he was cautious enough
> > > > to order it that way because of a cheese allergy and knowing he could
> > > > possibly die,
>
> > > Why is anyone so deathly allergic to cheese eating from Booger King...
> > > they serve cheese there! DUH
>
> > > People with food allergies, or any health issues, are ultimately
> > > responsible for their own welfare.
>
> > > Of course the fast food joints may not be serving actual cheese, odds
> > > are more likely it's a vegetable fat product containing no cheese
> > > whatsoever. But it's still the responsibility of the patron to find
> > > out.
>
> > No, Sheldon. It is Pasteurized process cheese food. In the long list
> > of ingredients, cheese is the first ingredient. Crappy, yes, but it
> > is real dairy.
>
> > " Pasteurized process cheese food is a variation of process cheese
> > that may have dry milk, whey solids, or anhydrous milkfat added, which
> > reduces the amount of cheese in the finished product. It must contain
> > at least 51% of the cheese ingredient by weight, have a moisture
> > content less than 44%, and have at least 23% milkfat."
> > source-- http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/7806sci2.html
>
> That's the more expensive type (Velveeta is one, Kraft Singles
> another) but there are also many brands of "American Singles" that
> contain no dairy whatsoever.

Those MUST be called "imitation."
>
> But that's not the point, someone who is "deathly" allergic to chese
> shouldn't ever eat anything from a joint that serves cheese... such an
> eatery can't gurantee that there will be no trace of cheese in
> anything they serve, just like so many food products nowadays clearly
> label how the product is produced in a plant that also produces foods
> containing peanuts... those allergic to peanuts have been warned.

Oh, I agree with that.
>
> If a fast food joint (or any eatery) lists cheeseboogers on their menu
> (can't have a better warning) no one who is deathly allergic to cheese
> should eat anything prepared there... the cheeseboogers are cooked
> right along with the plain boogers, flipped with the same flipper...
> ALL those boogers can be considered to contain some cheese, no matter
> you can't actually see any. Anyone deathly allergic to cheese would
> be just as much an imbecile ordering food from a pizza parlor. Anyone
> deathly allergic to shellfish would be a frikin moron eating at a
> seafood restaurant.
>
> No restaurant is under any duty to protect anyone from their food
> allergy... you want special care, sign yourself into a hospital/
> sanitarium and have your medical doctor confer with the staff
> dietician.

If the idiot would have died, it would have improved the gene pool.
>
> Sheldon

--Bryan

Goomba38 wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Peter A wrote:
>>
>>> But it's not their own actions, it's someone else's actions. You are
>>> asking an individual to be responsible for someone else's mistake.
>>> How is that right?
>>
>> Christ man, it's not as if the cheese was cleverly disguised inside
>> the burger. It was sitting right on top.
>>
> Don't the wrappers on the burgers signify the contents also? I know
> the hamburger wrappers are white whereas the cheeseburger wrappers
> are yellow. At least that is what I recall on the basic hamburger?

Excellent point, Goomba! I think you're right, at least on the regular
burgers vs. a cheeseburger. The wrappers used to be different. I'm not
sure about the Quarter Pounder, though. I think by default it's called a
"Quarter Pounder with Cheese".

Jill

Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> says...
>>>> I'm not absolving McD's of anything, simply saying gee, didn't
>>>> someone look? I mean if this guy's allergy to cheese is *that* bad
>>>> you'd think someone (including himself) would have checked his
>>>> order. It's not like cheese is invisible.
>>>>
> And one more thing: since when does McDs even make anything to
> order? They cook up batches of burgers and keep them under heat
> lamps. Which is why they look like porpoise hork when you unwrap
> them.
>
Actually, Paul, they will if you ask them them to. The last time I went to
a McD's (which admittedly was well over 15 years ago) I ordered a plain
burger. As in, don't put anything on it. It may have irritated the
employees (although most likely they didn't care or perhaps they were
thrilled with getting a special order!). They cooked it on the spot rather
than pulling one out from under a heat lamp. And yes, I checked the burger
to make sure it was plain before biting into it!

Jill

Dave Smith wrote:
> Peter A wrote:
>
>> But it's not their own actions, it's someone else's actions. You are
>> asking an individual to be responsible for someone else's mistake.
>> How is that right?
>
> Christ man, it's not as if the cheese was cleverly disguised inside
> the burger. It was sitting right on top.
>
Oh come now, Dave... the cheese was invisible! Haven't you figured that out
yet?! We all know how difficult it is to spot a slab of processed American
"cheese-food" on a fast food burger. My goodness, the stuff is practically
clear... clearly *orange*.

Jill

jmcquown said...

> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Peter A wrote:
>>
>>> But it's not their own actions, it's someone else's actions. You are
>>> asking an individual to be responsible for someone else's mistake.
>>> How is that right?
>>
>> Christ man, it's not as if the cheese was cleverly disguised inside
>> the burger. It was sitting right on top.
>>
> Oh come now, Dave... the cheese was invisible! Haven't you figured that
> out yet?! We all know how difficult it is to spot a slab of processed
> American "cheese-food" on a fast food burger. My goodness, the stuff is
> practically clear... clearly *orange*.
>
> Jill


<VBG>

Andy

Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> (David Fetter) wrote:
>>>>> The real coffee story is a lot less flattering to McDonalds than
>>>>> you appear to assume here.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
>>>>
>>>> An interesting read. Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>> It may be interesting, but it's full of half-truths and lies.
>>>
>>> McD's screwed up bigtime by not taking the case seriously, and they
>>> got out-lawyered. Being right is not necessarily a good defense.
>>>
>>> Coffee is brewed at about 200 degrees. To serve it at 135 to 140
>>> degrees, they would have to chill it, otherwise the temperature
>>> would be inconsistent from one cup to another, depending on how
>>> fresh it was (and they would still be exposed to liability if a
>>> customer happened to get a fresh cup.) The coffee also has to be
>>> served hot enough that someone can add cream to it and still have a
>>> hot beverage instead of just warm.
>> '
>>
>> I've worked food service and restaurants. The coffee pots, urns,
>> whatever always have temperature controls. The brewing water was
>> 190F and the heat pad temperature was usually around 150 or so.
>> Plus or minus 5 degrees. That was the way it was done wherever I
>> worked. The coffee really cools off very fat especially while it is
>> dripping into the pot from the brew basket. To keep it at 190 or 200
>> meant that the water would evaporate very quickly and the coffee
>> would have a terrible burned taste. People would send it back and
>> the whole pot would get tossed.
>>

So THAT is why McD's coffee consistantly tastes so incredibly horrible! I
always figured it was piped in from miles away via a massive pipeline
system.

Debbie

--�

Debbie

(Email account is valid but one I do not check. To email use above
name dot neill at sympatico dot ca)

It's old news. Didn't you read this:

Houston said his clients were in Morgantown in October 2005 and stopped at
the Star City McDonald's on the way home to Clarksburg




"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> http://tinyurl.com/2x2xq8
>
> So, he ordered two quarter pounders without cheese. And the excuse for
> this
> lawsuit is he didn't notice it had cheese on it because he was eating in a
> dark room. What?!
>
> If you place a special order shouldn't you check it before you leave the
> establishment? I eat my burgers plain. It's been a long time since I was
> at a McD's but I always checked to make sure my burger was to order before
> I
> drove off. I guess it's a good thing for McDonald's he didn't order
> coffee,
> too.
>
> Jill
>
>

Nancy Young wrote:
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote
>
>> What's changed at McDs since the last time I consumed there? Back
>> in the day they had something called hamburgers and something else
>> called cheeseburgers. The wrappers were different colors, the
>> cheeseburger being yellow. So if the guy wanted a hamburger why did
>> he order a cheeseburger?

Don't forget, he was eating in the dark watching a movie or a video or
something. I don't know about you, but I always eat in the dark.

>> I'm nobody to let irresponsible corporations off the hook, but this
>> person clearly failed to exercise due diligence. Knowing you'll die
>> from cheese should make you avoid places that sell it or prepare it.
>> This reeks of opportunistic setup.
>
> The story stinks to high heaven. Wonder what part of his anatomy they
> pulled that 10 million dollar figure from, too. The whole scenario
> reeks.
>
That figure was pulled out of the lawyers' anatomy. 10 million seems to be
the figure of choice these days, especially if he/they are going to get 10%
of whatever is awarded. And make no mistake... some jury will award this
guy a lot of money or they'll settle. And other lawsuits will follow, just
watch.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote
>>
>>> What's changed at McDs since the last time I consumed there? Back
>>> in the day they had something called hamburgers and something else
>>> called cheeseburgers. The wrappers were different colors, the
>>> cheeseburger being yellow. So if the guy wanted a hamburger why did
>>> he order a cheeseburger?
>
> Don't forget, he was eating in the dark watching a movie or a video or
> something. I don't know about you, but I always eat in the dark.
>
>>> I'm nobody to let irresponsible corporations off the hook, but this
>>> person clearly failed to exercise due diligence. Knowing you'll die
>>> from cheese should make you avoid places that sell it or prepare it.
>>> This reeks of opportunistic setup.
>> The story stinks to high heaven. Wonder what part of his anatomy they
>> pulled that 10 million dollar figure from, too. The whole scenario
>> reeks.
>>
> That figure was pulled out of the lawyers' anatomy. 10 million seems to be
> the figure of choice these days, especially if he/they are going to get 10%
> of whatever is awarded. And make no mistake... some jury will award this
> guy a lot of money or they'll settle. And other lawsuits will follow, just
> watch.
>
> Jill
>
>

Are you an expert? When your food stamps ran out did you resort to
frivolous lawsuits to pay the bills?

On Aug 13, 11:26 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> "Andy" <q> wrote
>
> > maxine in ri said...
> >> There was the case of an allegedly kosher butcher in NJ or NY who was
> >> passing off non-kosher meat to his clientel. The rabbis and community
> >> took care of it.
> > I was thinking the meat/dairy angle. That's a no-no, I read.
>
> I would think McDonald's wouldn't be a stop for people who keep
> kosher.
>
> nancy

Yes and no. Some people will eat the salads, and used to eat the
fries....

And Andy, kosher starts with the type of slaughter used on the meat.
Not to get into that debate, but if the meat's not kosher slaughtered,
it's not
kosher no matter what.

maxine in ri