spain Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 It wasn't just vegans, it was people who don't eat beef. Hindi people were the ones who filed the lawsuit, and the company settled out of court before it even got to trial, probably as a result of the bad publicity it received. Some hippie website: Perhaps you dont recall, but I was the one Huddler standing up for those diaper head mofos and their lawsuit. And obviously, the nuisance value of settling that suit is why they went ahead and took care of the matter out of court. No business could stand 1 billion people who smell like a combination of curry and dog shi@te picketing their business. P.R. reasons were behind that settlement, rather than actual liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 18, 2007 Author Share Posted February 18, 2007 Are you serious? Sure he is. The fact that you, Spain and the other righties rant on about fatuous lawsuits all the time doesn't make it true. Judges routinely throw out the kind of nonsense you claim is prevalent. Much of the rest is urban legend, perpetuated by gullible recipients of chain emails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) Sure he is. The fact that you, Spain and the other righties rant on about fatuous lawsuits all the time doesn't make it true. Judges routinely throw out the kind of nonsense you claim is prevalent. Much of the rest is urban legend, perpetuated by gullible recipients of chain emails. The reason I asked if he was serious is simply because I know for a 100% fact that if I searched for them, I will find them. Please, don't be stupid. EDIT: And yes, it's also true that a lot of the time judges routinely throw out the kind of nonsense that, not I, but many people claim is prevalent. I've never claimed that many of the above lawsuits were truth. Edited February 18, 2007 by TheGrunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Sure he is. The fact that you, Spain and the other righties rant on about fatuous lawsuits all the time doesn't make it true. Judges routinely throw out the kind of nonsense you claim is prevalent. Much of the rest is urban legend, perpetuated by Irish sharing his chain emails. Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 18, 2007 Author Share Posted February 18, 2007 The reason I asked if he was serious is simply because I know for a 100% fact that if I searched for them, I will find them. Please, don't be stupid. Go right ahead. However, before you do, remember that what you read may not be the entire story.......just like it wasn't in the McDonald's case. As for being stupid, you seem to be hogging the entire supply today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Go right ahead. However, before you do, remember that what you read may not be the entire story.......just like it wasn't in the McDonald's case. As for being stupid, you seem to be hogging the entire supply today. Do you even know the whole story to the McDonalds case? For starters, I was being facetious when bringing up the McDonalds case. That case, in fact, actually makes sense as to why McDonalds lost. Although, you wouldn't really know that for sure if you only read the headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 As for being stupid, you seem to be hogging the entire supply today. Go drink your warm milk and head off to bed. It's way past your bed-time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Sure he is. The fact that you, Spain and the other righties rant on about fatuous lawsuits all the time doesn't make it true. Judges routinely throw out the kind of nonsense you claim is prevalent. Much of the rest is urban legend, perpetuated by gullible recipients of chain emails. Why do you continue to make false allegations about me? Are you attempting to sully my good name? Have you confused me with someone else? Again, I was the only defender of the vegans in their lawsuit against McDonalds, while all the other Huddlers were calling their suit spurious. Perhaps I need to file my lawsuit against you for making these libelous charges... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Hey, I asked for the benefit of the doubt and for anyone to clarify. You proceeded to post an entire chain email that was full of non-truths. Case dismissed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Do you even know the whole story to the McDonalds case? For starters, I was being facetious when bringing up the McDonalds case. That case, in fact, actually makes sense as to why McDonalds lost. Although, you wouldn't really know that for sure if you only read the headlines. This is a stupid lawsuit. Stupid lawsuits dont win. Most classic case: Women spills hot coffee on herself at a McDonalds drive thru. She sues for millions, claiming the coffee was hot. She wins. blink.gif My reading comprehension skills are a little marred by the Daytona 500, but seems to me you're referring to it as the "Most classic case" of a "stupid lawsuit". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 My reading comprehension skills are a little marred by the Daytona 500, but seems to me you're referring to it as the "Most classic case" of a "stupid lawsuit". Doesn't mean I can't be facetious. Prior to giving this women 2nd (or was it 3rd) degree burns with the coffee, McDonalds had actually received citations of some sort, basically warnings, for having their coffee too hot. They had no warnings what so ever on their coffee cups... and the list goes on. McDonalds lost because they should have reasonably known what customers would do with the coffee, and what would have happened if the coffee was spilled. Especially if it was being served at a higher temp. than regulations allowed for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 McDonalds lost because they should have reasonably known what customers would do with the coffee, and what would have happened if the coffee was spilled. McDonald's lost because someone suffered several thousand dollars worth of injuries as a result of them brewing coffee too hot. Not because their customers are too stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 McDonald's lost because someone suffered several thousand dollars worth of injuries as a result of them brewing coffee too hot. Not because their customers are too stupid. Isn't that what I just said, only I used a more well explained reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Isn't that what I just said, only I used a more well explained reason? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) No. Last word. Edited February 18, 2007 by TheGrunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Most classic case: Women spills hot coffee on herself at a McDonalds drive thru. She sues for millions, claiming the coffee was hot. She wins. I can go on, and on if I really wanted to. All it would take is looking through archives of all the different cases that go on in the United States. You need to stay in school. For a while. The 80 year old woman who spilled the coffee got 3rd degree burns all over her groin area, had to have skin grafts, and was in the hospital for several days. McDonald's outright refused to pay her medical bills, so she sued. And she didn't win millions, McDonald's appealed the decision and the total was lowered significantly. Yes. Do you even know the whole story to the McDonalds case? For starters, I was being facetious when bringing up the McDonalds case. That case, in fact, actually makes sense as to why McDonalds lost. Although, you wouldn't really know that for sure if you only read the headlines. I know the whole story. And you werent being facetious, you were just bringing up a case everyone cites when discussing supposedly frivolous lawsuits. You were later educated by others in the thread. Doesn't mean I can't be facetious. Prior to giving this women 2nd (or was it 3rd) degree burns with the coffee, McDonalds had actually received citations of some sort, basically warnings, for having their coffee too hot. They had no warnings what so ever on their coffee cups... and the list goes on. McDonalds lost because they should have reasonably known what customers would do with the coffee, and what would have happened if the coffee was spilled. Especially if it was being served at a higher temp. than regulations allowed for. Now yer getting there. Watching yer evolution on this position in this thread was amusing. By the way, I have noticed that you frequently write things and then later claim you were fishing or being facetious. Watch out for that, it is a sure sign of a dummy who is trying to backtrack and explain away his dummi-ness. * *see, Irish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 In most jurisdictions you need to get 10 of 12 jurors to agree in a civil case (unanimous in federal court). Its hard to slide a stupid lawsuit past 90% of the population that is pre-screened of felons and people who cant read and write. WARNING: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 You need to stay in school. For a while. Yes. I know the whole story. And you werent being facetious, you were just bringing up a case everyone cites when discussing supposedly frivolous lawsuits. You were later educated by others in the thread. Now yer getting there. Watching yer evolution on this position in this thread was amusing. By the way, I have noticed that you frequently write things and then later claim you were fishing or being facetious. Watch out for that, it is a sure sign of a dummy who is trying to backtrack and explain away his dummi-ness. * *see, Irish I'm going to want a divorce from the vanilla clan if this verbal abuse continues. Are we clear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 You need to stay in school. For a while. Yes. I know the whole story. And you werent being facetious, you were just bringing up a case everyone cites when discussing supposedly frivolous lawsuits. You were later educated by others in the thread. Now yer getting there. Watching yer evolution on this position in this thread was amusing. By the way, I have noticed that you frequently write things and then later claim you were fishing or being facetious. Watch out for that, it is a sure sign of a dummy who is trying to backtrack and explain away his dummi-ness. * *see, Irish I love how you jump in at the end claiming you know exactly what I was thinking the entire time. I WAS being facetious, and not one person in this thread helped educate me on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I love how you jump in at the end claiming you know exactly what I was thinking the entire time. I WAS being facetious, and not one person in this thread helped educate me on this issue. Could I interest you in a.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Did somebody say "McDonald's Coffee"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Could I interest you in a.... I haven't reached Australia yet... so I'm a' gonna keep on diggin'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I haven't reached Australia yet... so I'm a' gonna keep on diggin'! I thought it was China?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I thought it was China?!?! I'm not sure either. I've never actually reached the destination before after a continuous digging session like this one. I enjoy discussions, especially with skins because he challenges me. But deep down he knows I'm right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I'm not sure either. I've never actually reached the destination before after a continuous digging session like this one. I enjoy discussions, especially with skins because he challenges me. But deep down he knows I'm right. Actually the Indian Ocean. Discussed here, but the link there is broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.