Seattle International Airport cancels Christmas

PolkWannabie

Demi,

I wouldn't argue about who was at fault ... My opinion is the same as yours ... The point is it doesn't matter what I think as clearly the planet is going in a different direction ... It'll get worse before it gets better ...

Demiurge

PolkWannabie wrote:

Demi,

I wouldn't argue about who was at fault ... My opinion is the same as yours ... The point is it doesn't matter what I think as clearly the planet is going in a different direction ... It'll get worse before it gets better ...

I just wish people wouldn't give in, but they do. I had an issue where I was ripe for suing a woman a few years ago, but refrained. It's a cheap way to get rich monetarily, and it's just plain wrong. Unfortunately most of society has decided on a everyone else is doing it why can't we mentality.

Demiurge

PolkThug wrote:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

:-)

It's the award given by the jury that matters. It was a case that created a precedent that hadn't been seen before. The copy and paste job you posted is interesting. Your McFacts are a bit McSlanted:

"even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible." What idiot doesn't know hot coffee will burn your skin?

She actually was given a judgment $480,000, of which she maybe got 1/4 after her lawyers were done with it. That was not what the jury awarded her.

If your point is just to show what her judgment was, so be it. I think everyone hear understands the difference between the judgment and the award.

She spilled the coffee on herself. Coffee is hot when it's just been prepared, and everyone is aware of that. Unless an employee walked out and threw a pot of coffee on her, I don't know how in the world you can blame McDonalds. You disagree with this? If she spilled coffee on her face and melted her eyeballs out of her head does that make it worse?

Shizelbs

hearingimpared wrote:

Don't forget that is 212F at sea level the higher you go the higher the boiling point.

If I know my science right, the higher up you are, the lower the boiling point. Hence why you have to cook foods longer at high altitudes.

danger boy

SEATAC, Wash. - The Christmas trees at Sea-Tac Airport are back up after a local rabbi and his organization said they would not file a lawsuit over the placement of a menorah at the airport.

Workers reinstalled 14 Christmas trees at the airport Monday night after Port of Seattle officials received word that afternoon from Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky and the Central Organization for Jewish Education Lubavitch that they wouldn't file their threatened lawsuit. The rabbi says he never wanted the trees removed.

"The idea's really to bring them up to board, to say hey, these are our rights, and hopefully you can accept this as part of your display," said Bogomilsky.

After the decision by the port to take down the Christmas trees in reaction to Bogomilsky's lawsuit made national and international headlines, local Jewish leaders dropped the lawsuit Monday. That prompted the airport to bring back the Christmas decorations without a menorah.

Port officials also say that the rabbi never asked for the tree removal and the decision was based on what it knew at the time.

"This has been an unfortunate situation for all of us in Seattle," said Port of Seattle Commission President Pat Davis. "The rabbi never asked us to remove the trees. It was the Port's decision based on what we knew at the time. We very much appreciate the rabbi's willingness to work with us as we move forward."

A key element in moving forward will be to work with the rabbi and other members of the community after the first of the year to develop a plan for next year's holiday decorations at the airport.

"There's been such an outcry from the public from people of all faiths who believe that the trees should be reinstalled," Davis said, "I'm very thankful that we can return the trees and get back to running our airport during this very busy holiday season."

Local synagogues had increased security after a series of hateful e-mails were sent to local Jewish organizations.

Hasty decision

The port's commissioner admits the move to remove the trees may have been a bit hasty.

All nine of the Christmas trees were removed last week instead of adding a giant Jewish menorah to the holiday display as a rabbi had requested. Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky, who made his request weeks ago, said he was appalled by the decision.

Maintenance workers boxed up the trees at SeaTac Airport during the graveyard shift early Saturday, when airport bosses believed few people would notice.

"Everyone should have their spirit of the holiday. For many people the trees are the spirit of the holidays, and adding a menorah adds light to the season," said Bogomilsky with Chabad Lubavitch, a Jewish education foundation headquartered in Seattle's University District.

"People should have their Christmas trees back up and we should have a menorah standing in the airport," said Bogomilsky.

After taking the trees down last week, Sea-Tac officials reconsidered. Port of Seattle Commissioner John Creighton told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "In hindsight, we probably should have handled this in a more deliberate and thoughtful manner... I can think of at least three out of five commissioners who would like to see the trees back up."

Bogomilsky had hired a lawyer and threatened to sue if the Port of Seattle didn't add the menorah next to the Christmas trees, which had been festooned with red ribbons and bows. Hanukkah begins this Friday at sundown. Craig Watson, the port's chief lawyer, said Bogomilsky had threatened to file the lawsuit if the port didn't make a decision by the end of last week.

After consulting with lawyers, port staff believed adding the menorah would have required adding symbols for other religions and cultures in the Northwest. Since the holidays are the busiest season at the airport, said a spokesperson, the staff wouldn't have time to play cultural anthropologists.


"We decided to take the trees down because we didn't want to be exclusive," said airport spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt. "We're trying to be thoughtful and respectful, and will review policies after the first of the year."

Maintenance workers boxed up the trees during the graveyard shift early Saturday, when airport bosses believed few people would notice.

"They've darkened the hall instead of turning the lights up," said Bogomilsky's lawyer, Harvey Grad. "There is a concern here that the Jewish community will be portrayed as the Grinch."

F1nut

"The idea's really to bring them up to board, to say hey, these are our rights, and hopefully you can accept this as part of your display," said Bogomilsky.

Rights??? What effing rights? Hilarious.

hearingimpared

pmckeealaska wrote:

This is a non-issue, touted by the media and lifted to a place of significance by the religous conservatives (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) in this country. As stated earlier, the tree, along with the Christmas holiday was borrowed by the christians from the pagans, who celebrated this holiday for a thousand years before Jesus was born. I am amazed at the level of attention ridiculous items like this get when there are infinitely more important issues for us to be concerned about......silly!

Yeah, like you putting down "religious conservatives" and taking shots at Christians (capital C) by putting their believes along the same lines as pagans. I take umbridge at your oxymoron statement as well as your put down of Christians. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SUE YOU!!! LOL

What important issues are we going to make a difference in on this Polk AUDIO Forum. People including you and I like to debate things. . . that is why this thread has taken on so many different faces.

hearingimpared

PolkThug wrote:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.


McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

:-)

I like my coffee that hot so that when I get to the bottom of the cup it is still hot.:D

hearingimpared

Shizelbs wrote:

If I know my science right, the higher up you are, the lower the boiling point. Hence why you have to cook foods longer at high altitudes.

My mistake, got it backwards . . .the point remains the same but backwards. LOL