Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

The parents of Bryan Jones, a 34 year old Microsoft engineer who was
one of nine skydivers killed in the crash of a Cessna Caravan, are
suing Cessna. The Caravan was returning from Star, Idaho, to Shelton,
Washington. The parents are alleging that the Cessna Caravan was
defective and should not have been flying in icy weather. The airplane
is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in
question did have boots.

So, Cessna is being blamed because a pilot may have operated the plane
in direct contradiction to the aircraft flight manual and warnings in
Cessna's operating instructions.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

C J Campbell wrote:
> The parents of Bryan Jones, a 34 year old Microsoft engineer who was one
> of nine skydivers killed in the crash of a Cessna Caravan, are suing
> Cessna. The Caravan was returning from Star, Idaho, to Shelton,
> Washington. The parents are alleging that the Cessna Caravan was
> defective and should not have been flying in icy weather. The airplane
> is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in
> question did have boots.
>
> So, Cessna is being blamed because a pilot may have operated the plane
> in direct contradiction to the aircraft flight manual and warnings in
> Cessna's operating instructions.

If this is true, you are viewing what has become one of the prime
reasons associated with the virtual end of General Aviation as at least
I knew it for the first 25 years I was involved in aviation.
It's the trial lawyers. They will go after anything and everything with
deep pockets involved in an accident. They operate in conditions like
these on the premise that REGARDLESS of the appropriate and
inappropriate actions of a pilot, if one screw was out of place on the
aircraft itself, the manufacturer can be litigated for financial gain.
In many cases, it is my understanding that manufacturers simply "settle"
the suits rather than defend them based upon specific lawyers
reputations for their ability to sway juries.
It's nothing but sheer extortion in the majority of the cases.

A truly unfortunate aside to this "practice" is that the phony
litigations are so frequent and so costly, there is a very good chance
that the legitimate cases where there actually is just cause for a
lawsuit are often looked at in the same jaundiced eye by the public as
the phony cases and true justice can suffer.
The lawyers can be "congratulated" for literally destroying not only GA,
but for the most part, the publics' faith and dependence in a true and
honest justice system.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 17:07:39 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>The parents of Bryan Jones, a 34 year old Microsoft engineer who was
>one of nine skydivers killed in the crash of a Cessna Caravan, are
>suing Cessna. The Caravan was returning from Star, Idaho, to Shelton,
>Washington. The parents are alleging that the Cessna Caravan was
>defective and should not have been flying in icy weather. The airplane
>is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in
>question did have boots.
>
>So, Cessna is being blamed because a pilot may have operated the plane
>in direct contradiction to the aircraft flight manual and warnings in
>Cessna's operating instructions.

Cessna Caravans can have known icing equipment factory and aftermarket
installed, are you sure this one wasn't so equipped?

Caravans and icing aparantly have a probematic history, going back at
least to AD 2006-01-11R1 which required that additional boots on cargo
pods and handles to make upper wing inspection easier be isntalled,
plus various things I've read but can't recall where right now about
changes to icing procedures WRT minimum airspeeds etc.

[[email protected]]

>
> So, Cessna is being blamed because a pilot may have operated the plane
> in direct contradiction to the aircraft flight manual and warnings in
> Cessna's operating instructions.

I guess it makes more sense to sue a functioning company instead of a
dead pilot.. unlikely the dead pilot would be willing or able to shell
out a few million dollars as settlement.

[kontiki]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> If this is true, you are viewing what has become one of the prime
> reasons associated with the virtual end of General Aviation as at least
> I knew it for the first 25 years I was involved in aviation.
> It's the trial lawyers. They will go after anything and everything with
> deep pockets involved in an accident. They operate in conditions like
> these on the premise that REGARDLESS of the appropriate and
> inappropriate actions of a pilot, if one screw was out of place on the
> aircraft itself, the manufacturer can be litigated for financial gain.
> In many cases, it is my understanding that manufacturers simply "settle"
> the suits rather than defend them based upon specific lawyers
> reputations for their ability to sway juries.
> It's nothing but sheer extortion in the majority of the cases.
>
> A truly unfortunate aside to this "practice" is that the phony
> litigations are so frequent and so costly, there is a very good chance
> that the legitimate cases where there actually is just cause for a
> lawsuit are often looked at in the same jaundiced eye by the public as
> the phony cases and true justice can suffer.
> The lawyers can be "congratulated" for literally destroying not only GA,
> but for the most part, the publics' faith and dependence in a true and
> honest justice system.
>

Well stated Sir. This sort of tort-addicted mentality has to change
in this country or there will be little hope. Not enough people
realize just exactly HOW MUCH they are paying for _everything_
because of lawsuits. Most people have received a pitiful economic
education in this country (thanks to the in-bred nature of government
schools) tso they don't have a clue.

Sad... really sad.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"kontiki" > wrote

> Most people have received a pitiful economic
> education in this country (thanks to the in-bred nature of government
> schools) tso they don't have a clue.

********************************

I am sick to death of everyone placing the blame for everything on
"government schools." It is very possible to get a good education at
government schools, if you want to learn. The blame for most of the
problems with government schools is the lack of motivation of the students,
and is a failure of the parents of kids who are not motivated to learn.

What does economic education have to do with leaning about a hopelessly
screwed up justice system have to do with the price of beans in China? That
seems like it would be a government-social studies failure, if anything.

Is a government school responsible for you not being able to proof read your
posts? It must be, to write "tso they don't have a clue."

I just lost a bit of respect for you. I thought you were smarter than to
play a blame game like you showed in a post like this.
--
Jim in NC

[BDS]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> It's the trial lawyers. They will go after anything and everything with
> deep pockets involved in an accident. They operate in conditions like
> these on the premise that REGARDLESS of the appropriate and
> inappropriate actions of a pilot, if one screw was out of place on the
> aircraft itself, the manufacturer can be litigated for financial gain.

No question about it, we need tort reform in the USA.

That said, people have also changed.

Lawyers need plaintiffs in order to sue, and the plaintiff is the real
villain in this scenario in my opinion. If the plaintiff wasn't willing to
initiate an action simply out of greed or the promise of easy money, the
suit would never be filed.

A lawyer is a tool, and you don't blame the hammer when you hit your thumb.

BDS

[Maxwell]

"BDS" > wrote in message
. net...
>
>
> No question about it, we need tort reform in the USA.
>
> That said, people have also changed.
>
> Lawyers need plaintiffs in order to sue, and the plaintiff is the real
> villain in this scenario in my opinion. If the plaintiff wasn't willing
> to
> initiate an action simply out of greed or the promise of easy money, the
> suit would never be filed.
>
> A lawyer is a tool, and you don't blame the hammer when you hit your
> thumb.
>

I don't think that is really the case. It does indeed take people seeking
recovery to start the process. But I have never seen a lawyer get involved
with a case in the interest of justice. They pick and choose who they help
base on yeild, not justice.

[Jay Honeck]

> I am sick to death of everyone placing the blame for everything on
> "government schools." It is very possible to get a good education at
> government schools, if you want to learn. The blame for most of the
> problems with government schools is the lack of motivation of the students,
> and is a failure of the parents of kids who are not motivated to learn.

Hear, hear! Well put.

That said, there *is* a slant to the way things are taught in schools
that I find disturbing. To grossly over-simplify, this slant amounts
to an over-egalitarian "Everyone is equal, no one is better than
anyone else, everyone plays no matter how inept, business is evil but
the gummint will take care of you from cradle-to-grave" attitude that
sounds great on paper but produces kids without a work ethic or moral
compass.

Luckily, this can be easily "over-written" with proper parenting
skills. My kids are receiving an excellent public school education,
and are now at the age where they no longer need to be "de-programmed"
at the end of the school day. They can -- and often do -- sniff out
the slant on their own.

I think Kontiki was referring to this slant more than anything
specific about the educational process. Too many parents aren't aware
of (or don't care about) this subtle undercurrent in the schools that,
over time, has produced a society of lazy, sue-happy "it's not my
fault!" people.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

C J Campbell wrote:
> The parents of Bryan Jones, a 34 year old Microsoft engineer who was one
> of nine skydivers killed in the crash of a Cessna Caravan, are suing
> Cessna. The Caravan was returning from Star, Idaho, to Shelton,
> Washington. The parents are alleging that the Cessna Caravan was
> defective and should not have been flying in icy weather. The airplane
> is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in
> question did have boots.
>
> So, Cessna is being blamed because a pilot may have operated the plane
> in direct contradiction to the aircraft flight manual and warnings in
> Cessna's operating instructions.

Yes, I hate it when an airplane takes off on its own and does something
stupid like this. It makes the other good airplanes look bad...

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>> The parents of Bryan Jones, a 34 year old Microsoft engineer who was
>> one of nine skydivers killed in the crash of a Cessna Caravan, are
>> suing Cessna. The Caravan was returning from Star, Idaho, to Shelton,
>> Washington. The parents are alleging that the Cessna Caravan was
>> defective and should not have been flying in icy weather. The airplane
>> is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in
>> question did have boots.
>>
>> So, Cessna is being blamed because a pilot may have operated the plane
>> in direct contradiction to the aircraft flight manual and warnings in
>> Cessna's operating instructions.
>
> If this is true, you are viewing what has become one of the prime
> reasons associated with the virtual end of General Aviation as at least
> I knew it for the first 25 years I was involved in aviation.
> It's the trial lawyers. They will go after anything and everything with
> deep pockets involved in an accident. They operate in conditions like
> these on the premise that REGARDLESS of the appropriate and
> inappropriate actions of a pilot, if one screw was out of place on the
> aircraft itself, the manufacturer can be litigated for financial gain.
> In many cases, it is my understanding that manufacturers simply "settle"
> the suits rather than defend them based upon specific lawyers
> reputations for their ability to sway juries.
> It's nothing but sheer extortion in the majority of the cases.
>
> A truly unfortunate aside to this "practice" is that the phony
> litigations are so frequent and so costly, there is a very good chance
> that the legitimate cases where there actually is just cause for a
> lawsuit are often looked at in the same jaundiced eye by the public as
> the phony cases and true justice can suffer.
> The lawyers can be "congratulated" for literally destroying not only GA,
> but for the most part, the publics' faith and dependence in a true and
> honest justice system.
>

I'm not a fan of tort lawyers either, I realize that it takes two to
tango. Americans have also become greedy and want something for nothing
and they are willing co-conspirators with the lawyers. The lawyers hold
out the candy (just want the ads on TV something), but the greedy public
gobbles it down.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "kontiki" > wrote
>
>> Most people have received a pitiful economic
>> education in this country (thanks to the in-bred nature of government
>> schools) tso they don't have a clue.
>
> ********************************
>
> I am sick to death of everyone placing the blame for everything on
> "government schools." It is very possible to get a good education at
> government schools, if you want to learn. The blame for most of the
> problems with government schools is the lack of motivation of the students,
> and is a failure of the parents of kids who are not motivated to learn.
>
> What does economic education have to do with leaning about a hopelessly
> screwed up justice system have to do with the price of beans in China? That
> seems like it would be a government-social studies failure, if anything.

Blaming the schools alone isn't legitimate, but they certainly have been
a significant contributor. Public schools long ago moved from a
"personal responsibility" to a "self-esteem" based approached that has
been disastrous and is a significant contributor to many of society's
problems today.

No longer can schools punish students as it is either illegal or will
harm the students' self-esteem. When a student fails a class, we blame
everyone but the student and find a way to move them along anyway. I
know you have public school connections (your wife as I recall), but the
reality is that public schools HAVE contributed to this phenomenon of
sending subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, messages that nothing is
YOUR fault it is the fault of the "system", and don't worry as the
"system" will take care of you anyway.

Matt

[kontiki]

Morgans wrote:

>
> What does economic education have to do with leaning about a hopelessly
> screwed up justice system have to do with the price of beans in China?

If you have to ask that question then you are one of the victims.

[kontiki]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> That said, there *is* a slant to the way things are taught in schools
> that I find disturbing. To grossly over-simplify, this slant amounts
> to an over-egalitarian "Everyone is equal, no one is better than
> anyone else, everyone plays no matter how inept, business is evil but
> the gummint will take care of you from cradle-to-grave" attitude that
> sounds great on paper but produces kids without a work ethic or moral
> compass.
>

The reason there is a "slant" to a public education is that the
vast majority of teachers graduate from public schools, then
go to a college or university then go right into teaching. That
is inbreeding... pretty much the same way with politicians...
most have never had an actual real job in their life.

I'm not gonna argue this beyond what I have just said because
those that believe in these systems will defend them forever.
Meanwhile, the US continues into its slow economic and cultural
decline. The current state of GA is but a symptom of this.

People like to shoot the messenger but its a fact.

[BDS]

"Maxwell" > wrote

> I don't think that is really the case. It does indeed take people seeking
> recovery to start the process. But I have never seen a lawyer get involved
> with a case in the interest of justice. They pick and choose who they help
> base on yeild, not justice.

Both the plaintiff and his or her lawyer share a portion of the blame, no
doubt. But the fact remains that none of it could take place without a
willing plaintiff no matter how many morally corrupt lawyers there are out
there. I guess it shows how quickly many of us are willing to throw
everything we know about what is right and what is wrong out the window if
the price is right.

BDS

[Blueskies]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message ...
>>
>
> I don't think that is really the case. It does indeed take people seeking recovery to start the process. But I have
> never seen a lawyer get involved with a case in the interest of justice. They pick and choose who they help base on
> yeild, not justice.
>
>

Yup, it is simply good 'business'...

[Blueskies]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
>
> If this is true, you are viewing what has become one of the prime reasons associated with the virtual end of General
> Aviation as at least I knew it for the first 25 years I was involved in aviation.
> It's the trial lawyers. They will go after anything and everything with deep pockets involved in an accident. They
> operate in conditions like these on the premise that REGARDLESS of the appropriate and inappropriate actions of a
> pilot, if one screw was out of place on the aircraft itself, the manufacturer can be litigated for financial gain.
> In many cases, it is my understanding that manufacturers simply "settle" the suits rather than defend them based upon
> specific lawyers reputations for their ability to sway juries.
> It's nothing but sheer extortion in the majority of the cases.
>
> A truly unfortunate aside to this "practice" is that the phony litigations are so frequent and so costly, there is a
> very good chance that the legitimate cases where there actually is just cause for a lawsuit are often looked at in the
> same jaundiced eye by the public as the phony cases and true justice can suffer.
> The lawyers can be "congratulated" for literally destroying not only GA, but for the most part, the publics' faith and
> dependence in a true and honest justice system.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

This has been going on for a very long time! Sue McDonalds because you spilled coffee on your lap? Sue Parker because
the pilot followed a failing gyro into the ground? This is not new news, and the sheep in the USA simply eat it up,
because maybe, just maybe, their ticket will come in and they, too, can hit it big! It is the lotto mentality that is
dragging us down. No wonder there are so many jobs available for the immigrant worker; many americans simply don't think
they need to do a hard days work, and that they are entitled to a better life without doing the work...

[kontiki]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> No longer can schools punish students as it is either illegal or will
> harm the students' self-esteem. When a student fails a class, we blame
> everyone but the student and find a way to move them along anyway. I
> know you have public school connections (your wife as I recall), but the
> reality is that public schools HAVE contributed to this phenomenon of
> sending subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, messages that nothing is
> YOUR fault it is the fault of the "system", and don't worry as the
> "system" will take care of you anyway.
>

Yes, its a huge problem that tends to feed on itself. But before
any solution can be attained there must first be a recognition
that a problem exists and an understanding of the nature of
the problem. Then there must be the ability to use some critical
thinking (i.e. thinking outside the box) that most people lack.

I submit that this is to a significant degree due to the fact that
it is not taught or even encouraged in the current education system.
There are other factors of course, but I our education system is
probably the most important one. If someone is not educated enough
to recognize that a problem exists there can never be a solution.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 2, 6:57 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> Hear, hear! Well put.
>
> That said, there *is* a slant to the way things are taught in schools
> that I find disturbing. To grossly over-simplify, this slant amounts
> to an over-egalitarian "Everyone is equal, no one is better than
> anyone else, everyone plays no matter how inept, business is evil but
> the gummint will take care of you from cradle-to-grave" attitude that
> sounds great on paper but produces kids without a work ethic or moral
> compass.

This "Everyone is equal" teaching really gets in the way of your
supremist slant.
>
> Luckily, this can be easily "over-written" with proper parenting
> skills.

Jay, you Uber Parent you! Tell us more about how bitchen you are.

> Too many parents aren't aware
> of (or don't care about) this subtle undercurrent in the schools that,
> over time, has produced a society of lazy, sue-happy "it's not my
> fault!" people.

Here is that "Everyone education is flawed" thing again. This comes
uip in many of your posts. Can you not accept that others might have
opinions other than your own?
FB
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Shirl]

Jay Honeck:
> > That said, there *is* a slant to the way things are taught in schools
> > that I find disturbing. To grossly over-simplify, this slant amounts
> > to an over-egalitarian "Everyone is equal, no one is better than
> > anyone else, everyone plays no matter how inept, business is evil but
> > the gummint will take care of you from cradle-to-grave" attitude that
> > sounds great on paper but produces kids without a work ethic or moral
> > compass.

"F. Baum" > wrote:
> This "Everyone is equal" teaching really gets in the way of your
> supremist slant.

> > Luckily, this can be easily "over-written" with proper parenting
> > skills.
>
> Jay, you Uber Parent you! Tell us more about how bitchen you are.
>
> > Too many parents aren't aware
> > of (or don't care about) this subtle undercurrent in the schools that,
> > over time, has produced a society of lazy, sue-happy "it's not my
> > fault!" people.
>
> Here is that "Everyone education is flawed" thing again. This comes
> uip in many of your posts. Can you not accept that others might have
> opinions other than your own?

It's easy for parents with kids that have given them little trouble to
talk about other parents who "aren't aware of or don't care about" this
or that or about what schools lack.

Some of us knocked ourselves out every bit as much as you did, Jay, to
produce good, honest, decent, productive offspring -- kids with good
value systems and some awareness of how to set "priorities". There for
them as much as you have been, filling in all the holes that ANY
educational system has ... still to have kids with skewed attitudes. It
happens.

I applaud you if your parental time and effort paid off exactly the way
you planned it. But not everyone in the generation of "lazy, sue-happy
'it's not my fault' people" are the result of parents who "aren't aware
or don't care" or who didn't teach their kids about work ethics or give
them a moral compass. Some people of that mindset had parents who were
just as aware, cared just as much, and worked just as hard to teach,
educate, and guide their kids. They simply don't *all* take the path
(even in their thinking) we would choose for them.

[Margy Natalie]

Morgans wrote:
> "kontiki" > wrote
>
>
>>Most people have received a pitiful economic
>>education in this country (thanks to the in-bred nature of government
>>schools) tso they don't have a clue.
>
>
> ********************************
>
> I am sick to death of everyone placing the blame for everything on
> "government schools." It is very possible to get a good education at
> government schools, if you want to learn. The blame for most of the
> problems with government schools is the lack of motivation of the students,
> and is a failure of the parents of kids who are not motivated to learn.
>
> What does economic education have to do with leaning about a hopelessly
> screwed up justice system have to do with the price of beans in China? That
> seems like it would be a government-social studies failure, if anything.
>
> Is a government school responsible for you not being able to proof read your
> posts? It must be, to write "tso they don't have a clue."
>
> I just lost a bit of respect for you. I thought you were smarter than to
> play a blame game like you showed in a post like this.
Nah Jim,

He's got it right. Let's go back to a system where only the wealthy got
an education and put everyone else to work at 12. That should fix the
problem!

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>
>> "kontiki" > wrote
>>
>>> Most people have received a pitiful economic
>>> education in this country (thanks to the in-bred nature of government
>>> schools) tso they don't have a clue.
>>
>>
>> ********************************
>>
>> I am sick to death of everyone placing the blame for everything on
>> "government schools." It is very possible to get a good education at
>> government schools, if you want to learn. The blame for most of the
>> problems with government schools is the lack of motivation of the
>> students, and is a failure of the parents of kids who are not
>> motivated to learn.
>>
>> What does economic education have to do with leaning about a
>> hopelessly screwed up justice system have to do with the price of
>> beans in China? That seems like it would be a government-social
>> studies failure, if anything.
>
>
> Blaming the schools alone isn't legitimate, but they certainly have been
> a significant contributor. Public schools long ago moved from a
> "personal responsibility" to a "self-esteem" based approached that has
> been disastrous and is a significant contributor to many of society's
> problems today.
>
> No longer can schools punish students as it is either illegal or will
> harm the students' self-esteem. When a student fails a class, we blame
> everyone but the student and find a way to move them along anyway. I
> know you have public school connections (your wife as I recall), but the
> reality is that public schools HAVE contributed to this phenomenon of
> sending subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, messages that nothing is
> YOUR fault it is the fault of the "system", and don't worry as the
> "system" will take care of you anyway.
>
> Matt
It's not the schools its the parents. I've seen parents come in to find
out why the TEACHER made a mistake and Johnny got a B. The parent went
to the principal to complain. In an unbelievable act the principal
actually defended the teacher. In addition teachers have a common name
for many science fair projects. They are called "daddy-dos". In a
system where parents attack teachers if the kids do poorly you can
hardly blame the teachers. Maybe the schools for not telling the
parents off, but if you tell the parents off the school budget doesn't
get passed.

Margy

Margy

[[email protected]]

> This "Everyone is equal" teaching really gets in the way of your
> supremist slant.

Sorry, it's the "everyone is equal" slant that has caused so much
uproar in America's schools, with the "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB)
initiative. This is the approach that treats all children equal,
without regard to ability or aptitude, and penalizes schools that do
not achieve test averages without regard to these abilities or
aptitude.

Given the wide disparity between children and their abilities, this
egalitarian treatment has caused a great deal of controversy. On the
one hand, I appreciate the fact that -- for the first time in MY
lifetime -- teachers are being held to a real standard. On the other
hand, punishing a school when special-needs kids don't pass the
standardized test seems ludicrous.

Of course, the inevitable bureacratic response to this standardized
test will be a "dumbing down" of the requirements. THAT is the
problem I see with NCLB, and has nothing to do with any kind of
"supremist slant".

> > Luckily, this can be easily "over-written" with proper parenting
> > skills.
>
> Jay, you Uber Parent you! Tell us more about how bitchen you are.

As usual, your attitude is getting in the way of conversation. I
suggest less coffee.

> > Too many parents aren't aware
> > of (or don't care about) this subtle undercurrent in the schools that,
> > over time, has produced a society of lazy, sue-happy "it's not my
> > fault!" people.
>
> Here is that "Everyone education is flawed" thing again. This comes
> uip in many of your posts. Can you not accept that others might have
> opinions other than your own?

Of course. It's called "conversation" -- you might try it sometime.
It's fun!

Universal education is the glue that holds society together, and more
is always better -- for everyone. However, schools that treat all
kids exactly the same, regardless of ability or aptitude, is a recipe
for disaster.

Both Kontiki's point about inbred schools creating a less-than-optimal
society and Jim's point about not blaming the schools for everything
are entirely valid, even though they seem to conflict in many ways.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

>> A truly unfortunate aside to this "practice" is that the phony litigations are so frequent and so costly, there is a
>> very good chance that the legitimate cases where there actually is just cause for a lawsuit are often looked at in the
>> same jaundiced eye by the public as the phony cases and true justice can suffer.

> This has been going on for a very long time! Sue McDonalds because you spilled coffee on your lap?

This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
their jaundiced eye. (There's an earlier thread about this, though I
doubt it's easy to find based on subject line... though neither will
this one be).

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Ah, I see Number One Son was signed into google on this computer.
Sorry about the confusion -- the opinions expressed here were mine,
not his!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I applaud you if your parental time and effort paid off exactly the way
> you planned it. But not everyone in the generation of "lazy, sue-happy
> 'it's not my fault' people" are the result of parents who "aren't aware
> or don't care" or who didn't teach their kids about work ethics or give
> them a moral compass. Some people of that mindset had parents who were
> just as aware, cared just as much, and worked just as hard to teach,
> educate, and guide their kids. They simply don't *all* take the path
> (even in their thinking) we would choose for them.

Absolutely true -- and I didn't imply otherwise. I've seen kids with
the best upbringing turn to crap, and I've seen kids with the worst
upbringing turn to gold. There are no guarantees with children, and
the "jury is still out" on mine.

I've always said that my son will either grow up to become a brilliant
criminal mastermind, or a great philanthropist -- there's no way of
knowing at this point!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Gardner]

Except for the fact that the passengers were all skydivers, skydiving had
nothing to do with the accident. An unfortunate title for the thread.

Bob Gardner

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>C J Campbell wrote:
>> The parents of Bryan Jones, a 34 year old Microsoft engineer who was one
>> of nine skydivers killed in the crash of a Cessna Caravan, are suing
>> Cessna. The Caravan was returning from Star, Idaho, to Shelton,
>> Washington. The parents are alleging that the Cessna Caravan was
>> defective and should not have been flying in icy weather. The airplane is
>> not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in question
>> did have boots.
>>
>> So, Cessna is being blamed because a pilot may have operated the plane in
>> direct contradiction to the aircraft flight manual and warnings in
>> Cessna's operating instructions.
>
> If this is true, you are viewing what has become one of the prime reasons
> associated with the virtual end of General Aviation as at least I knew it
> for the first 25 years I was involved in aviation.
> It's the trial lawyers. They will go after anything and everything with
> deep pockets involved in an accident. They operate in conditions like
> these on the premise that REGARDLESS of the appropriate and inappropriate
> actions of a pilot, if one screw was out of place on the aircraft itself,
> the manufacturer can be litigated for financial gain.
> In many cases, it is my understanding that manufacturers simply "settle"
> the suits rather than defend them based upon specific lawyers reputations
> for their ability to sway juries.
> It's nothing but sheer extortion in the majority of the cases.
>
> A truly unfortunate aside to this "practice" is that the phony litigations
> are so frequent and so costly, there is a very good chance that the
> legitimate cases where there actually is just cause for a lawsuit are
> often looked at in the same jaundiced eye by the public as the phony cases
> and true justice can suffer.
> The lawyers can be "congratulated" for literally destroying not only GA,
> but for the most part, the publics' faith and dependence in a true and
> honest justice system.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

>
> This has been going on for a very long time! Sue McDonalds because you spilled coffee on your lap? Sue Parker because
> the pilot followed a failing gyro into the ground? This is not new news, and the sheep in the USA simply eat it up,
> because maybe, just maybe, their ticket will come in and they, too, can hit it big! It is the lotto mentality that is
> dragging us down. No wonder there are so many jobs available for the immigrant worker; many americans simply don't think
> they need to do a hard days work, and that they are entitled to a better life without doing the work...

Well put, I have been amazed at how many people seem to think that
they can become millionaires happily sipping coffee at the bookstore
and watching the value of their homes go up 20% each year! Now that
the bubble has burst there are many who think that the government
should come to their rescue!

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:30:56 -0500, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

>
>It's not the schools its the parents. I've seen parents come in to find
>out why the TEACHER made a mistake and Johnny got a B.

My wife's a dedicated teacher. I hear it every day. 8^(

[[email protected]]

On Dec 1, 8:03 pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> Caravans and icing aparantly have a probematic history, going back at
> least to AD 2006-01-11R1 which required that additional boots on cargo
> pods and handles to make upper wing inspection easier be isntalled,
> plus various things I've read but can't recall where right now about
> changes to icing procedures WRT minimum airspeeds etc.

There's been an AD against the Caravan for more than a year
(2006-06-06) that was recently superseded by 2007-10-15, perhaps
driven by this accident. It seems that it doesn't matter that ADs are
issued; they have to be modified or amended or superseded to make
people sit up and take problems seriously. The Caravan has long had a
history of poor ice performance and anyone flying one and staying
current with aviation should know that.

2007-10-15:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/0/243AECE0725E4009862572DE0050A037?OpenDocument

Dan

[F. Baum]

On Dec 2, 11:32 am, wrote:
>
> There's been an AD against the Caravan for more than a year
> (2006-06-06) that was recently superseded by 2007-10-15, perhaps
> driven by this accident. It seems that it doesn't matter that ADs are
> issued; they have to be modified or amended or superseded to make
> people sit up and take problems seriously. The Caravan has long had a
> history of poor ice performance and anyone flying one and staying
> current with aviation should know that.
>
Dan, thanks for posting something aviation related on this thread (As
opposed to Jay's OT BS). It has been a long time since I have flown a
Caravan so I am not going to try to be an expert here. Unfortunatly
the Caravan isnt the only Turboprop with poor icing performance
(Remember the ATR). There are several others that I have flown that
are downright scary in icing conditions. Maybe it is an inherent
problem in Turboprpops. Thanks for the link.
F Baum

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Sorry about the confusion -- the opinions expressed here were mine, not his!
>

Dang! I thought we had a chance at a father-son debate. Right here on r.a.p.!

Mike

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Morgans wrote:
>> "kontiki" > wrote
>>
>>> Most people have received a pitiful economic
>>> education in this country (thanks to the in-bred nature of
>>> government schools) tso they don't have a clue.
>>
>> ********************************
>>
>> I am sick to death of everyone placing the blame for everything on
>> "government schools." It is very possible to get a good education at
>> government schools, if you want to learn. The blame for most of the
>> problems with government schools is the lack of motivation of the
>> students, and is a failure of the parents of kids who are not
>> motivated to learn.
>>
>> What does economic education have to do with leaning about a
>> hopelessly screwed up justice system have to do with the price of
>> beans in China? That seems like it would be a government-social
>> studies failure, if anything.
>
> Blaming the schools alone isn't legitimate, but they certainly have
> been a significant contributor. Public schools long ago moved from a
> "personal responsibility" to a "self-esteem" based approached that has
> been disastrous and is a significant contributor to many of society's
> problems today.
>
> No longer can schools punish students as it is either illegal or will
> harm the students' self-esteem. When a student fails a class, we
> blame everyone but the student and find a way to move them along
> anyway. I know you have public school connections (your wife as I
> recall), but the reality is that public schools HAVE contributed to
> this phenomenon of sending subtle, and sometimes not so subtle,
> messages that nothing is YOUR fault it is the fault of the "system",
> and don't worry as the "system" will take care of you anyway.
>
> Matt
>
So what's your excuse?


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> > Sorry about the confusion -- the opinions expressed here were mine, not his!
>
> Dang! I thought we had a chance at a father-son debate. Right here on r.a.p.!

Actually, Joe read what I wrote, and agrees with me whole-heartedly.

As any kid who might want the car keys should...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
> does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
> their jaundiced eye.

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
>> does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
>> their jaundiced eye.
>
> I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
> your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
> against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?


Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING HOT!

Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding levels.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Jay Honeck]

> > I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
> > your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
> > against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
>
> Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING HOT!
>
> Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding levels.

Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?

Mine is, every morning...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > > I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
> > > your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
> > > against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
> >
> > Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING HOT!
> >
> > Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding levels.
>
> Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?

Mickey D's coffee caused third-degree burns. The argument was that was *too*
effing hot.

Ron Wanttaja

[Blueskies]

"F. Baum" > wrote in message ...
> On Dec 2, 11:32 am, wrote:
>>
>> There's been an AD against the Caravan for more than a year
>> (2006-06-06) that was recently superseded by 2007-10-15, perhaps
>> driven by this accident. It seems that it doesn't matter that ADs are
>> issued; they have to be modified or amended or superseded to make
>> people sit up and take problems seriously. The Caravan has long had a
>> history of poor ice performance and anyone flying one and staying
>> current with aviation should know that.
>>
> Dan, thanks for posting something aviation related on this thread (As
> opposed to Jay's OT BS). It has been a long time since I have flown a
> Caravan so I am not going to try to be an expert here. Unfortunatly
> the Caravan isnt the only Turboprop with poor icing performance
> (Remember the ATR). There are several others that I have flown that
> are downright scary in icing conditions. Maybe it is an inherent
> problem in Turboprpops. Thanks for the link.
> F Baum

The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions. So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...

[Matt W. Barrow]

"BDS" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> It's the trial lawyers. They will go after anything and everything with
>> deep pockets involved in an accident. They operate in conditions like
>> these on the premise that REGARDLESS of the appropriate and
>> inappropriate actions of a pilot, if one screw was out of place on the
>> aircraft itself, the manufacturer can be litigated for financial gain.
>
> No question about it, we need tort reform in the USA.
>
> That said, people have also changed.

Not really. Looters and pillagers have been known throughout history and
archeology shows it well before written history.

Trial lawyers merely institutionalized it.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> I am sick to death of everyone placing the blame for everything on
>> "government schools." It is very possible to get a good education at
>> government schools, if you want to learn.

If you want to learn what?

> >The blame for most of the
>> problems with government schools is the lack of motivation of the
>> students,
>> and is a failure of the parents of kids who are not motivated to learn.

Even where such motivation exists, the methods ot modern "teaching" is an
utter failure. Recall, too, that the schools have been telling parents for
decades to "Shut up...we're the experts". Those lacadasical parents are
products of earlier generations of public schools and their teaching of
irresponsibility. IOW, the chickens have come home to roost.

>
> Hear, hear! Well put.

Not really. Just more typical excuse making that is become a cottage
industry in the US.

>
> That said, there *is* a slant to the way things are taught in schools
> that I find disturbing. To grossly over-simplify, this slant amounts
> to an over-egalitarian "Everyone is equal, no one is better than
> anyone else, everyone plays no matter how inept, business is evil but
> the gummint will take care of you from cradle-to-grave" attitude that
> sounds great on paper but produces kids without a work ethic or moral
> compass.
>
> Luckily, this can be easily "over-written" with proper parenting
> skills. My kids are receiving an excellent public school education,
> and are now at the age where they no longer need to be "de-programmed"
> at the end of the school day. They can -- and often do -- sniff out
> the slant on their own.

If they have to stift it out, they're not getting an excellent public school
education. The entire purpose of public schools is NOT education, and hasn't
been since the days of Thomas Mann in the 1840's.

>
> I think Kontiki was referring to this slant more than anything
> specific about the educational process. Too many parents aren't aware
> of (or don't care about) this subtle undercurrent in the schools that,
> over time, has produced a society of lazy, sue-happy "it's not my
> fault!" people.

Look up the word "epistemology", then evaluate how the schools practice it.

Then grab your butt.

(I'll not wait for more of Morgan's adolesant alibis.)

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> > Sorry about the confusion -- the opinions expressed here were mine, not
>> > his!
>>
>> Dang! I thought we had a chance at a father-son debate. Right here on
>> r.a.p.!
>
> Actually, Joe read what I wrote, and agrees with me whole-heartedly.
>
> As any kid who might want the car keys should...
>
> ;-)

And a parent that wants the airplane keys.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>
>>
>> What does economic education have to do with leaning about a hopelessly
>> screwed up justice system have to do with the price of beans in China?
>
> If you have to ask that question then you are one of the victims.

Or one of the causes.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:e5f4881f-1c03-4cd1-8862-26d10fe8fb63
@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>>> I am sick to death of everyone placing the blame for everything on
>>> "government schools." It is very possible to get a good education
>>> at government schools, if you want to learn.
>
> If you want to learn what?
>
>> >The blame for most of the
>>> problems with government schools is the lack of motivation of the
>>> students,
>>> and is a failure of the parents of kids who are not motivated to
>>> learn.
>
> Even where such motivation exists, the methods ot modern "teaching" is
> an utter failure. Recall, too, that the schools have been telling
> parents for decades to "Shut up...we're the experts". Those
> lacadasical parents are products of earlier generations of public
> schools and their teaching of irresponsibility. IOW, the chickens have
> come home to roost.
>
>>
>> Hear, hear! Well put.
>
> Not really. Just more typical excuse making that is become a cottage
> industry in the US.
>
>>
>> That said, there *is* a slant to the way things are taught in schools
>> that I find disturbing. To grossly over-simplify, this slant amounts
>> to an over-egalitarian "Everyone is equal, no one is better than
>> anyone else, everyone plays no matter how inept, business is evil but
>> the gummint will take care of you from cradle-to-grave" attitude that
>> sounds great on paper but produces kids without a work ethic or moral
>> compass.
>>
>> Luckily, this can be easily "over-written" with proper parenting
>> skills. My kids are receiving an excellent public school education,
>> and are now at the age where they no longer need to be
>> "de-programmed" at the end of the school day. They can -- and often
>> do -- sniff out the slant on their own.
>
> If they have to stift it out, they're not getting an excellent public
> school education. The entire purpose of public schools is NOT
> education, and hasn't been since the days of Thomas Mann in the
> 1840's.
>
>>
>> I think Kontiki was referring to this slant more than anything
>> specific about the educational process. Too many parents aren't
>> aware of (or don't care about) this subtle undercurrent in the
>> schools that, over time, has produced a society of lazy, sue-happy
>> "it's not my fault!" people.
>
> Look up the word "epistemology", then evaluate how the schools
> practice it.
>
> Then grab your butt.
>

>h aren't we a little Zen and the art of obfuscation"?


Bertie
>

[Matt W. Barrow]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>> No longer can schools punish students as it is either illegal or will
>> harm the students' self-esteem. When a student fails a class, we blame
>> everyone but the student and find a way to move them along anyway. I
>> know you have public school connections (your wife as I recall), but the
>> reality is that public schools HAVE contributed to this phenomenon of
>> sending subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, messages that nothing is
>> YOUR fault it is the fault of the "system", and don't worry as the
>> "system" will take care of you anyway.
>>
>
> Yes, its a huge problem that tends to feed on itself. But before
> any solution can be attained there must first be a recognition
> that a problem exists and an understanding of the nature of
> the problem. Then there must be the ability to use some critical
> thinking (i.e. thinking outside the box) that most people lack.

Behavior is secondary to the inculcation of irrationality which breeds the
behavior pathologies. It is beyond two generation now, so Morgan's prattle
that parents being the cause is only partially correct...a very small part.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:30:56 -0500, Margy Natalie >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>It's not the schools its the parents.

Umm...the parents that came though public schools?


>>I've seen parents come in to find
>>out why the TEACHER made a mistake and Johnny got a B.
>
> My wife's a dedicated teacher. I hear it every day. 8^(

And the teachers that have been telling parents, for years now, to "Shut
up...we're the experts" hasan't had an effect?

I remember when they gave teachers the same tests they were giving their
students, the teachers failed...miserablly.

I have, though, been to my kids school to ask the teacher why a science
question was a single sentence 115 worlds long, and why a friend of our,
with an MS degree from Princeton, could not figure out the problem.

That's just ONE instance.

Dedication is nice, but that's about all - it will not give students even an
ounce of knowledge or ability to comprehend the world.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

BDS wrote:
> "Maxwell" > wrote
>
>> I don't think that is really the case. It does indeed take people seeking
>> recovery to start the process. But I have never seen a lawyer get involved
>> with a case in the interest of justice. They pick and choose who they help
>> base on yeild, not justice.
>
> Both the plaintiff and his or her lawyer share a portion of the blame, no
> doubt. But the fact remains that none of it could take place without a
> willing plaintiff no matter how many morally corrupt lawyers there are out
> there. I guess it shows how quickly many of us are willing to throw
> everything we know about what is right and what is wrong out the window if
> the price is right.
>
> BDS
>
>
I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation
a lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
conclusion;
Although it's true that the plaintiff has to want the lawsuit, one has
to consider that in considering the plaintiff side of the equation, one
has the entire population to consider. It's reasonable to assume that
within that population there will be a considerable amount of potential
plaintiffs seeking unreasonable, trivial, and financially inspired
litigation.
In other words, on the plaintiff side, you will always have a willing
and unethical base seeking financial gain.

On the attorney side, we supposedly have an educated, ethical base,
steeped in honesty, integrity, and legal knowledge.

For a lawsuit to occur, regardless of the reason, if a million dishonest
plaintiffs approach the bench and seek litigation, it is the lawyer who
makes the litigation possible. You can have an unlimited supply of
people seeking a lawsuit, but it still takes that lawyer to file it.

In summation, I have long ago come to the conclusion that although I
completely recognize and accept an unethical plaintiff base, when it
comes to the relegation of responsibility for the terrible mess the
legal profession has become in the United States, one has to comclude
that it is incumbent on the lawyers not the population to control any
unethical plaintiff base and to me it has become perfectly clear that
the lawyers not only have failed to control this unethical base, but
have gone to extreme ends to encourage it and take active advantage of
it for their own financial gain.

To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Dec 2, 2:30 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:

> The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions. So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
> in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...

So, why do so many of them have boots and hot props and all
the rest? It would seem to add a lot of expensive weight if flight
through known ice is forbidden. What does FedEx do with their Caravans
when the weather is less than CAVU? Ground them?

I quote the first paragraph from a Transport Canada Service Difficulty
Alert:

"Cessna 208 (Caravan) Series - Operation Into Known or Forecast Icing
Conditions

"The Cessna Model 208 and 208B (Caravan) airplanes (C208), when
appropriately equipped, are certified for flight into the continuous
maximum and intermittent maximum icing conditions specified in Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) 25, Appendix C, in accordance with FAR
23.1419. However, there have been numerous documented cases of icing
related accidents/incidents involving the operation of the C208."

Read the rest at http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/certification/continuing/Alert/2006-01.htm

Dan

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:30:37 -0500, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"F. Baum" > wrote in message ...
>> On Dec 2, 11:32 am, wrote:
>>>
>>> There's been an AD against the Caravan for more than a year
>>> (2006-06-06) that was recently superseded by 2007-10-15, perhaps
>>> driven by this accident. It seems that it doesn't matter that ADs are
>>> issued; they have to be modified or amended or superseded to make
>>> people sit up and take problems seriously. The Caravan has long had a
>>> history of poor ice performance and anyone flying one and staying
>>> current with aviation should know that.
>>>
>> Dan, thanks for posting something aviation related on this thread (As
>> opposed to Jay's OT BS). It has been a long time since I have flown a
>> Caravan so I am not going to try to be an expert here. Unfortunatly
>> the Caravan isnt the only Turboprop with poor icing performance
>> (Remember the ATR). There are several others that I have flown that
>> are downright scary in icing conditions. Maybe it is an inherent
>> problem in Turboprpops. Thanks for the link.
>> F Baum
>
>The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions. So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
>in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...

The Cessna Model 208 and 208B Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) and
FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)Supplement S1 "Known Icing
Euipment" begs to differ.

[kontiki]

Shirl wrote:
>
> Some of us knocked ourselves out every bit as much as you did, Jay, to
> produce good, honest, decent, productive offspring -- kids with good
> value systems and some awareness of how to set "priorities". There for
> them as much as you have been, filling in all the holes that ANY
> educational system has ... still to have kids with skewed attitudes. It
> happens.
>

Well then there must have been other influences in their lives
that worked against all your hard efforts. It is certainly
worth considering that since government schools control a good
portion of their young lives that they might bear some blame.

[Tom Conner]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck >
wrote:
>
> > > > I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
> > > > your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
> > > > against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
> > >
> > > Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING
HOT!
> > >
> > > Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding levels.
> >
> > Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?
>
> Mickey D's coffee caused third-degree burns. The argument was that was
*too*
> effing hot.
>

I would be interested in knowing how much insulation the cup provided. If
it was paper then it couldn't have been to hot. If it was made of Shuttle
re-entry tiles then it probably was to hot.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"kontiki" > wrote

> The reason there is a "slant" to a public education is that the
> vast majority of teachers graduate from public schools, then
> go to a college or university then go right into teaching. That
> is inbreeding... pretty much the same way with politicians...
> most have never had an actual real job in their life.

So teaching isn't a real job, huh? Another slap in the face to teachers.
Nice.

Come walk in my shoes for a week or two. You _will_ change your mind.

What job would you like an English teacher to get, anyway? Not much use for
people sitting around conjugating verbs, or diagraming sentence structrures.

The same thing could be said for at least half of what is taught in school.
Not much direct application to the real world. Anyway, much of learning is
learning how to learn. Specific application comes at the job site, in most
vocations.

> I'm not gonna argue this beyond what I have just said because
> those that believe in these systems will defend them forever.
> Meanwhile, the US continues into its slow economic and cultural
> decline. The current state of GA is but a symptom of this.

So teaching in the public schools is responsible (even indirectly) for the
decline in GA.

THAT is the biggest streach I believe I have ever seen on this newsgroup,
even from MX.

> People like to shoot the messenger but its a fact.

People shoot messengers when they are full of sh*t, and so dense they don't
realize they are full of sh*t.

Sheesh!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Ah, I see Number One Son was signed into google on this computer.
> Sorry about the confusion -- the opinions expressed here were mine,
> not his!

Whew!!!

Thanks for clearing THAT up. I thought little green men had kidnapped Joe,
or something! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:17:30 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote:


>
>And the teachers that have been telling parents, for years now, to "Shut
>up...we're the experts" hasan't had an effect?

My wife has kids that are up all night because the SWAT Team is
busting the parents for dealing.

She also has kids that have mothers with "friends" that come and go,
an hour at a time, in mom's bedroom.

She also has parents that exclaim "You're picking on the black man!"
when she tries to tell them their kid can't read well enough to pass
kindergarten, even though he's in second grade.

Oddly enough, her Indian, Pakastani, Middle Eastern, Mexican, and
Eastern European immigrant (Czech, Polish, Russian states...) parents
who take great interest, as well as get great improvement, with kids
who aren't pulling the sled.

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:49:26 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


> So, why do so many of them have boots and hot props and all
>the rest? It would seem to add a lot of expensive weight if flight
>through known ice is forbidden. What does FedEx do with their Caravans
>when the weather is less than CAVU? Ground them?

I flew on a Caravan a few weeks back that certainly was equipped for
ice.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:17:30 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>And the teachers that have been telling parents, for years now, to "Shut
>>up...we're the experts" hasan't had an effect?
>
> My wife has kids that are up all night because the SWAT Team is
> busting the parents for dealing.
>
> She also has kids that have mothers with "friends" that come and go,
> an hour at a time, in mom's bedroom.
>
> She also has parents that exclaim "You're picking on the black man!"
> when she tries to tell them their kid can't read well enough to pass
> kindergarten, even though he's in second grade.
>
> Oddly enough, her Indian, Pakastani, Middle Eastern, Mexican, and
> Eastern European immigrant (Czech, Polish, Russian states...) parents
> who take great interest, as well as get great improvement, with kids
> who aren't pulling the sled.



And your point?


Bertie

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:28:03 GMT, kontiki >
>
>The reason there is a "slant" to a public education is that the
>vast majority of teachers graduate from public schools, then
>go to a college or university then go right into teaching. That
>is inbreeding... pretty much the same way with politicians...
>most have never had an actual real job in their life.

My wife didn't do it that way.

She worked for a Fortune 50 corporation, then ran the office for her
parent's 180+ employee asbestos and lead abatement company, then
decided to teach elementary school. She took her first teaching job
@ 37.

Her elementary school coworkers include a couple who worked for an oil
company in Saudi Arabia for 20 years (first taught in their 50's), an
ex advertising sales executive (42, as a first year teacher), and a
former Comair pilot.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote

> Then grab your butt.
>
> (I'll not wait for more of Morgan's adolesant alibis.)

You should really learn how to post, because most of what your post
attributed to Jay were my words.

You don't have to worry about me responding to you on the subject of
education.

Your views are not worth my consideration, as they are so biased, and
worthless.

You should really consider going back to school at your private school, so
you could learn to spell adolescent, too.
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:58:46 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>And your point?
>

Bad parents have unteachable kids. The criminals I mentioned...

Parents who care, and are involved, have successful kids. The
successful immigrants...

I'll bet the same thing would have happened to you that would have
happened to me if we brought home an "F". Today, it's not like that.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> BDS wrote:
>> "Maxwell" > wrote
>>
>>> I don't think that is really the case. It does indeed take people
>>> seeking
>>> recovery to start the process. But I have never seen a lawyer get
>>> involved
>>> with a case in the interest of justice. They pick and choose who they
>>> help
>>> base on yeild, not justice.
>>
>> Both the plaintiff and his or her lawyer share a portion of the blame, no
>> doubt. But the fact remains that none of it could take place without a
>> willing plaintiff no matter how many morally corrupt lawyers there are
>> out
>> there. I guess it shows how quickly many of us are willing to throw
>> everything we know about what is right and what is wrong out the window
>> if
>> the price is right.
>>
>> BDS
>>
>>
> I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation a
> lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
> conclusion;
> Although it's true that the plaintiff has to want the lawsuit, one has to
> consider that in considering the plaintiff side of the equation, one has
> the entire population to consider. It's reasonable to assume that within
> that population there will be a considerable amount of potential
> plaintiffs seeking unreasonable, trivial, and financially inspired
> litigation.

Lawyers are, but their very nature of the job, persuasive. Do you think they
can't persuade some grieving or naive party that they have been "harmed" to
a proper extent?

Hell, look at the poverty pimps and similar ner-do-wells.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:49:26 -0800 (PST),
> wrote:
>
>
>> So, why do so many of them have boots and hot props and all
>>the rest? It would seem to add a lot of expensive weight if flight
>>through known ice is forbidden. What does FedEx do with their Caravans
>>when the weather is less than CAVU? Ground them?
>
> I flew on a Caravan a few weeks back that certainly was equipped for
> ice.

Long underwear and a parka around the airframe?

[Matt W. Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:17:30 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>And the teachers that have been telling parents, for years now, to "Shut
>>up...we're the experts" hasan't had an effect?
>
> My wife has kids that are up all night because the SWAT Team is
> busting the parents for dealing.
>
> She also has kids that have mothers with "friends" that come and go,
> an hour at a time, in mom's bedroom.
>
> She also has parents that exclaim "You're picking on the black man!"
> when she tries to tell them their kid can't read well enough to pass
> kindergarten, even though he's in second grade.

And these folks learned those traits, where? NEWS: it wasn't until recent
times that such behavior was commonplace.

>
> Oddly enough, her Indian, Pakastani, Middle Eastern, Mexican, and
> Eastern European immigrant (Czech, Polish, Russian states...) parents
> who take great interest, as well as get great improvement, with kids
> who aren't pulling the sled.

No doubt. Let them stew in the PS system for a few years?

The school systems created the monster in the 60's onward; contemporary
parents (2nd generation and forward) are the results.

[kontiki]

Morgans wrote:
>
> So teaching in the public schools is responsible (even indirectly) for the
> decline in GA.
>
> THAT is the biggest streach I believe I have ever seen on this newsgroup,
> even from MX.

I won't bother to insult your lack of proofreading (as you did to me)
because I am capable of understanding and then debating a point in
spite of a minor typo someone happened to make while expressing and
impassioned response.

I am not saying there are not some good (albeit frustrated) teachers
in the public schools. But that does not justify the system itself...
it is in fact very flawed. The same is true of government... it is ver
flawed and corrupt but there may be a few good ones out there.

>
>> People like to shoot the messenger but its a fact.
>
> People shoot messengers when they are full of sh*t, and so dense they don't
> realize they are full of sh*t.
>
> Sheesh!

I can see that you are incapable of discussing this concept within
the contraints of logic alone but rather must resort to personal
insults. I do understand that so much of this subject is sensitive
to you because it involves the career you have chosen.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> BDS wrote:
>>> "Maxwell" > wrote
>>>
>>>> I don't think that is really the case. It does indeed take people
>>>> seeking
>>>> recovery to start the process. But I have never seen a lawyer get
>>>> involved
>>>> with a case in the interest of justice. They pick and choose who they
>>>> help
>>>> base on yeild, not justice.
>>> Both the plaintiff and his or her lawyer share a portion of the blame, no
>>> doubt. But the fact remains that none of it could take place without a
>>> willing plaintiff no matter how many morally corrupt lawyers there are
>>> out
>>> there. I guess it shows how quickly many of us are willing to throw
>>> everything we know about what is right and what is wrong out the window
>>> if
>>> the price is right.
>>>
>>> BDS
>>>
>>>
>> I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation a
>> lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
>> conclusion;
>> Although it's true that the plaintiff has to want the lawsuit, one has to
>> consider that in considering the plaintiff side of the equation, one has
>> the entire population to consider. It's reasonable to assume that within
>> that population there will be a considerable amount of potential
>> plaintiffs seeking unreasonable, trivial, and financially inspired
>> litigation.
>
> Lawyers are, but their very nature of the job, persuasive. Do you think they
> can't persuade some grieving or naive party that they have been "harmed" to
> a proper extent?
>
> Hell, look at the poverty pimps and similar ner-do-wells.
>
>
>
I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can
be shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of
the case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!

So much for the justice part of the legal equation! Let's hear it for
SALESMANSHIP!!!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt W. Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:58:46 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>And your point?
>>
>
> Bad parents have unteachable kids. The criminals I mentioned...

I know a kid whose dad spent years in the state pen and was later killed by
a SWAT team. He graduated third in his class of over 400.

>
> Parents who care, and are involved, have successful kids. The
> successful immigrants...
>
> I'll bet the same thing would have happened to you that would have
> happened to me if we brought home an "F". Today, it's not like that.

Many times an "F" is deserved. As many times the teacher would have also
gotten an "F". When they gave math teachers the same math tests, the average
grade was 60%, with 70% being a failing grade. It's nearly the rule, rather
than the exception.

Given the absolute irrationality and indoctrination coming from schools,
would more attentive parents make that much of a dent? Would it make the
psychosis coming from schools go away?

No matter how attentive parents are, "whole word reading", for example,
isn't going to make kids good readers. Would it make schools less likely to
spread Global Warming bull****?

[Matt W. Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:28:03 GMT, kontiki >
>>
>>The reason there is a "slant" to a public education is that the
>>vast majority of teachers graduate from public schools, then
>>go to a college or university then go right into teaching. That
>>is inbreeding... pretty much the same way with politicians...
>>most have never had an actual real job in their life.
>
> My wife didn't do it that way.

And exception does not disprove the other 100,000 cases.

>
> She worked for a Fortune 50 corporation, then ran the office for her
> parent's 180+ employee asbestos and lead abatement company, then
> decided to teach elementary school. She took her first teaching job
> @ 37.

It's outstanding your wife is an exception. Now, iof she is willing to take
on a class of 36,000,000 students, we're all set.

>
> Her elementary school coworkers include a couple who worked for an oil
> company in Saudi Arabia for 20 years (first taught in their 50's), an
> ex advertising sales executive (42, as a first year teacher), and a
> former Comair pilot.

Good for them and our thanks.

Now you just have to account for the other 2,000,000 teachers.

[Roy Smith]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can
> be shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of
> the case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!

And why are you surprised? A lawyer is a mercenary. A hired gun. A tool.
I don't expect my lawyer to base their performance on whether they like me
or believe in me any more than I expect my drill press or my laptop to do
so.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>
>> Lawyers are, by their very nature of the job, persuasive. Do you think
>> they can't persuade some grieving or naive party that they have been
>> "harmed" to a proper extent?
>>
>> Hell, look at the poverty pimps and similar ner-do-wells.
>>
>>
>>
> I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can be
> shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of the
> case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!
>
> So much for the justice part of the legal equation! Let's hear it for
> SALESMANSHIP!!!! :-))

And now you know why so many stopped calling it the "Justice System" and now
refer to it as the "Legal System". It's all in "gaming the system".

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:58:46 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>And your point?
>>
>
> Bad parents have unteachable kids. The criminals I mentioned...
>
> Parents who care, and are involved, have successful kids. The
> successful immigrants...
>
> I'll bet the same thing would have happened to you that would have
> happened to me if we brought home an "F". Today, it's not like that.
>

I know exactly what it's like.

So, The current systemn encourages parents who care, and their kids are
successful.

So what is your beef, then?


Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>>
>> So teaching in the public schools is responsible (even indirectly) for
>> the decline in GA.
>>
>> THAT is the biggest streach I believe I have ever seen on this newsgroup,
>> even from MX.
>
> I won't bother to insult your lack of proofreading (as you did to me)
> because I am capable of understanding and then debating a point in
> spite of a minor typo someone happened to make while expressing and
> impassioned response.
>
> I am not saying there are not some good (albeit frustrated) teachers
> in the public schools. But that does not justify the system itself...
> it is in fact very flawed. The same is true of government... it is ver
> flawed and corrupt but there may be a few good ones out there.
>
>>
>>> People like to shoot the messenger but its a fact.
>>
>> People shoot messengers when they are full of sh*t, and so dense they
>> don't realize they are full of sh*t.
>>
>> Sheesh!
>
> I can see that you are incapable of discussing this concept within
> the contraints of logic alone but rather must resort to personal
> insults. I do understand that so much of this subject is sensitive
> to you because it involves the career you have chosen.

Of course...he's a "teacher" that is so far removed from reality, it's a
tragedy that someone entrusts their offspring to his care.

As for full of sh*t, his lame excuses, right out of the teachers union
playbook, demonstrates something akin to a complete mental shift into LaLa
land.

If his argumentation here is any indication, it's no small wonder we now
have the better part of two generations that completely bonkers. If we note
the propensity of so many to make childish excuses, it's because they had
extensive exposure to that mindset in what we call their "teachers". Many of
these folks should be in padded rooms, not school rooms.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>> Lawyers are, by their very nature of the job, persuasive. Do you think
>>> they can't persuade some grieving or naive party that they have been
>>> "harmed" to a proper extent?
>>>
>>> Hell, look at the poverty pimps and similar ner-do-wells.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can be
>> shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of the
>> case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!
>>
>> So much for the justice part of the legal equation! Let's hear it for
>> SALESMANSHIP!!!! :-))
>
> And now you know why so many stopped calling it the "Justice System" and now
> refer to it as the "Legal System". It's all in "gaming the system".
>
>
>
Actually I've known this for a VERY long time :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:31:54 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>Now, iof she is willing to take
>on a class of 36,000,000 students, we're all set.

I'll get back to you. <G>

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:29:31 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote:
>
>Many times an "F" is deserved.

I totally agree.

>As many times the teacher would have also
>gotten an "F". When they gave math teachers the same math tests, the average
>grade was 60%, with 70% being a failing grade. It's nearly the rule, rather
>than the exception.

I'd like to read that. Where did you see it? Remember, teaching
programs and educational requirements vary greatly from state to
state.

>Would it make schools less likely to
>spread Global Warming bull****?

I'm with ya' there.

[B A R R Y]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:35:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>
>So what is your beef, then?
>

With people who forget that education is a partnership bewteen a
school and the parent.

[Maxwell]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote
>
>> Then grab your butt.
>>
>> (I'll not wait for more of Morgan's adolesant alibis.)
>
> You should really learn how to post, because most of what your post
> attributed to Jay were my words.
>
> You don't have to worry about me responding to you on the subject of
> education.
>
> Your views are not worth my consideration, as they are so biased, and
> worthless.
>
> You should really consider going back to school at your private school, so
> you could learn to spell adolescent, too.
> --
> Jim in NC

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the
olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a
porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought
slpeling was ipmorantt!

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:19:03 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
>>
>> I flew on a Caravan a few weeks back that certainly was equipped for
>> ice.
>
>Long underwear and a parka around the airframe?
>

Pretty much! <G>

Boots on the lifting surfaces, struts, prop, cargo pod leading edges,
and an inertial intake separator. The plane was also placarded on
the panel for imitations in operations in ice.

Since there seems to be so much disagreement, I wonder if some of the
icing tools are optional.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can
>> be shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of
>> the case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!
>
> And why are you surprised? A lawyer is a mercenary. A hired gun. A tool.
> I don't expect my lawyer to base their performance on whether they like me
> or believe in me any more than I expect my drill press or my laptop to do
> so.

You assume surprise. Trust me....there is none! I merely make the
distinction between a lawyer self portrayed as a "protector of the
people" which is the projected ethical intent and the lawyer as he/she
actually exists; a glorified and educated used car salesman par
excellence, selling services to the highest bidder and raping clients
and the public at large by their actions.


--
Dudley Henriques

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:55:00 -0500, B A R R Y
> wrote:

>Boots on the lifting surfaces, struts, prop, cargo pod leading edges,
>and an inertial intake separator. The plane was also placarded on
>the panel for imitations in operations in ice.

Sorry... LIMITATIONS.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:35:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>So what is your beef, then?
>>
>
> With people who forget that education is a partnership bewteen a
> school and the parent.
>

And that is the fault of the schools how?

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Dec 2, 4:37 pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:

> The Cessna Model 208 and 208B Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH) and
> FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)Supplement S1 "Known Icing
> Euipment" begs to differ.

Does it? I haven't seen one, but another paragraph in the
Transport Canada document hints that flight (of suitably equipped
airplanes) into known ice is still legal:

"2) Exercise caution when dispatching into, or operating in forecast
or known icing conditions along an intended route. Use all available
resources (weather forecast, Air Traffic Services, PIREPS, etc.) to
ascertain the presence of icing conditions. Reports of icing
conditions should be considered to be prohibitive where those
conditions meet or exceed the definition of moderate or greater icing
conditions for the Cessna Caravan C208 airplanes as defined in
applicable ADs, AFMs and AMOCs."

As a Canadian AME I work with TC frequently and am aware that
they are often considerably more conservative than the FAA. If flight
into known ice was illegal they'd sure say so. Further, the latest FAA
AD, 2007-10-15, dated May 17/07,says:

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) to
supersede AD 2006-06-
06, which applies to certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models
208 and 208B airplanes. AD
2006-06-06 currently requires you to incorporate information into the
applicable section of the
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) and Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH) and
requires you to install
placards. Since we issued AD 2006-06-06, Cessna issued new S1 Known
Icing Equipment AFM
supplements and developed a low airspeed awareness system.
Consequently, this AD requires you to
incorporate the applicable AFM supplement revision and temporarily
retain the requirements of AD
2006-06-06 until the above revisions are incorporated. One of the AFM
requirements is the
installation of a functional low airspeed awareness system to operate
the airplane in known icing
conditions. We are issuing this AD to assure that the pilot has enough
information and the necessary
equipment to prevent loss of control of the airplane while in-flight
during icing conditions.

Now, unless the FAA or Cessna has removed the known-icing
certification since May, I can't see that the Caravan isn't certified
for known ice. Might not be wise, perhaps, but there it is.

Regards,
Dan

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Blaming the schools alone isn't legitimate, but they certainly have been a
> significant contributor. Public schools long ago moved from a "personal
> responsibility" to a "self-esteem" based approached that has been
> disastrous and is a significant contributor to many of society's problems
> today.
>
> No longer can schools punish students as it is either illegal or will harm
> the students' self-esteem.

I'm not sure if what you are saying is a deliberate concept of education, or
has become a part of education just has it become a way of our society.
Education does usually directly reflect our society's values and approaches
towards responsibility. I can't disagree with a lot of what you are
saying, just refute that it is being caused by education. It is a question
of cause or effect. School causing the problem, or schools exhibiting the
problem because of society? That is the question.

How I wish we could punish students appropriately. We are powerless, as
most avenues of punishment have been taken from us. In large part, much of
what IS wrong with schools have been imposed on them by -------. You fill
in the blank.

> When a student fails a class, we blame everyone but the student and find a
> way to move them along anyway.

Oh, we as teachers would love to keep them behind when they fail. They need
to be kept behind until they get it right, or reach a certain level of
competency, but someone else that "knows better" won't let that happen.

Speaking of such things, why are we letting kids that can't read, take other
classes that require reading? (like all of them) They should be kept in
concentrated reading until they can.

It is like keeping a student that can not land an airplane working on
circles around a point, or other maneuvers, then when they can do them,
signing them off to solo. They are not ready to solo, if they can't land,
right? COMMON SENSE ! It happens in education, though. They take science
classes that require math, when they can't add or multiply. They take
sociology, or history, when they can't read.

How about speaking English? We continue teaching (in English) and when they
go to do a worksheet or homework on what was talked about in class, we send
them to ESL English as a Second Language) tutors to help them with the work.
How can they know what the work is about, if they could not understand what
the teacher was saying?

This type of thing is what I find so frustrating about teaching. Teachers
usually know what is needed, but they can't make it happen. Students should
not be allowed to continue until they meet certain levels of competency.
You are right, that they are pushed along, but that is not teachers making
that happen.

I'm totally frustrated with many things in education, the way it is today.
I try to do the best , thing for the student, and try to overcome the
obsticals, and it is totally frustrating, some days. I would not reccomend
anyone to go into education, today. Teachers have their hands tied in too
many ways, and are treated with a lack of respect by some students, almost
daily. I wonder if it could be worth it, for anyone.

> I know you have public school connections (your wife as I recall), but the
> reality is that public schools HAVE contributed to this phenomenon of
> sending subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, messages that nothing is YOUR
> fault it is the fault of the "system", and don't worry as the "system"
> will take care of you anyway.

I don't see that as a message that is a direct result of education, but as a
result of how education has had their hands tied. The "system will take
care of you" is a direct observation of how society treats problems, and
people with problems, nowdays.

Also, I wanted to comment on "No Child Left Behind, and how that has been
such a total failure, and perhaps one of the very worst pieces of
legislation to ever hit the public schools.

All kids are not created equal, and can not possibly be treated the same, to
achieve to their maximum potential. It can't work. It doesn't work.

If the guberment would keep their hands off of educators, and let them do
what is needed (instead of passing more legislation mandating this and that)
perhaps you would see education improve. As it is, we are so busy trying to
meet one requirement or the other, that there is little time to teach.

Well, enough. I get tired of beating my head against the wall, talking
about this. I'll try real hard to be quiet, now! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Jose]

> I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
> your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
> against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?

You need to look at the specifics of the case. There is hot, and there
is HOT. She reasonably expected hot, but was served HOT.

Had she spilled hot coffee, she would have learned to be more careful,
but she would not have had extensive injuries. She spilled HOT coffee,
which caused extensive injuries.

The difference between hot and HOT was very significant in this
particular case. Just for jollies, you can test the concept yourself
with pool water. The difference between 79 degree water and 82 degree
water is surprisingly easy to tell. In the McD case, there was a TWENTY
degree difference, at a temperature in which single degrees cause much
greater increase in injury.

Further, McDonalds had been warned repeatedly (I think there had even
been prior incidents) that their coffee was TOO HOT and chose to serve
it that way anyway, knowing that it could easily cause unexpected
injuries. It could reasonably be argued that this hidden danger was
reckless disregard for human safety.

Since nobody likes lawyers and the problems they cause, it does make an
attractive flag to rally around ("stupid person spills coffee and blames
McD") because nobody can argue the opposite case without studying the
details.

Since there are so many stupid (IMHO) judgements, the good judgements
that look stupid on the surface get thrown into the same bin. And (lest
we tar lawyers unfairly for this), it is the job of the lawyer to be
persuasive - and the job of the other lawyer to do the same. The
JUDGEMENT is rendered by.... (wait for it).... a Judge. (Sometimes a jury).

THAT is where the problem is.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Maxwell]

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck >
> wrote:
>>
>> > > > I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
>> > > > your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
>> > > > against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
>> > >
>> > > Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING
> HOT!
>> > >
>> > > Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding
>> > > levels.
>> >
>> > Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?
>>
>> Mickey D's coffee caused third-degree burns. The argument was that was
> *too*
>> effing hot.
>>
>
> I would be interested in knowing how much insulation the cup provided. If
> it was paper then it couldn't have been to hot. If it was made of Shuttle
> re-entry tiles then it probably was to hot.
>
>

Regardless of her initial award, does anyone know how much she actually
collected after appeal issues and such. I heard it was much less, but don't
recall the numbers. Maybe $200k.

[Al[_2_]]

Time out, sports fans.

Don't blame the schools.

Where are the parents????

Discipline-Yes, teachers would love to discipline the students. It has
been curtailed, mostly due to parents! ("How dare you discipline my
Johnny. He would never do that! If you touch my Johnny I'll sue you,
the district, the city, etc.")

Self Esteem-Parents again. (My Johnny is just as good as all these
other kids. I demand that he/she is captain of the team, gets to play
quarterback, sing the lead part, blah, blah, blah.)

Fault. Parents. (It's not Johnny's fault. He missed the test because
had to keep him out of school so we could go to Aunt Mabels. Johnny
couldn't do the assignment because he had to race in the skateboard finals.)

Move them along anyway. Parents. (You can't flunk my Johnny! I'll sue
you, the district, the city, the state.)

Teachers today spend countless hours substituting for parents (and
others) who think that the education system is responsible for every
facet of a student's life. Many of these kids come to class with no
manners, common sense, respect for authority, discipline, or basic
social skills.

Many of these kids also come from abusive, broken homes where the
parents have the same problems their kids have-brought on by their own
parents. In addition, many kids are coming from households where the
parents are too drunk, stoned, or not even there to care about their
kids. They're hungry, scared, defensive, and possibly already looking
out for themselves.

Self Esteem? When your own parents don't care or beat you, you do need
some self esteem.

All of these factors challenge our kids today.

But, it's the teachers fault if the kids don't learn.

Want to see the biggest problem in America's education system? Look in
the mirror.

Get involved with your kids. Get involved with your schools. Be part
of the solution. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and be a Monday
morning quarterback.

-end rant-

Al
1964 Skyhawk
Spokane, WA

kontiki wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> No longer can schools punish students as it is either illegal or will
>> harm the students' self-esteem. When a student fails a class, we
>> blame everyone but the student and find a way to move them along
>> anyway. I know you have public school connections (your wife as I
>> recall), but the reality is that public schools HAVE contributed to
>> this phenomenon of sending subtle, and sometimes not so subtle,
>> messages that nothing is YOUR fault it is the fault of the "system",
>> and don't worry as the "system" will take care of you anyway.
>>
>
> I submit that this is to a significant degree due to the fact that
> it is not taught or even encouraged in the current education system.
> There are other factors of course, but I our education system is
> probably the most important one. If someone is not educated enough
> to recognize that a problem exists there can never be a solution.
>
>
>
>

[F. Baum]

On Dec 2, 3:12 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
>
> Behavior is secondary to the inculcation of irrationality which breeds the
> behavior pathologies. It is beyond two generation now, so Morgan's prattle
> that parents being the cause is only partially correct...a very small part.- Hide quoted text -
>
MxMatt, someday I am going to try to actually make sense of one of
your posts ;). I think you use alot of big words to try to sound like
you know what you are talking about ( Cant blame ya, I like to sound
like this too). Your talk of education reminds me of the thread about
airline labor where you made sweeping blanket statements about unions
but you didnt have a basic grasp of the Railway Labor Act. Your posts
about flying are even worse :(
I have volunteered at my kids schools for years . I was impressed by
how hard most of these people work ( and for a fraction of the $$$
most of us make. I have seen them cussed out by students and parents,
some of whom never spend any time personally fostering thier kids
education. Instead of pointing uot the systems faults (And your silly
views of what caused them, why dont you roll up your sleeves and
volunteer.
FB

[F. Baum]

On Dec 2, 3:17 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
>
> I remember when they gave teachers the same tests they were giving their
> students, the teachers failed...miserablly.

Yea right. How well could YOU do on these tests.
>
> I have, though, been to my kids school to ask the teacher why a science
> question was a single sentence 115 worlds long, and why a friend of our,
> with an MS degree from Princeton, could not figure out the problem.

I saw this one on TV. The show was called "Are You Smarter Than a
Fifth Grader. I have the home version. Its fun!
>
> That's just ONE instance.
>
> Dedication is nice, but that's about all - it will not give students even an
> ounce of knowledge or ability to comprehend the world.

FB

[F. Baum]

On Dec 2, 3:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation
> a lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
> conclusion;
>
> To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.

I think the blame lies with those pop up ads on the internet.
Seriously though, it is a chicken and egg question between greedy
plantifs or greedy lawyers. In my opinion the (Respective) State Bar
has way too much influence over the courts. Most people base their
knowlege of the Tort system on sensationalistic headlines. Probably
90% of jury awards (The McDonalds case, The Ford Pinto case, etc) get
substantially reduced on appeal, but that rarely makes the headlines .
Most of the cases against airframe manufacturers fail. The transcripts
of these cases are public record and they make for interesting
reading. Usually better than the sensationalist BS you read in Flying
or AOPA Pilot. This might provide you with a new perspective. The
reasons for the decline in GA are many and it is much too simplistic
(But kinda fun) to blame laywers. I did alot of upper division Law
coursework in college and was headed for Law school before I decided
to become an airline pilot. I studied many Liability and Tort cases
against airplane manufactures and the earliest ones I found dated back
to the 1920s. They peaked in the 70s. Look some of these up, they are
interesting.
FB
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:35:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >So what is your beef, then?
> >
>
> With people who forget that education is a partnership bewteen a
> school and the parent.

don't forget the student.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>>> Lawyers are, by their very nature of the job, persuasive. Do you think
>>>> they can't persuade some grieving or naive party that they have been
>>>> "harmed" to a proper extent?
>>>>
>>>> Hell, look at the poverty pimps and similar ner-do-wells.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can
>>> be shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of
>>> the case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH
>>> times!
>>>
>>> So much for the justice part of the legal equation! Let's hear it for
>>> SALESMANSHIP!!!! :-))
>>
>> And now you know why so many stopped calling it the "Justice System" and
>> now refer to it as the "Legal System". It's all in "gaming the system".
>>
>>
>>
> Actually I've known this for a VERY long time :-)))

Quite!
The rest, the sheeple, are a few decades behind.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Dec 2, 3:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation
>> a lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
>> conclusion;
>>
>> To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.
>
> I think the blame lies with those pop up ads on the internet.
> Seriously though, it is a chicken and egg question between greedy
> plantifs or greedy lawyers. In my opinion the (Respective) State Bar
> has way too much influence over the courts. Most people base their
> knowlege of the Tort system on sensationalistic headlines. Probably
> 90% of jury awards (The McDonalds case, The Ford Pinto case, etc) get
> substantially reduced on appeal, but that rarely makes the headlines .
> Most of the cases against airframe manufacturers fail. The transcripts
> of these cases are public record and they make for interesting
> reading. Usually better than the sensationalist BS you read in Flying
> or AOPA Pilot. This might provide you with a new perspective. The
> reasons for the decline in GA are many and it is much too simplistic
> (But kinda fun) to blame laywers. I did alot of upper division Law
> coursework in college and was headed for Law school before I decided
> to become an airline pilot. I studied many Liability and Tort cases
> against airplane manufactures and the earliest ones I found dated back
> to the 1920s. They peaked in the 70s. Look some of these up, they are
> interesting.
> FB
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

It's true the issue is quite complex and as such assigning it a single
failure statement might be excessive.
I spent considerable time involved with flight safety issues including
active accident investigation. I've been exposed to a fairly wide
spectrum of these issues myself.
This being said, I believe I understand your point clearly and accept
some compromise on basic premise.
I am still left with the basic study of the litigation equation that
states several initiation assumptions;

The plaintiff can seek a law suit but no suit can occur without a lawyer.
This scenario can be either ethical or unethical, but if unethical, the
responsibility lies with the lawyer as by simple deduction, the
unethical suit can and should be refused by the lawyer regardless of the
insistence or incentive of the prospective client.

And this just covers the scenario where the plaintiff makes the initial
contact.

Now considering the second alternative; that being the lawyer actively
seeking a plaintiff and we have an unethical scenario by definition.
Lawyers seeking litigation are initiating or attempting to initiate an
action that requires a plaintiff. In seeking that plaintiff, I see a
clear violation of ethical standard.

Now take the worst case scenario, which by mere chance I am witnessing
tonight as we speak.
I just finished listening to a radio commercial where an attorney is
advertising for people to "become familiar" with a fact that "the credit
card companies don't want you to know"; that fact being that you can pay
the credit card company much LESS than you actually owe them with no
penalty. This attorney is actively seeking clients to defraud a credit
card company while making a fee for the service.
This type of lawyer advertising should be illegal but is allowed under
laws passed by the same lawyers doing the solicitation.
This behavior is well beyond the pail and is wide spread in the legal
community.
To me at least, it is THIS type of activity by the legal profession that
has taken the justice out of the system and replaced it with nothing
more or less than a pure legally sponsored money making machine.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt W. Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:55:00 -0500, B A R R Y
> > wrote:
>
>>Boots on the lifting surfaces, struts, prop, cargo pod leading edges,
>>and an inertial intake separator. The plane was also placarded on
>>the panel for imitations in operations in ice.
>
> Sorry... LIMITATIONS.

Okay...I was wondering of Rich Little became a pilot.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> I spent a night a few months ago trying to piece together the leg of a woman
> who had been injured in a car crash. (they are no longer called accidents).
>
> At around 4 AM, when we were finishing, I went to sign the paperwork and
> found a maroon folder with some brochures and cards from a local law firm!
> She was only a few hours out from her accident, and was still in the
> operating room, yet somehow one of the local personal injury lawyers had
> gotten the brochure into her chart!
>
> Talk about aggressive marketing!
>
>
I have a friend who's the Police Chief on our local police force. He
informs me that the lawyers have police scanners in their cars and in
many instances, the lawyers are on the scene soliciting business even
before the police can answer the call.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt W. Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:29:31 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> > wrote:
>>
>>Many times an "F" is deserved.
>
> I totally agree.
>
>>As many times the teacher would have also
>>gotten an "F". When they gave math teachers the same math tests, the
>>average
>>grade was 60%, with 70% being a failing grade. It's nearly the rule,
>>rather
>>than the exception.
>
> I'd like to read that. Where did you see it?

State of Arizona (run up to AMES tests) where my Bro-in-laws kids tests were
held off for four years until the teachers could pass them or re-write the
tests.

> Remember, teaching
> programs and educational requirements vary greatly from state to
> state.

And just how much difference is there from the "best" states, to the worst?

>
>>Would it make schools less likely to
>>spread Global Warming bull****?
>
> I'm with ya' there.

And that's just one example of many, such as "diversity", racism, sexism,
etc., not to mention revisionist history, modern math, "progressive"
politics as the only answer.

Ask your wife what she knows about Thomas Mann, the "father of American
public schools" and what he wanted to accomplish, or John Dewey.

It's been said that schools are not doing a bad job..they're doing exactly
what they were set up to do over 160 years ago and locked in during the
early 1900's. Unfortunately, teaching kids to reason, engage in critical
thinking, use inductive and deductive reasoning is NOT the agenda.

==
Sitting on my desk I found a cite concerning Horace Mann, the Common School,
and development from the Prussian school in an extensive chapter from a
textbook used in undergraduate education classes at my university. The title
of the text is "School & Society: Educational Practice as

Social Expression", (1993) McGraw-Hill, Publishers, ISBN: 0-07-557043-2

Selected quotes from pages 53-70"

p. 55: "Among the wide variety of educational topics addressed by Mann
during his tenure as Secretary [of the Massachusetts State Board], perhaps
the most significant were school buildings, moral values, the example of
Prussian education,discipline, teachers, and the economic value of
education"

p. 59 "He was first introduced to Prussian schools by [popular] reports of
their successes. The Prussian system had been organized in the 1820s along a
model recommended by Johann Frichte, the German philosopher, during the
Napoleonic occupation of Prussia. Fichte's proposals were designed to
develop Prussian nationalism and a nation strong enough to unite the German
states for world leadership. By the mid-1830s the Prussian experiment had
excited educators in western Europe and the United States.

p. 60 "The system was class-based and consisted of two separate tiers of
schooling. The tier for the aristocratic class. . .was academically
oriented.. . .The tier for the common people. . .was compulsory. Its goal
was to develop patriotic citizens. . .In addition to loyalty and obedience
to authority, it provided basic literacy and numeracy. Most of the graduates
went directly into the work force.

Loyalty and obedience, not initiative or critical thinking, were the goals
for training the common people. As Fichte had written on education, "If you
want to influence him at all, you must do more than merely talk to him. You
must fashion him, and fashion him in such a way that he cannot will
otherwise than you wish him to will".

....The Prussian *volkschule* (the common tier) evoked Mann's most
enthusiastic response. . .he was not completely oblivious to the dangers
inherent in using institutions designed for an authoritarian society as
models for a democracy, but he quickly dismissed these dangers as
inconsequential."

p. 65: "The Secretary's [Mann] arguments were persuasive because of the
different messages they carried to various segments of his constituency. To
the workingman, the message was: send your children to school so they may
become rich. Employers were advised that the common schools would provide
them with workers who were not only more productive, , but also docile,
easily managed, and unlikely to resort to strikes or violence."

p. 67..."While Mann was emphasizing the intellectual results of common
schooling, his industrial supporters were emphasizing the enculturation of a
value system amenable to industrialized factory life"

p. 70...Mann, however, unlike Jefferson, was not driven by fear of tyranny,
but by fear of social disorder and moral decay. . . .While Mann believed he
was advocating education for religious and republican virtue, some of his
contemporaries argued that he was instead instituting a system of social
control"

=====================

You may check this book out for yourself to guarantee that I have not
selectively quoted out of context.

This is just Thomas Mann. Here's Dewey:

"The mere absorbing of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an
affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no
obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no
clear social gain in success thereat." --John Dewey

Read some educational history, it's just simply a well-known fact about the
origins of our present educational system and it's predominant principles!

[F. Baum]

On Dec 2, 5:39 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
>
> If his argumentation here is any indication, it's no small wonder we now
> have the better part of two generations that completely bonkers. If we note
> the propensity of so many to make childish excuses, it's because they had
> extensive exposure to that mindset in what we call their "teachers". Many of
> these folks should be in padded rooms, not school rooms.- Hide quoted text -
>

Fjuck me dude !This is brilliant !

[F. Baum]

On Dec 2, 5:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can
> be shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of
> the case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!

And you believed this. Sounds like machizmo gloating to me. Were you
at a bar? )
>
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Dec 2, 5:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can
>> be shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of
>> the case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!
>
> And you believed this. Sounds like machizmo gloating to me. Were you
> at a bar? )
>>

No. I was in fact attending a luncheon at the Naval Test Pilot School.
The comment came from the a professional associate of mine; a graduate
of a major university law school.
We did however show up at a bar later on in the day for some "attitude
adjustment."

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Its possible that public schools could be eliminated entirely if the
number of people who cannot afford private schools is not large. Low
income families could then be given coupons paid for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools. All this
assumes that if public schools are eliminated gradually, private
schools will spring up to fill a market need and the total costs are
going to be the same in the long run but with a better quality of
education. Taxes would also need to be adjusted to reflect the fact
that the government is no longer funding public schools.

On Dec 2, 5:26 pm, kontiki > wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > So teaching in the public schools is responsible (even indirectly) for the
> > decline in GA.
>
> > THAT is the biggest streach I believe I have ever seen on this newsgroup,
> > even from MX.
>
> I won't bother to insult your lack of proofreading (as you did to me)
> because I am capable of understanding and then debating a point in
> spite of a minor typo someone happened to make while expressing and
> impassioned response.
>
> I am not saying there are not some good (albeit frustrated) teachers
> in the public schools. But that does not justify the system itself...
> it is in fact very flawed. The same is true of government... it is ver
> flawed and corrupt but there may be a few good ones out there.
>
>
>
> >> People like to shoot the messenger but its a fact.
>
> > People shoot messengers when they are full of sh*t, and so dense they don't
> > realize they are full of sh*t.
>
> > Sheesh!
>
> I can see that you are incapable of discussing this concept within
> the contraints of logic alone but rather must resort to personal
> insults. I do understand that so much of this subject is sensitive
> to you because it involves the career you have chosen.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 2, 8:50 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in messagenews:qdk6l35sjc8gpa98jtbh0t7u5v1puc7o4h@4ax .com...
>
> > On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:29:31 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>Many times an "F" is deserved.
>
> > I totally agree.
>
> >>As many times the teacher would have also
> >>gotten an "F". When they gave math teachers the same math tests, the
> >>average
> >>grade was 60%, with 70% being a failing grade. It's nearly the rule,
> >>rather
> >>than the exception.
>
> > I'd like to read that. Where did you see it?
>
> State of Arizona (run up to AMES tests) where my Bro-in-laws kids tests were
> held off for four years until the teachers could pass them or re-write the
> tests.
>
> > Remember, teaching
> > programs and educational requirements vary greatly from state to
> > state.
>
> And just how much difference is there from the "best" states, to the worst?
>
>
>
> >>Would it make schools less likely to
> >>spread Global Warming bull****?
>
> > I'm with ya' there.
>
> And that's just one example of many, such as "diversity", racism, sexism,
> etc., not to mention revisionist history, modern math, "progressive"
> politics as the only answer.
>
> Ask your wife what she knows about Thomas Mann, the "father of American
> public schools" and what he wanted to accomplish, or John Dewey.
>
> It's been said that schools are not doing a bad job..they're doing exactly
> what they were set up to do over 160 years ago and locked in during the
> early 1900's. Unfortunately, teaching kids to reason, engage in critical
> thinking, use inductive and deductive reasoning is NOT the agenda.
>
> ==
> Sitting on my desk I found a cite concerning Horace Mann, the Common School,
> and development from the Prussian school in an extensive chapter from a
> textbook used in undergraduate education classes at my university. The title
> of the text is "School & Society: Educational Practice as
>
> Social Expression", (1993) McGraw-Hill, Publishers, ISBN: 0-07-557043-2
>
> Selected quotes from pages 53-70"
>
> p. 55: "Among the wide variety of educational topics addressed by Mann
> during his tenure as Secretary [of the Massachusetts State Board], perhaps
> the most significant were school buildings, moral values, the example of
> Prussian education,discipline, teachers, and the economic value of
> education"
>
> p. 59 "He was first introduced to Prussian schools by [popular] reports of
> their successes. The Prussian system had been organized in the 1820s along a
> model recommended by Johann Frichte, the German philosopher, during the
> Napoleonic occupation of Prussia. Fichte's proposals were designed to
> develop Prussian nationalism and a nation strong enough to unite the German
> states for world leadership. By the mid-1830s the Prussian experiment had
> excited educators in western Europe and the United States.
>
> p. 60 "The system was class-based and consisted of two separate tiers of
> schooling. The tier for the aristocratic class. . .was academically
> oriented.. . .The tier for the common people. . .was compulsory. Its goal
> was to develop patriotic citizens. . .In addition to loyalty and obedience
> to authority, it provided basic literacy and numeracy. Most of the graduates
> went directly into the work force.
>
> Loyalty and obedience, not initiative or critical thinking, were the goals
> for training the common people. As Fichte had written on education, "If you
> want to influence him at all, you must do more than merely talk to him. You
> must fashion him, and fashion him in such a way that he cannot will
> otherwise than you wish him to will".
>
> ...The Prussian *volkschule* (the common tier) evoked Mann's most
> enthusiastic response. . .he was not completely oblivious to the dangers
> inherent in using institutions designed for an authoritarian society as
> models for a democracy, but he quickly dismissed these dangers as
> inconsequential."
>
> p. 65: "The Secretary's [Mann] arguments were persuasive because of the
> different messages they carried to various segments of his constituency. To
> the workingman, the message was: send your children to school so they may
> become rich. Employers were advised that the common schools would provide
> them with workers who were not only more productive, , but also docile,
> easily managed, and unlikely to resort to strikes or violence."
>
> p. 67..."While Mann was emphasizing the intellectual results of common
> schooling, his industrial supporters were emphasizing the enculturation of a
> value system amenable to industrialized factory life"
>
> p. 70...Mann, however, unlike Jefferson, was not driven by fear of tyranny,
> but by fear of social disorder and moral decay. . . .While Mann believed he
> was advocating education for religious and republican virtue, some of his
> contemporaries argued that he was instead instituting a system of social
> control"
>
> =====================
>
> You may check this book out for yourself to guarantee that I have not
> selectively quoted out of context.
>
> This is just Thomas Mann. Here's Dewey:
>
> "The mere absorbing of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an
> affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no
> obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no
> clear social gain in success thereat." --John Dewey
>
> Read some educational history, it's just simply a well-known fact about the
> origins of our present educational system and it's predominant principles!

MxMatt, I am facinated how you can deduece that the current state of
education in this country rests ENTIRELY on some guy who held office
167 years ago. And to think he predicted what to teach our kids about
global warming ! Priceless. This is right up there with your theory
that Hillary Clinton is gonna corner the market on Avgas and jack up
the price.

[Aluckyguess]

Half the kids don't speak English. That makes it tuff on everyone. I think
that's the biggest problem.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"kontiki" > wrote

> Yes, its a huge problem that tends to feed on itself. But before
> any solution can be attained there must first be a recognition
> that a problem exists and an understanding of the nature of
> the problem. Then there must be the ability to use some critical
> thinking (i.e. thinking outside the box) that most people lack.
>
> I submit that this is to a significant degree due to the fact that
> it is not taught or even encouraged in the current education system.
> There are other factors of course, but I our education system is
> probably the most important one. If someone is not educated enough
> to recognize that a problem exists there can never be a solution.

I seriously doubt that you are more than slightly aware of the goals of
thinking styles that are being taught, or encouraged.

If your paragraph (in context) is attempting to state that critical
thinking, (i.e. thinking outside the box) is not being taught, or even
encouraged, then you are quite wrong.

Perhaps you could suggest a curriculum to achieve these goals better than
what is being done today.

Straighten us out. Please tell us what we are not doing right. You will
get plenty of people listening, I'm sure. If you can not do this, then you
are just another person with all of the problems and no solutions, which
does nobody any good.

It is easy to criticize, but hard to fix.

Oh, and by the way; you are quick to jump me for making personal attacks.
My words pale compared to Mat B's. No criticism for him?
--
Jim in NC

[F. Baum]

On Dec 2, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> F. Baum wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 3:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation
> >> a lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
> >> conclusion;
>
> >> To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.
>
> > I think the blame lies with those pop up ads on the internet.
> > Seriously though, it is a chicken and egg question between greedy
> > plantifs or greedy lawyers. In my opinion the (Respective) State Bar
> > has way too much influence over the courts. Most people base their
> > knowlege of the Tort system on sensationalistic headlines. Probably
> > 90% of jury awards (The McDonalds case, The Ford Pinto case, etc) get
> > substantially reduced on appeal, but that rarely makes the headlines .
> > Most of the cases against airframe manufacturers fail. The transcripts
> > of these cases are public record and they make for interesting
> > reading. Usually better than the sensationalist BS you read in Flying
> > or AOPA Pilot. This might provide you with a new perspective. The
> > reasons for the decline in GA are many and it is much too simplistic
> > (But kinda fun) to blame laywers. I did alot of upper division Law
> > coursework in college and was headed for Law school before I decided
> > to become an airline pilot. I studied many Liability and Tort cases
> > against airplane manufactures and the earliest ones I found dated back
> > to the 1920s. They peaked in the 70s. Look some of these up, they are
> > interesting.
> > FB
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> It's true the issue is quite complex and as such assigning it a single
> failure statement might be excessive.
> I spent considerable time involved with flight safety issues including
> active accident investigation. I've been exposed to a fairly wide
> spectrum of these issues myself.
> This being said, I believe I understand your point clearly and accept
> some compromise on basic premise.
> I am still left with the basic study of the litigation equation that
> states several initiation assumptions;
>
> The plaintiff can seek a law suit but no suit can occur without a lawyer.
> This scenario can be either ethical or unethical, but if unethical, the
> responsibility lies with the lawyer as by simple deduction, the
> unethical suit can and should be refused by the lawyer regardless of the
> insistence or incentive of the prospective client.
>
> And this just covers the scenario where the plaintiff makes the initial
> contact.
>
> Now considering the second alternative; that being the lawyer actively
> seeking a plaintiff and we have an unethical scenario by definition.
> Lawyers seeking litigation are initiating or attempting to initiate an
> action that requires a plaintiff. In seeking that plaintiff, I see a
> clear violation of ethical standard.
>
> Now take the worst case scenario, which by mere chance I am witnessing
> tonight as we speak.
> I just finished listening to a radio commercial where an attorney is
> advertising for people to "become familiar" with a fact that "the credit
> card companies don't want you to know"; that fact being that you can pay
> the credit card company much LESS than you actually owe them with no
> penalty. This attorney is actively seeking clients to defraud a credit
> card company while making a fee for the service.
> This type of lawyer advertising should be illegal but is allowed under
> laws passed by the same lawyers doing the solicitation.
> This behavior is well beyond the pail and is wide spread in the legal
> community.
> To me at least, it is THIS type of activity by the legal profession that
> has taken the justice out of the system and replaced it with nothing
> more or less than a pure legally sponsored money making machine.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Im not denying that you have plenty of ambulence chasers out there. It
is far too simplistic to judge an entire profesion on a few shysters.
My only point was that if you get beyond the hype and read a few legal
briefs or court procedings, it gets kinda interesting. Accident
investigation and a liability trial are two separate things.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 2, 9:17 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> No. I was in fact attending a luncheon at the Naval Test Pilot School.
> The comment came from the a professional associate of mine; a graduate
> of a major university law school.
> We did however show up at a bar later on in the day for some "attitude
> adjustment."
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

You didnt answer my question ;).
Of course I am sure the guy was a very good lawyer and there is some
truth to what he says. But there are many influences such as juries,
statutes, and precidents that can affect the outcome of a case.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Dec 2, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> F. Baum wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 3:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation
>>>> a lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
>>>> conclusion;
>>>> To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.
>>> I think the blame lies with those pop up ads on the internet.
>>> Seriously though, it is a chicken and egg question between greedy
>>> plantifs or greedy lawyers. In my opinion the (Respective) State Bar
>>> has way too much influence over the courts. Most people base their
>>> knowlege of the Tort system on sensationalistic headlines. Probably
>>> 90% of jury awards (The McDonalds case, The Ford Pinto case, etc) get
>>> substantially reduced on appeal, but that rarely makes the headlines .
>>> Most of the cases against airframe manufacturers fail. The transcripts
>>> of these cases are public record and they make for interesting
>>> reading. Usually better than the sensationalist BS you read in Flying
>>> or AOPA Pilot. This might provide you with a new perspective. The
>>> reasons for the decline in GA are many and it is much too simplistic
>>> (But kinda fun) to blame laywers. I did alot of upper division Law
>>> coursework in college and was headed for Law school before I decided
>>> to become an airline pilot. I studied many Liability and Tort cases
>>> against airplane manufactures and the earliest ones I found dated back
>>> to the 1920s. They peaked in the 70s. Look some of these up, they are
>>> interesting.
>>> FB
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>> It's true the issue is quite complex and as such assigning it a single
>> failure statement might be excessive.
>> I spent considerable time involved with flight safety issues including
>> active accident investigation. I've been exposed to a fairly wide
>> spectrum of these issues myself.
>> This being said, I believe I understand your point clearly and accept
>> some compromise on basic premise.
>> I am still left with the basic study of the litigation equation that
>> states several initiation assumptions;
>>
>> The plaintiff can seek a law suit but no suit can occur without a lawyer.
>> This scenario can be either ethical or unethical, but if unethical, the
>> responsibility lies with the lawyer as by simple deduction, the
>> unethical suit can and should be refused by the lawyer regardless of the
>> insistence or incentive of the prospective client.
>>
>> And this just covers the scenario where the plaintiff makes the initial
>> contact.
>>
>> Now considering the second alternative; that being the lawyer actively
>> seeking a plaintiff and we have an unethical scenario by definition.
>> Lawyers seeking litigation are initiating or attempting to initiate an
>> action that requires a plaintiff. In seeking that plaintiff, I see a
>> clear violation of ethical standard.
>>
>> Now take the worst case scenario, which by mere chance I am witnessing
>> tonight as we speak.
>> I just finished listening to a radio commercial where an attorney is
>> advertising for people to "become familiar" with a fact that "the credit
>> card companies don't want you to know"; that fact being that you can pay
>> the credit card company much LESS than you actually owe them with no
>> penalty. This attorney is actively seeking clients to defraud a credit
>> card company while making a fee for the service.
>> This type of lawyer advertising should be illegal but is allowed under
>> laws passed by the same lawyers doing the solicitation.
>> This behavior is well beyond the pail and is wide spread in the legal
>> community.
>> To me at least, it is THIS type of activity by the legal profession that
>> has taken the justice out of the system and replaced it with nothing
>> more or less than a pure legally sponsored money making machine.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Im not denying that you have plenty of ambulence chasers out there. It
> is far too simplistic to judge an entire profesion on a few shysters.
> My only point was that if you get beyond the hype and read a few legal
> briefs or court procedings, it gets kinda interesting. Accident
> investigation and a liability trial are two separate things.

I think what it boils down to is that opinions about professions are
formed by people operating within the structure of those professions.
My opinion has been formed over many years of exposure and will remain
unchanged. I do however, respect the fact that there will always be
those with perfectly viable opinions of their own.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt W. Barrow]

"aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> Half the kids don't speak English. That makes it tuff on everyone. I think
> that's the biggest problem.

And 3/4ths of them are native born.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Dec 2, 9:17 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> No. I was in fact attending a luncheon at the Naval Test Pilot School.
>> The comment came from the a professional associate of mine; a graduate
>> of a major university law school.
>> We did however show up at a bar later on in the day for some "attitude
>> adjustment."
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> You didnt answer my question ;).
> Of course I am sure the guy was a very good lawyer and there is some
> truth to what he says. But there are many influences such as juries,
> statutes, and precidents that can affect the outcome of a case.

Absolutely; all of these factors are directly influenced by lawyers. In
fact, none of them exist without lawyers.

I have no issue at all with you having an opposing opinion. Past a
certain point of disagreement I just don't feel the need to justify my
position to you or anyone else and I'm making no attempt at all to have
you justify your argument to me.
These issues are totally opinion based. I simply have an opinion. I
don't feel it necessary to justify or argue the reason I have this opinion.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Dudley Henriques > writes:
> To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.

Another take: in Canada, this problem of frivolous lawsuits does not
exist to anywhere near the degree that it exists in the US.

Why? In Canada if you want to file a lawsuit, you have to hire a
lawyer. And pay them. They must be paid the same amount, whether
they win or they lose. (I think you can sue for legal fees -- but if
you lose that lawsuit, you now have to pay your lawyer for that too.)
If you can't afford a lawyer, and you have been wronged, you can apply
for legal aid -- and the most worthy of those applicants will get a
free lawyer.

The net result: plaintiffs won't sue unless they stand a good chance
of winning. Lawyers don't go sniffing for business on longshot cases.
Insurance rates are much lower. The courts are less busy. The
downside of this system: if you are poor and are wronged, it is
somewhat harder to get compensated. But for some reason it all seems
to work out just fine...

So perhaps the problem in the US is neither the plaintiffs or the
lawyers, but the system itself -- it rewards bad behaviour, and as
long as it does this then the unethical plaintiffs and lawyers will
continue to be attracted to these rewards.

Chris

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Al" > wrote > Time out, sports fans.
>
> Don't blame the schools.
>
> Where are the parents????
> Want to see the biggest problem in America's education system? Look in
> the mirror.
>
> Get involved with your kids. Get involved with your schools. Be part of
> the solution. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and be a Monday morning
> quarterback.
>
> -end rant-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks Al

Truer words never spoken. You said it much more eloquently than I can. I
_am_ personally involved, and see all that you mentioned every day, and
more. It makes me angry, nearly every day. Sometimes I can't help but to
get a little over-revved.

Just a couple more things I'll mention that you didn't.

Want to see racism? Look at the parents. I am floored by some of the
attitudes I see, and then I meet the parents. The nut doesn't fall far from
the tree.

I would never dream of that type of behavior, or talk. I really didn't know
there were really people still like that, until I started teaching.

Another one.

How about destruction of other people's property? Kids try to break
something, just to see if they can "tear it up." Even very sturdy things
that are built to take a good bit of abuse, like professional grade power
tools, costing hundreds of dollars. (I teach construction, or carpentry;
what ever you want to call it) They do usually figure out a way to break
them, after a while.

They know it is wrong, because they are sneaky and do it while you are not
looking. Then they laugh about it, thinking it is hilarious. That is how I
usually know they have done something destructive, and start investigating
until I figure out what they were up to. How did this get started? Ever
see "Jackass TV?" The title says it all; kids acting like jackasses.
There are many shows on like that now. Tapes are made of stuff getting
broken, just for fun.

It is not limited to property, but to other people, also. Look on U-tube.

I was looking at something on U-tube the other day, and drift got me to
where kids were doing stuff to hurt other kids, just for fun. I saw one,
where a kid chased one of his buddies through a door that you could not see
through, and someone was on the other side of the door waiting for him.
They had removed the back of a swivel type desk chair, you know - a hard
back with padding on it for the small of your back and up a little, with a
steel flat bar to connect it to the seat portion. The kid swung that at the
other persons FACE as hard as he could. It was so hard that it knocked the
other one backwards off his feet. A very bloody nose resulted, and I would
be VERY surprised if his nose was not broken. Funny stuff, huh?

I put much of the blame on TV shows and tapes like that for this type of
destructive and abusive behavior. They sit around thinking about ways to
top what they saw. Again, they usually succeed.

Where are the parents to teach values about respect for other people, and
respect for other people's property? Teachers can not teach all of that at
school; it has to happen at home. On the whole it is, but there are way too
many examples of kids that are not getting the values, somehow, and it is
obvious.

If someone did something like that at school and got caught, (probably
wouldn't - planning and lookouts would prevent that - this tape I mentioned
with the bloody nose looked like it might have been at school, by the way)
he would get a few days vacation. Oh, I meant suspension. Same thing, to
the kid.

Where is the punishment that would mean something, like a severely bruised
ass. I guarantee, when I was a kid, that would have happened, and I would
have gotten double when I got home. That was my parent's policy. Guess
what? I never tested that policy.

Again, I would never have dreamed of doing of things like that. Values
taught at home, not at school. Such behaviors are now an almost daily
occurrence.

There is more, but you did get what you mentioned, dead on. Exactly right.

Again, thanks.

People, listen to him, not to me, if you wish. He said it like it is.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

>>>So what is your beef, then?
>>>
>>
>> With people who forget that education is a partnership bewteen a
>> school and the parent.
>>
>
> And that is the fault of the schools how?

According to Matt B. it is because the parents that don't get involved are
products of the public schools, and the teachers are mostly stupid, because
they are products of the public schools.

I don't buy it. There are always exceptions, though.

Matt is constant, that is one fact. His story never changes away from a
very narrow stance.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>
>>
>> What does economic education have to do with leaning about a hopelessly
>> screwed up justice system have to do with the price of beans in China?
>
> If you have to ask that question then you are one of the victims.

Educate me, then.

The question is what relevance economic education has to a broken justice
system.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> If you have to ask that question then you are one of the victims.
>
> Or one of the causes.

Yeah, Matt. I confess. I'm a prime example of all the failings of public
education. All the problems rolled up into one ball.

I don't know how I can live with myself.

Not.
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > writes:
>> To me, it's obvious that the ultimate blame lies with the lawyers.
>
> Another take: in Canada, this problem of frivolous lawsuits does not
> exist to anywhere near the degree that it exists in the US.
>
> Why? In Canada if you want to file a lawsuit, you have to hire a
> lawyer. And pay them. They must be paid the same amount, whether
> they win or they lose. (I think you can sue for legal fees -- but if
> you lose that lawsuit, you now have to pay your lawyer for that too.)
> If you can't afford a lawyer, and you have been wronged, you can apply
> for legal aid -- and the most worthy of those applicants will get a
> free lawyer.
>
> The net result: plaintiffs won't sue unless they stand a good chance
> of winning. Lawyers don't go sniffing for business on longshot cases.
> Insurance rates are much lower. The courts are less busy. The
> downside of this system: if you are poor and are wronged, it is
> somewhat harder to get compensated. But for some reason it all seems
> to work out just fine...
>
> So perhaps the problem in the US is neither the plaintiffs or the
> lawyers, but the system itself -- it rewards bad behaviour, and as
> long as it does this then the unethical plaintiffs and lawyers will
> continue to be attracted to these rewards.
>
> Chris

Brian;

I always have had a soft spot for our Canadian friends. You folks are
just good people up there. It was my honor to be invited to fly with
your Snowbirds as their guest and the time I spent with the team was
some of the best time I've spent in professional aviation.

Your post here has logic and I agree with what you have said. The system
is indeed bad down here and in need of drastic reform. It is truly
unfortunate that those we would entrust to reform it are those most
affected by any reforms.
I honestly believe that these much needed reforms will never see the
light of day, and it truly saddens me as an American to have had this
opinion forced upon me by those I would much rather have respected as
I've made my way through life.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote

> She was only a few hours out from her accident, and was still in the
> operating room, yet somehow one of the local personal injury lawyers had
> gotten the brochure into her chart!
>
> Talk about aggressive marketing!

I hope you did the proper thing, with non medical material found in a chart.

Even that will not do any good, but make you feel better. He will be back,
in person.

Oh, and I hope that patient walks again with no pain or other side
effects... or you could be the next target, whether you did anything wrong,
or not.

But you already know that, and pay the insurance to protect yourself against
the lawyers.

All of this does bring up a good question, that you may or may not be able
to answer-depending on the billing structure or how your practice is set up.

What is the percentage cost of the malpractice insurance you carry versus
the physician's charges, and perhaps you would know how much the total
hospital malpractice insurance costs versus all of the hospital's charges?

I would be fascinated to know, and I think many others here would surprised
to know the figures, too.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:08:16 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>On Dec 2, 4:37 pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>
>> The Cessna Model 208 and 208B Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH) and
>> FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)Supplement S1 "Known Icing
>> Euipment" begs to differ.
>
> Does it? I haven't seen one, but another paragraph in the
>Transport Canada document hints that flight (of suitably equipped
>airplanes) into known ice is still legal:
>
>"2) Exercise caution when dispatching into, or operating in forecast
>or known icing conditions along an intended route. Use all available
>resources (weather forecast, Air Traffic Services, PIREPS, etc.) to
>ascertain the presence of icing conditions. Reports of icing
>conditions should be considered to be prohibitive where those
>conditions meet or exceed the definition of moderate or greater icing
>conditions for the Cessna Caravan C208 airplanes as defined in
>applicable ADs, AFMs and AMOCs."

I was replying to someone who said the Caravan is NOT certified for
flight into known icing. Obviously when properly equipped and in
compliance with the various ADs it is.

As for Para 2 above, that's pretty boilerplate. None of the turboprop
aircraft I'm aware of are certified for flight into known continuous
severe icing or freezing rain, which is basically what that paragraph
says. It doesn't remove the known ice certification, just limits the
upper limit of the icing it can be flown in.

[kontiki]

wrote:
> Its possible that public schools could be eliminated entirely if the
> number of people who cannot afford private schools is not large. Low
> income families could then be given coupons paid for by taxpayer money
> that can be redeemed for education in private schools. All this
> assumes that if public schools are eliminated gradually, private
> schools will spring up to fill a market need and the total costs are
> going to be the same in the long run but with a better quality of
> education. Taxes would also need to be adjusted to reflect the fact
> that the government is no longer funding public schools.
>

Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in
:

> On Dec 2, 8:50 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> "B A R R Y" > wrote in
>> messagenews:qdk6l35sjc8gpa98jtbh0t7u5v1puc7o4h@4ax .com...
>>
>> > On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:29:31 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> >>Many times an "F" is deserved.
>>
>> > I totally agree.
>>
>> >>As many times the teacher would have also
>> >>gotten an "F". When they gave math teachers the same math tests,
>> >>the average
>> >>grade was 60%, with 70% being a failing grade. It's nearly the
>> >>rule, rather
>> >>than the exception.
>>
>> > I'd like to read that. Where did you see it?
>>
>> State of Arizona (run up to AMES tests) where my Bro-in-laws kids
>> tests were held off for four years until the teachers could pass them
>> or re-write the tests.
>>
>> > Remember, teaching
>> > programs and educational requirements vary greatly from state to
>> > state.
>>
>> And just how much difference is there from the "best" states, to the
>> worst?
>>
>>
>>
>> >>Would it make schools less likely to
>> >>spread Global Warming bull****?
>>
>> > I'm with ya' there.
>>
>> And that's just one example of many, such as "diversity", racism,
>> sexism, etc., not to mention revisionist history, modern math,
>> "progressive" politics as the only answer.
>>
>> Ask your wife what she knows about Thomas Mann, the "father of
>> American public schools" and what he wanted to accomplish, or John
>> Dewey.
>>
>> It's been said that schools are not doing a bad job..they're doing
>> exactly what they were set up to do over 160 years ago and locked in
>> during the early 1900's. Unfortunately, teaching kids to reason,
>> engage in critical thinking, use inductive and deductive reasoning is
>> NOT the agenda.
>>
>> ==
>> Sitting on my desk I found a cite concerning Horace Mann, the Common
>> School, and development from the Prussian school in an extensive
>> chapter from a textbook used in undergraduate education classes at my
>> university. The title of the text is "School & Society: Educational
>> Practice as
>>
>> Social Expression", (1993) McGraw-Hill, Publishers, ISBN:
>> 0-07-557043-2
>>
>> Selected quotes from pages 53-70"
>>
>> p. 55: "Among the wide variety of educational topics addressed by
>> Mann during his tenure as Secretary [of the Massachusetts State
>> Board], perhaps the most significant were school buildings, moral
>> values, the example of Prussian education,discipline, teachers, and
>> the economic value of education"
>>
>> p. 59 "He was first introduced to Prussian schools by [popular]
>> reports of their successes. The Prussian system had been organized in
>> the 1820s along a model recommended by Johann Frichte, the German
>> philosopher, during the Napoleonic occupation of Prussia. Fichte's
>> proposals were designed to develop Prussian nationalism and a nation
>> strong enough to unite the German states for world leadership. By the
>> mid-1830s the Prussian experiment had excited educators in western
>> Europe and the United States.
>>
>> p. 60 "The system was class-based and consisted of two separate tiers
>> of schooling. The tier for the aristocratic class. . .was
>> academically oriented.. . .The tier for the common people. . .was
>> compulsory. Its goal was to develop patriotic citizens. . .In
>> addition to loyalty and obedience to authority, it provided basic
>> literacy and numeracy. Most of the graduates went directly into the
>> work force.
>>
>> Loyalty and obedience, not initiative or critical thinking, were the
>> goals for training the common people. As Fichte had written on
>> education, "If you want to influence him at all, you must do more
>> than merely talk to him. You must fashion him, and fashion him in
>> such a way that he cannot will otherwise than you wish him to will".
>>
>> ...The Prussian *volkschule* (the common tier) evoked Mann's most
>> enthusiastic response. . .he was not completely oblivious to the
>> dangers inherent in using institutions designed for an authoritarian
>> society as models for a democracy, but he quickly dismissed these
>> dangers as inconsequential."
>>
>> p. 65: "The Secretary's [Mann] arguments were persuasive because of
>> the different messages they carried to various segments of his
>> constituency. To the workingman, the message was: send your children
>> to school so they may become rich. Employers were advised that the
>> common schools would provide them with workers who were not only more
>> productive, , but also docile, easily managed, and unlikely to resort
>> to strikes or violence."
>>
>> p. 67..."While Mann was emphasizing the intellectual results of
>> common schooling, his industrial supporters were emphasizing the
>> enculturation of a value system amenable to industrialized factory
>> life"
>>
>> p. 70...Mann, however, unlike Jefferson, was not driven by fear of
>> tyranny, but by fear of social disorder and moral decay. . . .While
>> Mann believed he was advocating education for religious and
>> republican virtue, some of his contemporaries argued that he was
>> instead instituting a system of social control"
>>
>> =====================
>>
>> You may check this book out for yourself to guarantee that I have not
>> selectively quoted out of context.
>>
>> This is just Thomas Mann. Here's Dewey:
>>
>> "The mere absorbing of facts and truths is so exclusively individual
>> an affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness.
>> There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere
>> learning, there is no clear social gain in success thereat." --John
>> Dewey
>>
>> Read some educational history, it's just simply a well-known fact
>> about the origins of our present educational system and it's
>> predominant principles!
>
> MxMatt, I am facinated how you can deduece that the current state of
> education in this country rests ENTIRELY on some guy who held office
> 167 years ago.



Yeah, everyone knows it was Clinton and the Chinese.


And to think he predicted what to teach our kids about
> global warming ! Priceless. This is right up there with your theory
> that Hillary Clinton is gonna corner the market on Avgas and jack up
> the price.
>

The bitch!

Actually, th eglobsal warming debate goes back a startlingly long way.
Couple of hundred years, in fact.

One of the problems the the "deniers", if you will excuse the term,
have, is that they are often looking at experiments done small scale in
isolation a very long time ago.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>>>>So what is your beef, then?
>>>>
>>>
>>> With people who forget that education is a partnership bewteen a
>>> school and the parent.
>>>
>>
>> And that is the fault of the schools how?
>
> According to Matt B. it is because the parents that don't get
> involved are
> products of the public schools, and the teachers are mostly stupid,
> because they are products of the public schools.
>
> I don't buy it. There are always exceptions, though.
>
> Matt is constant, that is one fact. His story never changes away from
> a very narrow stance.

Hey I'm trolling him here! Find your own corner!

Two more posts and I'd have had him calling me Mussolini.


Bertie

[kontiki]

Morgans wrote:
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Morgans wrote:
>>
>>> What does economic education have to do with leaning about a hopelessly
>>> screwed up justice system have to do with the price of beans in China?
>> If you have to ask that question then you are one of the victims.
>
> Educate me, then.
>
> The question is what relevance economic education has to a broken justice
> system.

I really find it fascinating that you don't see any connection or
think that they are linked.

A few years back my name came up for jury duty. I showed up at
the courthouse in the morning as ordered. Eventually I was placed
in a group that would be culled out for a trial involving a
lawsuit against a contractor. The group of us sat there and
answered questions from both attorneys regarding what we did
for a living, what our level of education was and a few others.

I can tell you that anyone involved at any level in any engineering
field was curt from the jury (I was one of those). After that
anyone in construction or who owned a business was cut. What was
left were a a couple of school teachers and house wives.

It was clear that the attorneys wanted no independent thinkers
in that jury. They wanted a group of people with little ability
to understand what the hell they were talking about so they
could appeal to the emotions of jury and not have deal with
any education or judgments based upon direct experience.

I've said enough about all of this. As I stated if you don't
see how all of this is connected today, in 2007 then there really
is no hope.

[kontiki]

Morgans wrote:

>
> Perhaps you could suggest a curriculum to achieve these goals better than
> what is being done today.
>
In fact I could if I wanted to take the time. In fact, alternatives
have already been proposed and being used as we speak in private
schools around the country. But they certainly aren't ones where
government has role to play, other than as subject matter for learning.

> Straighten us out. Please tell us what we are not doing right. You will
> get plenty of people listening, I'm sure. If you can not do this, then you
> are just another person with all of the problems and no solutions, which
> does nobody any good.
>

Lets have real school choice nationwide. Let parents have the money
they are paying in taxes so they can send their kids to private
schools if they want. That's step number one. Get rid of teacher's
lobbies like the NEA... if they are all so dedicated to education why
do they need to be spending so much money lobbying congress?
Wouldn't that money be better spent in the actual education process?
Or how about just higher salaries for the good teachers?

> It is easy to criticize, but hard to fix.
>
Not really hard at all.

> Oh, and by the way; you are quick to jump me for making personal attacks.
> My words pale compared to Mat B's. No criticism for him?

I was only pointing that out in response to how quick you were to
focus on a typo in my post... as if a single typing mistake (I
am no typist, I admit) negates any validity to my posts.

[kontiki]

Morgans wrote:
>>>> So what is your beef, then?
>>>>
>>> With people who forget that education is a partnership bewteen a
>>> school and the parent.
>>>
>> And that is the fault of the schools how?
>
> According to Matt B. it is because the parents that don't get involved are
> products of the public schools, and the teachers are mostly stupid, because
> they are products of the public schools.
>
It is true. Another factor is that so many families today have
both parents working... just to make ends meet and to pay taxes
to support the government programs that are created or expanded
every year (to wit: no idiot left behind [as if better education
can be legislated into reality]). I still can't honestly
come up with something the government does well.... besides
spend other people's money.

> I don't buy it. There are always exceptions, though.
>
> Matt is constant, that is one fact. His story never changes away from a
> very narrow stance.

Perhaps his story is based on principle. Principles don't
don't change with polls or political expedient.

[kontiki]

F. Baum wrote:

> I have volunteered at my kids schools for years . I was impressed by
> how hard most of these people work ( and for a fraction of the $$$
> most of us make.

Have you looked at how much money is spent for administration
in public schools? Its massive... and very top heavy. In many
school systems there are more "administrative" employees than
there are teachers. Big fancy buildings and salaries for these
folks not to mention the millions spent to lobby congress.

> I have seen them cussed out by students and parents,
> some of whom never spend any time personally fostering thier kids
> education. Instead of pointing uot the systems faults (And your silly
> views of what caused them, why dont you roll up your sleeves and
> volunteer.
> FB
>

Why don't some of these highly paid administrators get off their
a$$es and get to work. And besides... the parents of today are
failed products of the wonderful public school systems. What
can you expect from them.

[Tina]

Bertie, the professional literature in the 60s was forming a consensus
for global cooling.

Predictions change as observations and science improves.


And, by the way, it would be gentlemanly of you to share your Mx
bashing pleasure. Greed is so unbecoming of you.

[[email protected]]

So..., Cessna should then sue the parents for faulty parenting in not
properly teaching their son to make safe decisions such as choosing to
go flying with a pilot who ignores the operating limitations of the
aircraft, and thus harming the reputation of Cessna as the aircraft's
maker.

This lawsuit would make better sense to me than the parents' suit
against Cessna.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"kontiki" > wrote

> I've said enough about all of this. As I stated if you don't
> see how all of this is connected today, in 2007 then there really
> is no hope.
>
In other words, you don't know. If you did, it would be easy to state.

All mouth, no substance. Just like your hero, MX
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> Lets have real school choice nationwide. Let parents have the money
> they are paying in taxes so they can send their kids to private
> schools if they want. That's step number one. Get rid of teacher's
> lobbies like the NEA... if they are all so dedicated to education why
> do they need to be spending so much money lobbying congress?
> Wouldn't that money be better spent in the actual education process?
> Or how about just higher salaries for the good teachers?

We have school choice here in Iowa City, to a degree. We may enroll
our kids in any school in the district, so long as we can figure out a
way to deliver them each morning. (Well, this year they curtailed
that practice between the high schools, because one side of town is
growing way faster than the other.)

This works okay, to a degree -- but one result is all the bad kids
(AKA: The ones without caring parents) end up in the same schools.
All the good parents move their kids OUT of the bad schools.

This, of course, leads to other problems. High teacher turnover/
burnout becomes a real problem. You would think more resources would
be poured into the bad schools, but because the student count drops,
they actually get LESS money, unless extraordinary efforts are made.

Because of the totally screwed up employer/employee relations between
administators and teachers, there is little hope of a solution coming
from that quarter. The teacher's union stands in the way of
innovation -- union contracts don't permit too much in the way of
experimentation with staffing -- and the administrators are just as
bad or worse.

"Administrator" is just a fancy name for "bureaucrat" -- and by their
nature bureacrats do not want anything to change, unless it means more
money and less work. These bureacrats, therefore, appointed by our
elected school boards and supposedly safeguarding the People's money
by working in their best interest, end up working in collusion with
the teachers unions to make sure that nothing actually changes. In
the end these two forces -- seemingly in conflict -- tend to work
together to ensure that no solutions are forthcoming.

Throwing private schools into the mix of "school choice" -- without
fixing the underlying conflicting interests in this employee-employer
relationship -- would be a disaster, IMHO. And that's just not going
to happen in today's political climate.

Which, of course, brings us back to where we started -- and are
stuck.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I still can't honestly
> come up with something the government does well.... besides
> spend other people's money.

Small-town local governments occasionally function well. Once a city
grows beyond ~25,000 people, everything gets dicey.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[kontiki]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> This works okay, to a degree -- but one result is all the bad kids
> (AKA: The ones without caring parents) end up in the same schools.
> All the good parents move their kids OUT of the bad schools.
>
Hmmm market forces at work? Perish the thought!

> This, of course, leads to other problems. High teacher turnover/
> burnout becomes a real problem. You would think more resources would
> be poured into the bad schools, but because the student count drops,
> they actually get LESS money, unless extraordinary efforts are made.
>
And there has been the solution... throw more money in a black hole.
Sigh... we can't save everyone. Try as we might (and it has been tried)
we can't make everyone equal... unless of course we just dumb everyone
down to the lowest common denominator. Not a plan for building a great
country (much less a great economy). I'm not being cruel, those are
simply the facts and submit human history as my evidence. Darwin's
theory can only be subverted for just so long... until the money
runs out.

> Because of the totally screwed up employer/employee relations between
> administators and teachers, there is little hope of a solution coming
> from that quarter. The teacher's union stands in the way of
> innovation -- union contracts don't permit too much in the way of
> experimentation with staffing -- and the administrators are just as
> bad or worse.
>

I'd fire 'em... get rid of the department of education. What business
is it of the FEDERAL government to get involved in education anyway?
Where in the Constitution is that function assigned? Sounds like
Communism to me. Same thing with 'Universal Health Care" (something
to look forward to I guess).


> "Administrator" is just a fancy name for "bureaucrat" -- and by their
> nature bureacrats do not want anything to change, unless it means more
> money and less work. These bureacrats, therefore, appointed by our
> elected school boards and supposedly safeguarding the People's money
> by working in their best interest, end up working in collusion with
> the teachers unions to make sure that nothing actually changes. In
> the end these two forces -- seemingly in conflict -- tend to work
> together to ensure that no solutions are forthcoming.
>
Agreed.

> Throwing private schools into the mix of "school choice" -- without
> fixing the underlying conflicting interests in this employee-employer
> relationship -- would be a disaster, IMHO. And that's just not going
> to happen in today's political climate.
>

Disagree. Sorry... the private sector will do a better job and
results prove it. Government schools are the disaster.

But you are right... it won't happen in todays political environment
because the average voter is too stupid. After all, they went to
government schools.

[kontiki]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I still can't honestly
>> come up with something the government does well.... besides
>> spend other people's money.
>
> Small-town local governments occasionally function well. Once a city
> grows beyond ~25,000 people, everything gets dicey.

An excellent argument for smaller government.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
> It is true. Another factor is that so many families today have
> both parents working... just to make ends meet and to pay taxes
> to support the government programs that are created or expanded
> every year (to wit: no idiot left behind [as if better education
> can be legislated into reality]). I still can't honestly
> come up with something the government does well.... besides
> spend other people's money.
>
>> I don't buy it. There are always exceptions, though.
>>
>> Matt is constant, that is one fact. His story never changes away from a
>> very narrow stance.
>
> Perhaps his story is based on principle. Principles don't
> don't change with polls or political expedient.

And facts don't change.

The problems with public education are myriad, but mostly systematic and
epistemological.

Yes, many teachers are stupid. Perhaps the vast majority. Thomas Sowell, who
has been studying the problem for almost 40 years, found that over 75% of
teachers came from the bottom quartile of their graduating classes. We've
heard a few people talking about how dedicated many teachers are, but
dedication does not impart one bit of knowledge or ability. Odd, isn't it,
that teachers and make that distinction?

Morgan's story never changes and it's right out of the AFT playbook. He's a
shill and a damn ignorant one at that.

He's the idiot that didn't discern my quoting Alexis d'Touqueville's
"Democracy in America", and ignorantly shoved his foot in his mouth right up
to the knee. If he is in any way indicative of teachers, it makes no
difference how much money they get, or how attentive the parents are (his
typical juvenile brat excuse), a dozen electricians won't be able to fix
your plumbing. It debased at the fundamental level.

Note, too, how attentive the kids are when being force-fed environmental
propaganda, post-modernist drivel like "diversity" and the like, and leftist
political indoctrination. In fact, it's that post-modernist track that's
part and parcel of the public schools failure.

On the other side of the coin, the Montessori program (which were banned by
Hitler and Mussolini in their respective countries, for obvious reasons)
teach kids how to think, to conceptualize and abstract. Kids learn to teach
themselves new things and develop a proper adult maturity. If you notice
some people in the 30's, 40's and older that evidently have grey hair and
middle-age spreads around the belt, but think and carry on like teenagers,
it's a good bet they never had such instruction when young.

[randall g]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>> This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
>> does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
>> their jaundiced eye.
>
>I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
>your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
>against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?


The woman was seriously injured and spent 8 days in hospital getting
skin grafts. That McD's had been selling super hot coffee for some time
and had previous warnings. This case did have merit and I believe the
woman did not get rich from it either.




randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Matt W. Barrow]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> I still can't honestly
>>> come up with something the government does well.... besides
>>> spend other people's money.
>>
>> Small-town local governments occasionally function well. Once a city
>> grows beyond ~25,000 people, everything gets dicey.
>
> An excellent argument for smaller government.
>
Perhaps.

But the large the population, the more likely there exists a subset that
thinks government should "do things for them", that they should be doing
themselves, like providing recreation, educating their kids...

A bigger city is just statistically more likely to have those folks.

I'm often amazed at how many people, out here in the west, moved here from
back east or California "..because the taxes were so high!", but within a
couple years are whining that "back in xxxxx, the city did this for us and
that for us...". They just can't figure it out. Normally, the original
locals find such dependence irritating, but eventually get voted down at
holding the line.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:

>>
>> So perhaps the problem in the US is neither the plaintiffs or the
>> lawyers, but the system itself -- it rewards bad behaviour, and as
>> long as it does this then the unethical plaintiffs and lawyers will
>> continue to be attracted to these rewards.
>>
....
>
> Your post here has logic and I agree with what you have said. The system
> is indeed bad down here and in need of drastic reform. It is truly
> unfortunate that those we would entrust to reform it are those most
> affected by any reforms.
> I honestly believe that these much needed reforms will never see the light
> of day, and it truly saddens me as an American to have had this opinion
> forced upon me by those I would much rather have respected as I've made my
> way through life.

The problem with the system is that rule of law has been debased and people
who run the system have learned how to "game the system". The system, as
devised, is fine. People though, have learned to ignore the parts that are
"inconvenient" (amongst other factors). In some places they call this
"corruption".

[Matt W. Barrow]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Its possible that public schools could be eliminated entirely if the
>> number of people who cannot afford private schools is not large. Low
>> income families could then be given coupons paid for by taxpayer money
>> that can be redeemed for education in private schools.

Been tires...doesn't work. It doesn't work because government still has
those schools by the jewels and to a great extent defines curriculum and
method.

>All this
>> assumes that if public schools are eliminated gradually, private
>> schools will spring up to fill a market need and the total costs are
>> going to be the same in the long run but with a better quality of
>> education. Taxes would also need to be adjusted to reflect the fact
>> that the government is no longer funding public schools.

How about just having a straight tax CREDIT for school costs, regardless of
what school a parents kids attend?

>>
>
> Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
> choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
> is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
> but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
> mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).

Yet you want tax funded education? He who pays sets the rules. Ain't got to
happen and wouldn't if the teacher unions fell asleep and it somehow passed.

[Matt W. Barrow]

> Morgans wrote:
>
>> Straighten us out. Please tell us what we are not doing right. You will
>> get plenty of people listening, I'm sure. If you can not do this, then
>> you are just another person with all of the problems and no solutions,
>> which does nobody any good.

People, such as John Taylor Gatto (former NYC "Teacher of the Year"),
Sheldon Richman, Thomas Sowell, etc, have making these points for years.
Listening? What a laugh!

It's obvious the education establishment only wants solutions that keep
themselves in power and the teachers feeding at the public trough.

Morgans, your lithium prescription has evidently run out.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"randall g" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck >
> wrote:
>
>>> This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
>>> does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
>>> their jaundiced eye.
>>
>>I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
>>your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
>>against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
>
>
> The woman was seriously injured and spent 8 days in hospital getting
> skin grafts. That McD's had been selling super hot coffee for some time
> and had previous warnings.

They had a few requests, not warning, after selling tens of millions of
cups.

> This case did have merit and I believe the
> woman did not get rich from it either.


I guess someone being stupid has merit for you. That's appropriate:
birds-of-a-feather and all that.

[kontiki]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

>
>> Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
>> choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
>> is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
>> but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
>> mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).
>
> Yet you want tax funded education? He who pays sets the rules. Ain't got to
> happen and wouldn't if the teacher unions fell asleep and it somehow passed.
>
>
>

What? I never said I favor tax funded education. Personally I think
everyone should be responsible for their _own_ children's education
and not expect other people to pay for it. (of course that would
never happen because it requires people to assume responsibility for
their own life and that is politically incorrect in this day and age)
The straight tax credit is an excellent way to go, but also requires
assumes people will accept responsibility for their own and their
children's life and we know people are used to the government doing
that.


I was simply applauding the previous posters idea because it
has a lot of merit and certainly a hell of a lot better than the
way we things are done now.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>>> Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
>>> choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
>>> is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
>>> but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
>>> mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).
>>
>> Yet you want tax funded education? He who pays sets the rules. Ain't got
>> to happen and wouldn't if the teacher unions fell asleep and it somehow
>> passed.
>>
>>
>>
>
> What? I never said I favor tax funded education.

Umm.." girish" said, "Low income families could then be given coupons paid
for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools."

And you said, "Bingo! That is exactly how it should work."

Operative word: "exactly"

To me, that sounds like you agree.

> Personally I think
> everyone should be responsible for their _own_ children's education
> and not expect other people to pay for it. (of course that would
> never happen because it requires people to assume responsibility for
> their own life and that is politically incorrect in this day and age)
> The straight tax credit is an excellent way to go, but also requires
> assumes people will accept responsibility for their own and their
> children's life and we know people are used to the government doing
> that.
>
>
> I was simply applauding the previous posters idea because it
> has a lot of merit and certainly a hell of a lot better than the
> way we things are done now.

Quite.

If you can't feed, clothe, provide for their education, provide for thei
health care, etc., for you kids, don't have them. Don't make them parasites
at the public trough.

[kontiki]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

>
> Umm.." girish" said, "Low income families could then be given coupons paid
> for by taxpayer money
> that can be redeemed for education in private schools."
>
> And you said, "Bingo! That is exactly how it should work."
>

Read his post in its entirety. You are focusing on one sentence
which takes out its context. I don't like any government welfare
programs... or income taxes actually. But there ways to improve
the way things are done now with a goal toward phasing out and
completely eliminating the nanny state entirely at some future time.

That was the gist of his post... at least as I read it.

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...

> They had a few requests, not warning, after selling tens of millions of
> cups.
>

I heard somehwhere, I have no idea where, so cannot backup this up, that
Mickey D's had their own 'consultants' tell them their coffee was being
served too hot.

I don't buy coffee there. It's too damn hot. (begin a cheap *******, I
usually make my own anyway)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in news:ffe1625f-3791-4bad-8f88-
:

> Bertie, the professional literature in the 60s was forming a consensus
> for global cooling.


Yes, I know.

>
> Predictions change as observations and science improves.
>
>
> And, by the way, it would be gentlemanly of you to share your Mx
> bashing pleasure. Greed is so unbecoming of you.


Oh I'm not greedy at all. I just like a bit of room when I tke a swing.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in news:ffe1625f-3791-4bad-8f88-
:

> Bertie, the professional literature in the 60s was forming a consensus
> for global cooling.
>
> Predictions change as observations and science improves.
>




I wouldn't be exactly what you might call "new" to this argument, but if we
get started on it here this group will become a subdivision of
alt.global.warming, a ski chalet for alt.usenet kooks and a toilet for teh
meowers.
Trust me here. I know of whence I speak.

I like arguing this one in different venues than this, but usually don't
use the bunyip handle much whilst doing so.

Anyhow, here's one of the better explanations out there of what I meant and
this guy says it so much better than I ever could anyway.. .

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-
argument/


At the end of the day I might be wrong, but here's a question for you;
If you were to point a gun to your head which you thought was empty and I
were to point out to you that I might see a glimmer of a slug in the
chamber, do you think you might have a look in the chamber before you
pulled the trigger based on my say-so?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

kontiki > wrote in news:b1Y4j.21813$B25.17352
@news01.roc.ny:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> I still can't honestly
>>> come up with something the government does well.... besides
>>> spend other people's money.
>>
>> Small-town local governments occasionally function well. Once a city
>> grows beyond ~25,000 people, everything gets dicey.
>
> An excellent argument for smaller government.
>
>
>

No it isn't. That's not an argument at all!

It's a throwaway Will Rogers cracker barrel wannabe statement that even
Will Rogers would have ****ed on.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> You need to look at the specifics of the case. There is hot, and there
> is HOT. She reasonably expected hot, but was served HOT.
>
> Had she spilled hot coffee, she would have learned to be more careful,
> but she would not have had extensive injuries. She spilled HOT coffee,
> which caused extensive injuries.

Ah, reasoning only a lawyer could love. Or concoct.

I've been drinking coffee for over 35 years. To my knowledge, unless
you're buying one of those $4.00 iced mocha latte espresso
abominations from Starbucks, everyone expects coffee to be hot. In
fact it is HOT. The HOTTER, the better.

Coffee drinkers know this from experience. Non-coffee-drinkers often
know this as well, through a quality known as "common sense" --
something the jury clearly did not possess or recognize.

> Further, McDonalds had been warned repeatedly (I think there had even
> been prior incidents) that their coffee was TOO HOT and chose to serve
> it that way anyway, knowing that it could easily cause unexpected
> injuries. It could reasonably be argued that this hidden danger was
> reckless disregard for human safety.

"Reasonable" is clearly in the eye of the beholder. In this case, the
jurors decided to "stick it to da man" (AKA: The big corporation with
deep pockets) without regard to common sense.

In the absence of any kind of structural failure (as in the cup
bursting open) most people would blame the "operator" -- which, in the
case of the McDonald's coffee spill was the woman. In the case of
the Cessna crash, the "operator" was the pilot -- although I'm sure
the attorneys will do whatever they can to show that the Caravan
failed in some basic way.

Everyone feels bad that the woman spilled hot coffee on her privates.
I've heard that she required reconstructive surgery to her nether
regions -- something that surely no one would want to endure. I feel
sorry for her -- but she spilled the coffee on herself. In this, she
was the "operator" -- and she blew it.

In much the same way, I feel bad for the Caravan pilot who died. I'm
sure he suffered horribly during those last few moment. Sadly, he was
the "operator" -- and he blew it.

The skydivers who died, on the other hand, may have a case against the
operator. They were merely passengers in the plane that (apparently)
the pilot flew into weather neither he nor the aircraft could
handle.

Of course, money isn't going to help them anymore.

The heirs of these passengers, on the other hand, *may* have a case
against the "operator" -- the pilot. In the absence of some sort of
basic structural flaw in the Caravan, however, stretching the case to
punish the maker of the vessel in which they were flying seems rather
ludicrous -- and I hope common sense will prevail in a way that did
NOT occur in the McDonald's case.

> Since there are so many stupid (IMHO) judgements, the good judgements
> that look stupid on the surface get thrown into the same bin. And (lest
> we tar lawyers unfairly for this), it is the job of the lawyer to be
> persuasive - and the job of the other lawyer to do the same. The
> JUDGEMENT is rendered by.... (wait for it).... a Judge. (Sometimes a jury).
>
> THAT is where the problem is.

I think we can all agree with that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
:

>> You need to look at the specifics of the case. There is hot, and
>> there is HOT. She reasonably expected hot, but was served HOT.
>>
>> Had she spilled hot coffee, she would have learned to be more
>> careful, but she would not have had extensive injuries. She spilled
>> HOT coffee, which caused extensive injuries.
>
> Ah, reasoning only a lawyer could love. Or concoct.
>
> I've been drinking coffee for over 35 years. To my knowledge, unless
> you're buying one of those $4.00 iced mocha latte espresso
> abominations from Starbucks, everyone expects coffee to be hot. In
> fact it is HOT. The HOTTER, the better.



Aaaangh!

Wrong.

You'll burn it if you get it over about 185 degrees.

And starbucks makes mud flavored ****water.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Yes - I have a name" > wrote in news:3PZ4j.4090
$6k1.3271@trndny02:

> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> They had a few requests, not warning, after selling tens of millions of
>> cups.
>>
>
> I heard somehwhere, I have no idea where, so cannot backup this up, that
> Mickey D's had their own 'consultants' tell them their coffee was being
> served too hot.
>
> I don't buy coffee there. It's too damn hot.


I wouldn't buy it there for the simple reason it's ****ing McDonalds!


Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>> Umm.." girish" said, "Low income families could then be given coupons
>> paid for by taxpayer money
>> that can be redeemed for education in private schools."
>>
>> And you said, "Bingo! That is exactly how it should work."
>>
>
> Read his post in its entirety.

I have. It's not out of context all all. That one sentence is the key. His
"solution" relies on the schools putting pressure on the public schools.
It's foundation, in some places is called "vouchers". It gives lower income
people access to privat eschools, but is not a long-term solution to
anything else.

> You are focusing on one sentence
> which takes out its context. I don't like any government welfare
> programs... or income taxes actually. But there ways to improve
> the way things are done now with a goal toward phasing out and
> completely eliminating the nanny state entirely at some future time.
>
> That was the gist of his post... at least as I read it.

Any program that relies on taxpayer funded anything, at any phase, is not
going to do away with the nanny state. It is only going to stall and create
a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that will never disappear.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Yes - I have a name" > wrote in message
news:3PZ4j.4090$6k1.3271@trndny02...
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> They had a few requests, not warning, after selling tens of millions of
>> cups.
>>
>
> I heard somehwhere, I have no idea where, so cannot backup this up, that
> Mickey D's had their own 'consultants' tell them their coffee was being
> served too hot.

And when they tired lowering the temp, they had customer complaints that it
got cold too fast.

> I don't buy coffee there. It's too damn hot. (begin a cheap *******, I
> usually make my own anyway)

I don't buy anything at McD's and haven't for twenty years.

Not only is the food crap, but I don't want to subsidize Joan Croc, a far
out, goofy leftist.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Throwing private schools into the mix of "school choice" -- without
> fixing the underlying conflicting interests in this employee-employer
> relationship -- would be a disaster, IMHO. And that's just not going
> to happen in today's political climate.
>
> Which, of course, brings us back to where we started -- and are
> stuck.

The first thing that needs to happen is the abolishment of the local school
board system. Politics and education do not mix well.

Schools should be run by a panel of professional educators, with some
oversight by a panel of parents, to keep things honest.

Where would a business be if consumers of the product got to elect the board
controlling the company every two years.

Decisions are usually contrary to stability and consistency of the
educational process.

The other thing that needs to be done is get the educational professionals
out of the decision making loop that are not currently in the classroom.
Some of the people making decisions at the state and national school board
level are so out of touch with reality, that teachers still in the classroom
actually laugh at some of the programs they institute. The decisions they
make are so opposite to what is needed, laughing is all you can do, or you
will cry.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote

>
> It's obvious the education establishment only wants solutions that keep
> themselves in power and the teachers feeding at the public trough.
>
> Morgans, your lithium prescription has evidently run out.

Whatever. After a day at school, I'm far too tired to argue. You win.
You always do, because you are always right.

If anyone doesn't believe that, I'll tell them to ask you. You will tell
them how you are always right.
--
Jim in NC

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 3, 11:46 am, randall g > wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck >
> wrote:
>
> >> This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
> >> does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
> >> their jaundiced eye.
>
> >I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
> >your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
> >against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
>
> The woman was seriously injured and spent 8 days in hospital getting
> skin grafts. That McD's had been selling super hot coffee for some time
> and had previous warnings. This case did have merit and I believe the
> woman did not get rich from it either.
>
> randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RGhttp://www.telemark.net/randallg
> Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
> Vancouver's famous Kat Kam:http://www.katkam.ca

This was a fun case to study in law class. It was a classic example of
how to perfectly lose a case. There is nothing McD's could have done
better to lose that case. When the lady first got hurt, she wrote a
letter to McD's explaining what happened and asking for her medical
bills to be covered. McD's corporate office wrote back a very, very
nasty letter to her telling her "duh coffee is hot" and expressing
*NO* sympathy. If they had said "Sorry you were hurt, its not our
policy to pay for damages you incurred" or even just ignored her that
would be the end of it.
The lady then showed the nasty letter to her neighbor who showed it to
her attorney son. Her son took up the case soley based on the letter
McD's set back.
So the case goes to trial and they interview the McD's manager. The
attorney had just finished showing the jury images of the deformed
lady's "areas" and had just had shown all the surgeries the woman had
had to repair her damage. The McD's manager got up there and told the
jury "Sorry, coffee is not, get over it". Many scholars believe if he
had said "Damn that looks bad, I feel sorry for her, but our coffee is
hot", then the jury would have found in favor of McD's. In addition
the temp of the coffee was hotter than McD's policy.
-Robert

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote
>
> Yes, many teachers are stupid. Perhaps the vast majority.

> Morgan's story never changes and it's right out of the AFT playbook. He's
> a shill and a damn ignorant one at that.

And you sir, are a total ass that would not listen to reason if it was an
atom bomb going off inside his ear.

Keep living in your la-la land. Call me ignorant if you want, but I would
rather be know as that, than an ass.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Morgans wrote:
> The first thing that needs to happen is the abolishment of the local
> school board system. Politics and education do not mix well.
>
> Schools should be run by a panel of professional educators, with some
> oversight by a panel of parents, to keep things honest.

I have two problems with this. First, professional educators (read NEA) are
a big part of the problem. Second how are you going to have the parental
oversite without the elections? And if you only let parents run for the
offices or worse only let parents vote then you get into the whole taxation
without representation thing.

>
> Where would a business be if consumers of the product got to elect
> the board controlling the company every two years.

That is a problem with all elected governments.

>
> Decisions are usually contrary to stability and consistency of the
> educational process.
>
> The other thing that needs to be done is get the educational
> professionals out of the decision making loop that are not currently
> in the classroom. Some of the people making decisions at the state
> and national school board level are so out of touch with reality,
> that teachers still in the classroom actually laugh at some of the
> programs they institute. The decisions they make are so opposite to
> what is needed, laughing is all you can do, or you will cry.

Most school administrators come up from the ranks of teachers.

[Matt Whiting]

Yes - I have a name wrote:
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> They had a few requests, not warning, after selling tens of millions of
>> cups.
>>
>
> I heard somehwhere, I have no idea where, so cannot backup this up, that
> Mickey D's had their own 'consultants' tell them their coffee was being
> served too hot.
>
> I don't buy coffee there. It's too damn hot. (begin a cheap *******, I
> usually make my own anyway)

Well, a simple Google search shows that the ideal brewing temperature
for coffee is 200 degrees F give or take 5 degrees and the "holding"
temperature for coffee is 175 or higher. 175 will give you a wicked
burn and freshly brewed coffee could easily be 200 degrees. I
personally think McDonald's got shafted in this case and I've heard the
arguments on both sides MANY times.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=coffee+brewing+temperature+ideal&btnG=Google+Search

To me the degree of the injury was simply not relevant. Had the woman
not done something patently stupid, she would have had NO injury at all.
It isn't McDonald's fault that she did something stupid. And it isn't
Cessna's fault if a pilot does something stupid. I'm not saying that is
the case in this incident and we'll have to wait for the NTSB to give us
an idea where the stupidity lies.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:46 am, randall g > wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
>>>> does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
>>>> their jaundiced eye.
>>> I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
>>> your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
>>> against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
>> The woman was seriously injured and spent 8 days in hospital getting
>> skin grafts. That McD's had been selling super hot coffee for some time
>> and had previous warnings. This case did have merit and I believe the
>> woman did not get rich from it either.
>>
>> randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RGhttp://www.telemark.net/randallg
>> Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
>> Vancouver's famous Kat Kam:http://www.katkam.ca
>
> This was a fun case to study in law class. It was a classic example of
> how to perfectly lose a case. There is nothing McD's could have done
> better to lose that case. When the lady first got hurt, she wrote a
> letter to McD's explaining what happened and asking for her medical
> bills to be covered. McD's corporate office wrote back a very, very
> nasty letter to her telling her "duh coffee is hot" and expressing
> *NO* sympathy. If they had said "Sorry you were hurt, its not our
> policy to pay for damages you incurred" or even just ignored her that
> would be the end of it.
> The lady then showed the nasty letter to her neighbor who showed it to
> her attorney son. Her son took up the case soley based on the letter
> McD's set back.
> So the case goes to trial and they interview the McD's manager. The
> attorney had just finished showing the jury images of the deformed
> lady's "areas" and had just had shown all the surgeries the woman had
> had to repair her damage. The McD's manager got up there and told the
> jury "Sorry, coffee is not, get over it". Many scholars believe if he
> had said "Damn that looks bad, I feel sorry for her, but our coffee is
> hot", then the jury would have found in favor of McD's. In addition
> the temp of the coffee was hotter than McD's policy.
> -Robert

So you liability for something is based on how you respond to the
complaint? That is a very stupid principle. What if McDonald's had
told the truth and said we are sorry you are stupid, but being stupid is
often painful? If I walk in front of a semi on the interstate that will
hurt also. Is it the truck driver's fault or the truck maker's fault
that I got hurt?

Matt

[Clay[_2_]]

I got out of teaching because of the direction education was heading.
Many other highly talented professional educators retired early
also.
Corporal punishment worked when I went to school. Students learned,
classrooms were not in a steady state of kayos and teacher turn over
was low. No school shootings either.
I put most of the blame on the N.E.A and the ACLU. These
organizations have done more harm to this country than any foreign
military has ever done to the United States of America.
If someone is offended by this statement. GOOD. The truth hurts.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:46 am, randall g > wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
>>>> does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
>>>> their jaundiced eye.
>>> I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
>>> your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
>>> against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
>> The woman was seriously injured and spent 8 days in hospital getting
>> skin grafts. That McD's had been selling super hot coffee for some time
>> and had previous warnings. This case did have merit and I believe the
>> woman did not get rich from it either.
>>
>> randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RGhttp://www.telemark.net/randallg
>> Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
>> Vancouver's famous Kat Kam:http://www.katkam.ca
>
> This was a fun case to study in law class. It was a classic example of
> how to perfectly lose a case. There is nothing McD's could have done
> better to lose that case. When the lady first got hurt, she wrote a
> letter to McD's explaining what happened and asking for her medical
> bills to be covered. McD's corporate office wrote back a very, very
> nasty letter to her telling her "duh coffee is hot" and expressing
> *NO* sympathy. If they had said "Sorry you were hurt, its not our
> policy to pay for damages you incurred" or even just ignored her that
> would be the end of it.
> The lady then showed the nasty letter to her neighbor who showed it to
> her attorney son. Her son took up the case soley based on the letter
> McD's set back.
> So the case goes to trial and they interview the McD's manager. The
> attorney had just finished showing the jury images of the deformed
> lady's "areas" and had just had shown all the surgeries the woman had
> had to repair her damage. The McD's manager got up there and told the
> jury "Sorry, coffee is not, get over it". Many scholars believe if he
> had said "Damn that looks bad, I feel sorry for her, but our coffee is
> hot", then the jury would have found in favor of McD's. In addition
> the temp of the coffee was hotter than McD's policy.
> -Robert

This is an interesting summation.

Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, what you are saying here is that
the outcome of this trial can be directly laid at the feet of an
ill-advised reply by a single individual and a jury's interpretation of
this reply.

So the ACTUAL verdict wasn't based on any reasonable conception of
justice at all but rather the jury's reaction to the MacDonald's reply?

Interesting!! So the lawyer's success in litigating this case was not in
proving to the jury that this woman had suffered legitimate severe
damage that had truly hurt her and on THAT basis asking the jury to find
against MacDonald's, but rather it would seem the lawyers used her
damage simply as a tool to force the jury to compare the coldness of the
MacDonald's replies, thus building a case against MacDonalds in the
minds of the jury based on the attitude of the company rather than the
damage to the woman.
Interesting!
You just gotta love the "justice system" :-))

A wise man once said "In the United States justice system, you get just
about all the justice you can afford"



--
Dudley Henriques

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 3, 3:16 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:

> So you liability for something is based on how you respond to the
> complaint? That is a very stupid principle. What if McDonald's had
> told the truth and said we are sorry you are stupid, but being stupid is
> often painful? If I walk in front of a semi on the interstate that will
> hurt also. Is it the truck driver's fault or the truck maker's fault
> that I got hurt?

Yes. If remember anything from law school it was that anytime you go
to a jury trial the results will be unpredictable. They did establish
that McD's had a policy for what temp the coffee should be and that
the manager of this location did know it was higher than that, so you
could argue that the jury was interested in that too. However, you
have to remember that this was a case of someone being disfigured.
Jurys can be very emotional about that type of stuff.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> So you liability for something is based on how you respond to the
> complaint? That is a very stupid principle. What if McDonald's had
> told the truth and said we are sorry you are stupid, but being stupid is
> often painful? If I walk in front of a semi on the interstate that will
> hurt also. Is it the truck driver's fault or the truck maker's fault
> that I got hurt?

Nope, it is based on what the jury perceives is reality and who
they think deserves the sympathy.

If the defendant convices the jury he is a heartless asshole, the
plaintiff will probably win.

If the plaintiff convices the jury he is a babbling idiot and got
what he deserved for being so stupid, the defendant probably wins.

If McDonald's had responded with, gee we are sorry that you got hurt,
but fresh coffee is hot and you should be more carefull in the future
and here's some coupons for happy meals, the outcome would have likely
been very different.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:


>
> Any program that relies on taxpayer funded anything, at any phase, is
> not going to do away with the nanny state.


Yeah, we all need to build our own roads!


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 3, 3:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, what you are saying here is that
> the outcome of this trial can be directly laid at the feet of an
> ill-advised reply by a single individual and a jury's interpretation of
> this reply.

That was the lesson of this case. Regardless of how silly you think
someone's demands are you should always appear to have some sympathy.

> So the ACTUAL verdict wasn't based on any reasonable conception of
> justice at all but rather the jury's reaction to the MacDonald's reply?

Juries can do what they want. I think the combo of seeing the pictures
of the woman's deformity bothered the jury and then to see how callus
McD's was in responding to her made the jury mad. The verdict came
from anger in my opinion.

> Interesting!! So the lawyer's success in litigating this case was not in
> proving to the jury that this woman had suffered legitimate severe
> damage that had truly hurt her and on THAT basis asking the jury to find
> against MacDonald's, but rather it would seem the lawyers used her
> damage simply as a tool to force the jury to compare the coldness of the
> MacDonald's replies, thus building a case against MacDonalds in the
> minds of the jury based on the attitude of the company rather than the
> damage to the woman.
> Interesting!
> You just gotta love the "justice system" :-))

Again you are dealing with juries. Going to trial means you can't
predict the results. That is one reason so many companies are moving
to binding arbitration; because they get frustrated at the inconstancy
of jury trials.

Its a jury of our peers and they can be idiots. Look at OJ or many
aviation related cases to see that.

-Robert

[Al G[_1_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 11:46 am, randall g > wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds
>>>>> case
>>>>> does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of

snip...


> You just gotta love the "justice system" :-))
>
> A wise man once said "In the United States justice system, you get just
> about all the justice you can afford"
>
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques


Minor nit, Dudley, but I do believe it is a legal system. I think it
hasn't been a "Justice" system for some time.

Al G

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <> wrote

> I have two problems with this. First, professional educators (read NEA)
> are a big part of the problem.

I keep hearing "the union is the problem" mantra. Around here, the only
interaction we have with the NEA is the fact that they have good liability
insurance, and good legal programs if things really turn to **** for a
teacher. That's it. I'm not quite sure how much of an influence they are,
anywhere. They sure are not much, here.

> Second how are you going to have the parental oversite without the
> elections? And if you only let parents run for the offices or worse only
> let parents vote then you get into the whole taxation without
> representation thing.

Yeah, there are things to be worked out, for sure. The thing is, I don't
think parents should have real control over any situation, or they will end
up being a board of education with a different name, which is not what I
would want to see.

The whole point is that professional educators that know education should be
running the show, with parents giving guidance and sugestions, only. No
real power. If everyone says what we have is not working, why not try
something new?

> That is a problem with all elected governments. (talking about new people
coming on every two years)

Yes, but when the future of our next generation is at stake, we need
something better than what government as usual is giving us, don't you
think? Also, what I see from far too many board of education members, is
that they are there with an ax to grind, and that has no place in deciding
how our children are educated.

We need to see consistancy. The programs come and go so rapidly, no program
ever has a chance to succeed, before it is changed. Things take time to get
going, and see how they work. If they don't work, then change them, or toss
them out. Changing them because a new group has come on in control needs to
be changed.

> Most school administrators come up from the ranks of teachers.

It is remarkeable how quickly they forget what is going on in the
classroom.

It does help when they were a good teacher, I will admit. The very worst
administrators are the ones that went straight through to administration
without ever spending any time in the classroom.

I admit that I do not have all the answers on improving education, unlike
some others that have been spouting their own line of fertilizer. I do feel
I know what some of the problems are, however, and many other teachers and
people that are close to education have echoed some of the things I have
stated. We all can't be wrong, can we?

If I did have all of the answers, or a majority of them, I would not be
teaching construction in NC, but instead would be upwardly mobile in the
national education scene. I am confident that I know that some things I
have heard will not work, though.
--
Jim in NC

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 3, 3:45 pm, wrote:

> If McDonald's had responded with, gee we are sorry that you got hurt,
> but fresh coffee is hot and you should be more carefull in the future
> and here's some coupons for happy meals, the outcome would have likely
> been very different.

Funny, I'm thinking of insurance settlement checks that include a
"final settlement clause" on the endorsement line for the check.
Wouldn't it be funny to require that she endorse the free happy meal
coupons and that endorsement stated that this was a final settlement
of damages!! :)
Of course a jury may just ignore the settlement or a judge *may* rule
it as unconscionable, but it would be funny. "Look woman, you got your
damn happy meal, what more do you want from us?!" :)

-robert

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Al G wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>> On Dec 3, 11:46 am, randall g > wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds
>>>>>> case
>>>>>> does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
>
> snip...
>
>
>> You just gotta love the "justice system" :-))
>>
>> A wise man once said "In the United States justice system, you get just
>> about all the justice you can afford"
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Minor nit, Dudley, but I do believe it is a legal system. I think it
> hasn't been a "Justice" system for some time.
>
> Al G
>
>
Not a nit. I agree with you completely. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jose]

> I've been drinking coffee for over 35 years. To my knowledge, unless
> you're buying one of those $4.00 iced mocha latte espresso
> abominations from Starbucks, everyone expects coffee to be hot. In
> fact it is HOT. The HOTTER, the better.

I don't drink coffee. Feh. So perhaps the following words are just the
mindless rant of a putz. No matter. I have experience with drinking
other hot liquids, and I know people whose taste buds are so deranged
that they believe coffee is meant to be ingested orally.

I don't know whether we differ on the specifics (of hot water) or on the
principle of expectations, so let me ask you a different question - is
there =any= beverage which is supposed to be (and expected to be) served
hot, that should not be served (or drunk) boiling hot - that is, at 211
degrees Fahrenheit (372.6 degrees in a more civilized system)? If so,
and you were served that drink in a Styrofoam cup, expecting it to be at
its proper temperature, and through some user error spilled it on your
daughter, and only =then= found out that the liquid was =so= hot that it
would boil over if it were taken up in an elevator, then, even granted
that the error in handling was yours, would you not feel that you were
mislead into handling the beverage less carefully than you would have
had you known beforehand that it wasn't just hot, it was goddamn boiling
HOT? The difference being that an error that might have caused pain and
a lesson, instead causes serious injury and perhaps blindness?

Or consider shooting a rifle with cartridges that make it kick back with
such force that it breaks your shoulder. Now, rifles are =supposed= to
kick back, anybody who shoots knows this. But these particular
cartridges (the same type you've used before) generates enough force
that the rifle breaks your shoulder and the bullet goes into the next
county, hitting an accordion player. You expected =some= kickback, but
not =that= much. You could have braced yourself better, but thought
that these cartridges were just like the others that came in the same box.

In both cases we're dealing with expectations which influence one's
actions. Sometimes the difference between reasonable expectations and
what is actually delivered are sufficient to be actionable. However, in
all cases it is easy to ridicule.

>> The JUDGEMENT is rendered by.... (wait for it).... a Judge.
>> [...] THAT is where the problem is.
>
> I think we can all agree with that.

You think? It's much more entertaining to make fun of lawyers.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Dec 3, 3:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, what you are saying here is that
>> the outcome of this trial can be directly laid at the feet of an
>> ill-advised reply by a single individual and a jury's interpretation of
>> this reply.
>
> That was the lesson of this case. Regardless of how silly you think
> someone's demands are you should always appear to have some sympathy.
>
>> So the ACTUAL verdict wasn't based on any reasonable conception of
>> justice at all but rather the jury's reaction to the MacDonald's reply?
>
> Juries can do what they want. I think the combo of seeing the pictures
> of the woman's deformity bothered the jury and then to see how callus
> McD's was in responding to her made the jury mad. The verdict came
> from anger in my opinion.
>
>> Interesting!! So the lawyer's success in litigating this case was not in
>> proving to the jury that this woman had suffered legitimate severe
>> damage that had truly hurt her and on THAT basis asking the jury to find
>> against MacDonald's, but rather it would seem the lawyers used her
>> damage simply as a tool to force the jury to compare the coldness of the
>> MacDonald's replies, thus building a case against MacDonalds in the
>> minds of the jury based on the attitude of the company rather than the
>> damage to the woman.
>> Interesting!
>> You just gotta love the "justice system" :-))
>
> Again you are dealing with juries. Going to trial means you can't
> predict the results. That is one reason so many companies are moving
> to binding arbitration; because they get frustrated at the inconstancy
> of jury trials.
>
> Its a jury of our peers and they can be idiots. Look at OJ or many
> aviation related cases to see that.
>
> -Robert

I can't help but wonder what the situation would produce for a totally
innocent man charged with a crime he didn't commit standing in front of
a judge about to pass sentence on him saying to that judge;
"Judge, you are the most stupid, idiotic, and just plain ugly human
piece of trash I've ever seen in my entire life."

I have always wondered about making the case for complete and necessary
judicial objectivity based completely and only on the facts when the
facts are presented in a scenario displeasing to the power of the law.

:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Blueskies]

The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in
question did have boots."

So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice. If it is flown into icing conditions, but no
pireps reported ice, is the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?

[Blueskies]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message .. .

Amazing how far off topic this group can get...

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in
>question did have boots."
>
>So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice. If it is flown into icing conditions, but no
>pireps reported ice, is the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?

The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in
. net:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> Amazing how far off topic this group can get...
>
>

Is that a challenge?


Bertie

[Blueskies]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message ...
> "Blueskies" > wrote in
> . net:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>> Amazing how far off topic this group can get...
>>
>>
>
> Is that a challenge?
>
>
> Bertie

;-)

[Blueskies]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
> > wrote:
>
>>The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane
>>in
>>question did have boots."
>>
>>So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice. If it is flown into icing conditions, but no
>>pireps reported ice, is the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?
>
> The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
> procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
> can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
> specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
> Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
> delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
> known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
> took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
> known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."

Don't know, can't say. I do know some planes have boots et al and are still not certified for flight into *known* ice.
As soon as someone pireps 'ice' the plane cannot legally fly in..

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
> > wrote:
>
>>The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified
>>for flight into known ice, although the plane in question did have
>>boots."
>>
>>So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice.
>>If it is flown into icing conditions, but no pireps reported ice, is
>>the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?
>
> The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
> procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
> can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
> specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
> Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
> delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
> known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
> took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
> known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."
>



Might well be. I believe the airplane has had some issues with icing in the
past and I seem to recall some icing detection being made an additional
requirement for continued certification for flight into known icing
conditions. AFAIK it is certified for flight into known icing, but I know a
few guys who used to fly them and I'll ask them next time I see them.
I do remember them saying that they weren't impressed with it in icing ( I
think it has some problem with it's tail surfaces in icing) but I think it
is legal..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Yes - I have a name" > wrote in message
> news:3PZ4j.4090$6k1.3271@trndny02...
>> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> They had a few requests, not warning, after selling tens of millions
>>> of cups.
>>>
>>
>> I heard somehwhere, I have no idea where, so cannot backup this up,
>> that Mickey D's had their own 'consultants' tell them their coffee
>> was being served too hot.
>
> And when they tired lowering the temp, they had customer complaints
> that it got cold too fast.
>
>> I don't buy coffee there. It's too damn hot. (begin a cheap *******,
>> I usually make my own anyway)
>
> I don't buy anything at McD's and haven't for twenty years.
>
> Not only is the food crap, but I don't want to subsidize Joan Croc, a
> far out, goofy leftist.
>
>


She must be relling from the financial blow.



Bertie

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:04:47 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane
>>>in
>>>question did have boots."
>>>
>>>So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice. If it is flown into icing conditions, but no
>>>pireps reported ice, is the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?
>>
>> The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
>> procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
>> can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
>> specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
>> Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
>> delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
>> known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
>> took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
>> known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."
>
>Don't know, can't say. I do know some planes have boots et al and are still not certified for flight into *known* ice.
>As soon as someone pireps 'ice' the plane cannot legally fly in..

Yes, and those aircraft do not have TCDS entries et al covering flight
into known icing. They have POH supplements covering their
"Inadvertant icing exit equipment". But the Cessna Caravan type
certainly has known ice certification.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jose wrote:

> I don't know whether we differ on the specifics (of hot water) or on the
> principle of expectations, so let me ask you a different question - is
> there =any= beverage which is supposed to be (and expected to be) served
> hot, that should not be served (or drunk) boiling hot - that is, at 211
> degrees Fahrenheit (372.6 degrees in a more civilized system)? If so,
> and you were served that drink in a Styrofoam cup, expecting it to be at
> its proper temperature, and through some user error spilled it on your
> daughter, and only =then= found out that the liquid was =so= hot that it
> would boil over if it were taken up in an elevator, then, even granted
> that the error in handling was yours, would you not feel that you were
> mislead into handling the beverage less carefully than you would have
> had you known beforehand that it wasn't just hot, it was goddamn boiling
> HOT? The difference being that an error that might have caused pain and
> a lesson, instead causes serious injury and perhaps blindness?

This brings up an interesting hypothesis....involving ultimate
responsibility...personal responsibility......and responsibility based
on expectation.
There are several ways this scenario can be parsed. It is interesting to
note that an actual definition for the scenario is completely arbitrary
and subject to local standard be that legal or belief.
Personally, I favor the personal responsibility approach. Since the
actual temperature of the coffee is an unknown (and this is a given
since the drinker is not the supplier), the element of expectation can
be assumed, but is it correct? I say it isn't.
Since the temperature of the coffee will affect only the receiver and
not the supplier, there is a transaction involved in passing the hot
coffee from the supplier to the receiver.

Where lies the potential danger? To the receiver of course. Is it not
the receiver's DECISION to either accept or prove the actual temperature
of the coffee before COMMITTING to an act (drinking) involving the
coffee that can cause harm to the receiver? It's true the coffee in a
styrofoam cup is SUPPOSED to be the right temperature but it's ALSO true
that styrofoam can hide the actual temperature of what is contained in
the cup.
One side of the equation postulates that the receiver should be immune
from testing the temperature in the cup carefully before drinking based
on an assumption that the receiver's well being has been considered by
the supplier and thus the actual temperature of the coffee need not be
physically checked before committing the lips to whatever temperature is
inside the cup.
The other side of this equation postulates that the receiver has the
responsibility to ASSUME NOTHING as relates to his personal safety, thus
physically checking the temperature of the coffee before committing to
the lips.
It's an interesting conundrum, and the ultimate answer lies with
whatever the local authority dictates and in the case of damage,
whatever a lawyer can do to convince a jury.

The real rub in all this isn't the coffee or the award. It involves
issues much more complex than these mere factors. The REAL rub is in how
we as people choose to live out our lives; seeking protection from
things that can hurt us or taking the necessary steps to do all we can
to insure we don't get hurt.
I like the personal responsibility approach myself. I test the coffee
before I commit to my lips.
Perhaps education is the answer. Perhaps if we were better prepared to
take on life......perhaps if........... :-)))
>
> Or consider shooting a rifle with cartridges that make it kick back with
> such force that it breaks your shoulder. Now, rifles are =supposed= to
> kick back, anybody who shoots knows this. But these particular
> cartridges (the same type you've used before) generates enough force
> that the rifle breaks your shoulder and the bullet goes into the next
> county, hitting an accordion player.

This may very well be allowed under law. In almost every state, I
believe an argument can be made successfully for shooting an accordion
player :-))


You expected =some= kickback, but
> not =that= much. You could have braced yourself better, but thought
> that these cartridges were just like the others that came in the same box.
>
> In both cases we're dealing with expectations which influence one's
> actions. Sometimes the difference between reasonable expectations and
> what is actually delivered are sufficient to be actionable. However, in
> all cases it is easy to ridicule.

This is a little different scenario than the coffee cup. There is no way
to "test" the cartridge before pulling the trigger, therefore no lapse
in personal responsibility. In the cartridge we have a reasonable
expectation denied. The real difference is the lack of ability to test.
One could make the argument that firing the rifle and not getting the
expected response wasn't negligence since no test was available. The
only option would have been to not fire the rifle at all.
>
>>> The JUDGEMENT is rendered by.... (wait for it).... a Judge.
>>> [...] THAT is where the problem is.
>>
>> I think we can all agree with that.
>
> You think? It's much more entertaining to make fun of lawyers.
>
> Jose


--
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:07:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Peter Clark > wrote in
:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified
>>>for flight into known ice, although the plane in question did have
>>>boots."
>>>
>>>So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice.
>>>If it is flown into icing conditions, but no pireps reported ice, is
>>>the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?
>>
>> The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
>> procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
>> can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
>> specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
>> Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
>> delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
>> known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
>> took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
>> known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."
>
>
>Might well be. I believe the airplane has had some issues with icing in the
>past and I seem to recall some icing detection being made an additional
>requirement for continued certification for flight into known icing
>conditions. AFAIK it is certified for flight into known icing, but I know a
>few guys who used to fly them and I'll ask them next time I see them.
>I do remember them saying that they weren't impressed with it in icing ( I
>think it has some problem with it's tail surfaces in icing) but I think it
>is legal..

As previously mentioned, there are a bunch of ADs running around
mandating extra icing gear and procedures because of a number of
crashes involving Caravans and ice. From what I know, never having
flown one, they really don't seem do well in it, but that's a
different animal than a blanket statement that the Cessna Caravan type
does not have known ice certification.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 3, 6:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Peter Clark > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified
> >>for flight into known ice, although the plane in question did have
> >>boots."
>
> >>So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice.
> >>If it is flown into icing conditions, but no pireps reported ice, is
> >>the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?
>
> > The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
> > procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
> > can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
> > specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
> > Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
> > delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
> > known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
> > took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
> > known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."
>
> Might well be. I believe the airplane has had some issues with icing in the
> past and I seem to recall some icing detection being made an additional
> requirement for continued certification for flight into known icing
> conditions. AFAIK it is certified for flight into known icing, but I know a
> few guys who used to fly them and I'll ask them next time I see them.
> I do remember them saying that they weren't impressed with it in icing ( I
> think it has some problem with it's tail surfaces in icing) but I think it
> is legal..
>
> Bertie

According to http://www.fedex.com/us/about/today/companies/express/facts.html
FedEx operates 10 Caravan 208A'sand 243 208B's. If they weren't
certified for known ice there would be a lot of late packages. Weeks
late, sometimes.

Dan

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:07:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Peter Clark > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not
>>>>certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in question
>>>>did have boots."
>>>>
>>>>So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known
>>>>ice. If it is flown into icing conditions, but no pireps reported
>>>>ice, is the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?
>>>
>>> The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
>>> procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing.
>>> How can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing?
>>> What specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that
>>> the Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
>>> delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
>>> known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
>>> took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
>>> known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."
>>
>>
>>Might well be. I believe the airplane has had some issues with icing
>>in the past and I seem to recall some icing detection being made an
>>additional requirement for continued certification for flight into
>>known icing conditions. AFAIK it is certified for flight into known
>>icing, but I know a few guys who used to fly them and I'll ask them
>>next time I see them. I do remember them saying that they weren't
>>impressed with it in icing ( I think it has some problem with it's
>>tail surfaces in icing) but I think it is legal..
>
> As previously mentioned, there are a bunch of ADs running around
> mandating extra icing gear and procedures because of a number of
> crashes involving Caravans and ice. From what I know, never having
> flown one, they really don't seem do well in it, but that's a
> different animal than a blanket statement that the Cessna Caravan type
> does not have known ice certification.
>
Xactly.


It wouldn't be the only airplane that isn't exactly happy in icing
conditions, anyway.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Dec 3, 6:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Peter Clark > wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> >>The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not
>> >>certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in question
>> >>did have boots."
>>
>> >>So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known
>> >>ice. If it is flown into icing conditions, but no pireps reported
>> >>ice, is the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?
>>
>> > The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
>> > procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing.
>> > How can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing?
>> > What specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that
>> > the Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
>> > delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
>> > known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
>> > took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
>> > known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."
>>
>> Might well be. I believe the airplane has had some issues with icing
>> in the past and I seem to recall some icing detection being made an
>> additional requirement for continued certification for flight into
>> known icing conditions. AFAIK it is certified for flight into known
>> icing, but I know a few guys who used to fly them and I'll ask them
>> next time I see them. I do remember them saying that they weren't
>> impressed with it in icing ( I think it has some problem with it's
>> tail surfaces in icing) but I think it is legal..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> According to
> http://www.fedex.com/us/about/today/companies/express/facts.html
> FedEx operates 10 Caravan 208A'sand 243 208B's. If they weren't
> certified for known ice there would be a lot of late packages. Weeks
> late, sometimes.

Well, just because this thread is giving me a headache..


http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%
5CrgAD.nsf/0/243AECE0725E4009862572DE0050A037?OpenDocument



Bertie

[Jose]

> This brings up an interesting hypothesis.[...]
> There are several ways this scenario can be parsed.

> Since the temperature of the coffee will affect only the receiver and not the supplier...

Actually, that is not true. The temperature of the beverage (I did not
assume it was coffee) could be at the supplier's convenience.

> Is it not the receiver's DECISION to either accept or prove the actual temperature of the coffee before COMMITTING to an act (drinking)

For drinking, yes. For carrying the drink out to the car, maybe not.
You might lift the cup over the heads of your children to get it from
the counter to the table. You could be bumped when this happens, and it
could spill. If you had ordered warm milk, gotten it in an insulated
container, got bumped, and from the screams found that it was actually
boiling hot milk, is it your fault for not making everyone wait at the
counter while you opened the lid and stuck your dirty finger (or a clean
thermometer) into the drink?

> The other side of this equation postulates that the receiver has the responsibility to ASSUME NOTHING

Nothing? Really nothing? That it's not industrial strength acid? Had
the supplier given me =that= in lieu of orange juice, I think I would
have a case.

> The REAL rub is in how we as people choose to live out our lives; seeking protection from things that can hurt us or taking the necessary steps to do all we can to insure we don't get hurt.

No, the real rub is how we as a people choose to =think=... whether to
actually consider the facts of an unpleasant and perhaps complex case,
or trumpet the easy thing to ridicule while scoring brownie points on
Usenet.

> This is a little different scenario than the coffee cup. There is no way to "test" the cartridge before pulling the trigger, therefore no lapse in personal responsibility.

Granted. Well, almost granted... one could subject a representative
sample of cartridges to an analysis, but that would be inconvenient.
When sitting in a take-out car lane, it is also inconvenient (though
somewhat less so) to put the bag of burgers in the back while carefully
balancing the drink in order to open it and ascertain the degree to
which it might (or might not) be unexpectedly hot before taking what
would be a reasonable risk at the expected temperature. It's a matter
of degree. You preflight an aircraft, and I bet you do a more thorough
preflight if you are going to do aerobatics. Do you preflight a car? A
shopping cart?

It should also be noted that one of the purposes of the tort system is
to act as a brake against corporations taking unfair advantage of their
size by making our lives more risky to the benefit of their bottom
line. To that end, it is quite reasonable to take the corporation's
attitude into account when deciding on a verdict.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jose wrote:
>> This brings up an interesting hypothesis.[...]
>> There are several ways this scenario can be parsed.
>
>> Since the temperature of the coffee will affect only the receiver and
>> not the supplier...
>
> Actually, that is not true. The temperature of the beverage (I did not
> assume it was coffee) could be at the supplier's convenience.
>
>> Is it not the receiver's DECISION to either accept or prove the actual
>> temperature of the coffee before COMMITTING to an act (drinking)
>
> For drinking, yes. For carrying the drink out to the car, maybe not.
> You might lift the cup over the heads of your children to get it from
> the counter to the table. You could be bumped when this happens, and it
> could spill. If you had ordered warm milk, gotten it in an insulated
> container, got bumped, and from the screams found that it was actually
> boiling hot milk, is it your fault for not making everyone wait at the
> counter while you opened the lid and stuck your dirty finger (or a clean
> thermometer) into the drink?
>
>> The other side of this equation postulates that the receiver has the
>> responsibility to ASSUME NOTHING
>
> Nothing? Really nothing? That it's not industrial strength acid? Had
> the supplier given me =that= in lieu of orange juice, I think I would
> have a case.
>
>> The REAL rub is in how we as people choose to live out our lives;
>> seeking protection from things that can hurt us or taking the
>> necessary steps to do all we can to insure we don't get hurt.
>
> No, the real rub is how we as a people choose to =think=... whether to
> actually consider the facts of an unpleasant and perhaps complex case,
> or trumpet the easy thing to ridicule while scoring brownie points on
> Usenet.
>
>> This is a little different scenario than the coffee cup. There is no
>> way to "test" the cartridge before pulling the trigger, therefore no
>> lapse in personal responsibility.
>
> Granted. Well, almost granted... one could subject a representative
> sample of cartridges to an analysis, but that would be inconvenient.
> When sitting in a take-out car lane, it is also inconvenient (though
> somewhat less so) to put the bag of burgers in the back while carefully
> balancing the drink in order to open it and ascertain the degree to
> which it might (or might not) be unexpectedly hot before taking what
> would be a reasonable risk at the expected temperature. It's a matter
> of degree. You preflight an aircraft, and I bet you do a more thorough
> preflight if you are going to do aerobatics. Do you preflight a car? A
> shopping cart?
>
> It should also be noted that one of the purposes of the tort system is
> to act as a brake against corporations taking unfair advantage of their
> size by making our lives more risky to the benefit of their bottom
> line. To that end, it is quite reasonable to take the corporation's
> attitude into account when deciding on a verdict.
>
> Jose
As always, there is validity in individual aspects of opposing argument.
I prefer to call this situation "Intelligent use of Usenet"
Best as always.

--
Dudley Henriques

[F. Baum]

On Dec 3, 12:37 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Morgans wrote:
> > It is true. Another factor is that so many families today have
> > both parents working... just to make ends meet and to pay taxes
> > to support the government programs that are created or expanded
> > every year (to wit: no idiot left behind [as if better education
> > can be legislated into reality]). I still can't honestly
> > come up with something the government does well.... besides
> > spend other people's money.
>
> >> I don't buy it. There are always exceptions, though.
>
> >> Matt is constant, that is one fact. His story never changes away from a
> >> very narrow stance.
>
> > Perhaps his story is based on principle. Principles don't
> > don't change with polls or political expedient.
>
> And facts don't change.
>
MxMatt, here is a "Fact" that never changes; there are people like you
who try to represent thier opinions as "facts". I like the way you can
have strong totalitarian "Facts" on things you know nothing about. I
really like the way you revise history . Another thing that makes your
posts so special is the use of big words, it slays me when you refer
readers to the dictionary. You are without a doubt the most
entertaining poster in this group. Dont ever change
FB

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 3, 4:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I can't help but wonder what the situation would produce for a totally
> innocent man charged with a crime he didn't commit standing in front of
> a judge about to pass sentence on him saying to that judge;
> "Judge, you are the most stupid, idiotic, and just plain ugly human
> piece of trash I've ever seen in my entire life."

I should mention that often when a jury awards a really large
judgement against someone what the defendant actually has to pay is
less. This can happen either because the judge finds the award too
high and reduces it (as in the Cessna 182 seat rail case) or because
the sides settle to avoid appeals. In the McD's case both happened.
The jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $2.9 million, the judge reduced it to
$650,000 and then the two sides settled for an undisclosed amount.

-Robert

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Dec 3, 4:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> I can't help but wonder what the situation would produce for a totally
>> innocent man charged with a crime he didn't commit standing in front of
>> a judge about to pass sentence on him saying to that judge;
>> "Judge, you are the most stupid, idiotic, and just plain ugly human
>> piece of trash I've ever seen in my entire life."
>
> I should mention that often when a jury awards a really large
> judgement against someone what the defendant actually has to pay is
> less. This can happen either because the judge finds the award too
> high and reduces it (as in the Cessna 182 seat rail case) or because
> the sides settle to avoid appeals. In the McD's case both happened.
> The jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $2.9 million, the judge reduced it to
> $650,000 and then the two sides settled for an undisclosed amount.
>
> -Robert

It is indeed a cold cruel world out here :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 11:46 am, randall g > wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds
>>>>> case
>>>>> does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
>>>>> their jaundiced eye.
>>>> I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
>>>> your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
>>>> against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
>>> The woman was seriously injured and spent 8 days in hospital getting
>>> skin grafts. That McD's had been selling super hot coffee for some time
>>> and had previous warnings. This case did have merit and I believe the
>>> woman did not get rich from it either.
>>>
>>> randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal
>>> RGhttp://www.telemark.net/randallg
>>> Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia
>>> at:http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
>>> Vancouver's famous Kat Kam:http://www.katkam.ca
>>
>> This was a fun case to study in law class. It was a classic example of
>> how to perfectly lose a case. There is nothing McD's could have done
>> better to lose that case. When the lady first got hurt, she wrote a
>> letter to McD's explaining what happened and asking for her medical
>> bills to be covered. McD's corporate office wrote back a very, very
>> nasty letter to her telling her "duh coffee is hot" and expressing
>> *NO* sympathy. If they had said "Sorry you were hurt, its not our
>> policy to pay for damages you incurred" or even just ignored her that
>> would be the end of it.
>> The lady then showed the nasty letter to her neighbor who showed it to
>> her attorney son. Her son took up the case soley based on the letter
>> McD's set back.
>> So the case goes to trial and they interview the McD's manager. The
>> attorney had just finished showing the jury images of the deformed
>> lady's "areas" and had just had shown all the surgeries the woman had
>> had to repair her damage. The McD's manager got up there and told the
>> jury "Sorry, coffee is not, get over it". Many scholars believe if he
>> had said "Damn that looks bad, I feel sorry for her, but our coffee is
>> hot", then the jury would have found in favor of McD's. In addition
>> the temp of the coffee was hotter than McD's policy.
>> -Robert
>
> This is an interesting summation.
>
> Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, what you are saying here is that the
> outcome of this trial can be directly laid at the feet of an ill-advised
> reply by a single individual and a jury's interpretation of this reply.

What did you expect jurors to base their decisions on? Facts? Rule of law?

If that was the case they would not have been selected as jurors.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> You just gotta love the "justice system" :-))
>
> A wise man once said "In the United States justice system, you get just
> about all the justice you can afford"

It didn't work for Microsoft and the $$gazillions.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Jose wrote:
> It should also be noted that one of the purposes of the tort system is to
> act as a brake against corporations taking unfair advantage of their size
> by making our lives more risky to the benefit of their bottom line. To
> that end, it is quite reasonable to take the corporation's attitude into
> account when deciding on a verdict.

His grasp of the tort system is about on par with his other knowledge.

And this guy's a teacher?

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> I do remember them saying that they weren't impressed with it in icing ( I
> think it has some problem with it's tail surfaces in icing) but I think it
> is legal..

That's exactly what I was told.

"It's legal, but it's damn scary..."n

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-12-02, > wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2:30 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
>> The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions. So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
>> in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...
>
> So, why do so many of them have boots and hot props and all
> the rest? It would seem to add a lot of expensive weight if flight
> through known ice is forbidden.

It's there to give you more time to escape icing conditions, not so you
can simply fly in known icing conditions.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Morgans wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <> wrote
>
>> I have two problems with this. First, professional educators (read
>> NEA) are a big part of the problem.
>
> I keep hearing "the union is the problem" mantra. Around here, the
> only interaction we have with the NEA is the fact that they have good
> liability insurance, and good legal programs if things really turn to
> **** for a teacher. That's it. I'm not quite sure how much of an
> influence they are, anywhere. They sure are not much, here.


Please note that I wrote NEA as in the NATIONAL organization and as a cover
all for the STATE orgnaizations. Unless NC is different, and it might well
be, they have plenty of lobbiest working full time to protect their rice
bowl.


>
>> Second how are you going to have the parental oversite without the
>> elections? And if you only let parents run for the offices or worse
>> only let parents vote then you get into the whole taxation without
>> representation thing.
>
> Yeah, there are things to be worked out, for sure. The thing is, I
> don't think parents should have real control over any situation, or
> they will end up being a board of education with a different name,
> which is not what I would want to see.
>
> The whole point is that professional educators that know education
> should be running the show, with parents giving guidance and
> sugestions, only. No real power. If everyone says what we have is
> not working, why not try something new?
>

One way or another you are doing to have to have some elected official(s)
with oversight responsibility. There is no way around it.


>> That is a problem with all elected governments. (talking about new
>> people
> coming on every two years)
>
> Yes, but when the future of our next generation is at stake, we need
> something better than what government as usual is giving us, don't you
> think? Also, what I see from far too many board of education
> members, is that they are there with an ax to grind, and that has no
> place in deciding how our children are educated.
>
> We need to see consistancy. The programs come and go so rapidly, no
> program ever has a chance to succeed, before it is changed. Things
> take time to get going, and see how they work. If they don't work,
> then change them, or toss them out. Changing them because a new
> group has come on in control needs to be changed.
>


What if the porofessional educators or at least those willing to serve on
this board, in any given area suck?


>> Most school administrators come up from the ranks of teachers.
>
> It is remarkeable how quickly they forget what is going on in the
> classroom.
>

And what makes you think that the ones in your new program will be any
different?


> It does help when they were a good teacher, I will admit. The very
> worst administrators are the ones that went straight through to
> administration without ever spending any time in the classroom.
>
> I admit that I do not have all the answers on improving education,
> unlike some others that have been spouting their own line of
> fertilizer. I do feel I know what some of the problems are, however,
> and many other teachers and people that are close to education have
> echoed some of the things I have stated. We all can't be wrong, can
> we?
> If I did have all of the answers, or a majority of them, I would not
> be teaching construction in NC, but instead would be upwardly mobile
> in the national education scene. I am confident that I know that
> some things I have heard will not work, though.


The education problems all boil down to a combination of some bad teachers,
some bad administrators, some bad parents, and state and federal lawmakers
and courts stepping in to make a bad situation worse.

We need to get rid of silly federal and state mandates for student testing
that require teachers teach to a test and little else. We need a system of
getting rid of bad teachers and rewarding good ones. We need a process that
allows us to get kids that cause problems out of the schools but only after
teachers are given the right and responsibility to deal with those on the
bubble in the classroom. And we need to make parents responsible for how
their children act when they are in school.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> Jose wrote:
>> It should also be noted that one of the purposes of the tort system is to
>> act as a brake against corporations taking unfair advantage of their size
>> by making our lives more risky to the benefit of their bottom line. To
>> that end, it is quite reasonable to take the corporation's attitude into
>> account when deciding on a verdict.
>
> His grasp of the tort system is about on par with his other knowledge.
>
> And this guy's a teacher?
>
>
>
>
>
The statement is true but not complete, as are all such statements made
to push a position.

There's nothing wrong with the concept that proposes protection for the
"average citizen" from a corporation's bottom line, but the statement is
deceiving if not completed as it actually exists in today's legal system.
What's missing from the statement, and unfortunately deliberately so in
many cases, is that if the system is used as it was MEANT to be used,
the citizen has to SEEK OUT the lawyer for protection instead of the
other way around.
When lawyers seek clients to initiate litigation against large
corporations, the formula changes, or at least has a tremendous ability
to change, into a corrupt attempt to initiate lawsuits against
corporations for a profit motive instead of a protection motive.

The kicker in all this are the lawyers. The problem is that if the
citizen is dishonest, it is supposed to be incumbent on the lawyer to
act as a shield between an honest corporation and the dishonest citizen.
A HUGE percentage of the lawyers unfortunately for the country, have
chosen NOT to act as this ethical buffer and instead BENEFIT from the
dishonest citizen seeking litigation against corporations. The result of
this has been a large enough swing from honesty and ethics among lawyers
to influence the balance of the legal system away from ethics and into a
large amount of dishonesty and unethical practice by lawyers that has
literally turned the system into a business for profit.

Add to this the dishonest lawyers THEMSELVES initiating action against
corporations based completely on their personal dishonest and unethical
practice and you have the present legal system of the United States.

There are of course lawyers out here who are honest and ethical. You can
spot them in 5 seconds. They are poor by the standard of living used to
present the average income of lawyers in the United States. I actually
can't think of 1 single lawyer (and I know many) known to me personally
who is honest and ethical as I would define these terms, who I would
consider in the top income level of the legal profession.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jose]

> What's missing from the statement, and unfortunately deliberately so in many cases, is that if the system is used as it was MEANT to be used, the citizen has to SEEK OUT the lawyer for protection instead of the other way around.

It used to be that way... at least it used to be that lawyers (and
doctors and drug companies) were prohibited from advertising. (Whether
by law or by their professional organizations I don't know). The
concept of freedom of speech (that it is up to the listener to decide
the merits, rather than up to some other agency to decide what the
listener may or may not hear) was part of the stated rationale.

> When lawyers seek clients to initiate litigation against large corporations, the formula changes, or at least has a tremendous ability to change, into a corrupt attempt to initiate lawsuits against corporations for a profit motive instead of a protection motive.

And here is where the judges enter the picture. It comes down to a
judgment in court. Why don't the meritless cases lose? =That's= where
the responsibility lies.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jose wrote:
>> What's missing from the statement, and unfortunately deliberately so
>> in many cases, is that if the system is used as it was MEANT to be
>> used, the citizen has to SEEK OUT the lawyer for protection instead of
>> the other way around.
>
> It used to be that way... at least it used to be that lawyers (and
> doctors and drug companies) were prohibited from advertising. (Whether
> by law or by their professional organizations I don't know). The
> concept of freedom of speech (that it is up to the listener to decide
> the merits, rather than up to some other agency to decide what the
> listener may or may not hear) was part of the stated rationale.

I remember as a young man coming up through the educational ladder when
lawyers were respected members of the community. Lawyers were sought
after for opinion and their opinion was considered by almost everyone 9I
knew anyway) as delivered through a foundation of honesty and integrity.
Lawyers were in fact some of the most respected members of the community.
All gone now. Typical of the lawyers in my present community are an
entire segment, and I literally mean an entire large office building,
almost entirely filled with attorneys specializing in drop and fall,
auto accidents, and the vast majority and the most financially rewarded,
an entire cadre of attorneys specializing in medical malpractice.
There are literally almost as many lawyers in the malpractice business
where I live as there are doctors. The reason for this is that the
doctors are leaving the state in ever increasing numbers.
One of our best friends is a neuro surgeon. You don't even want to guess
what he has to pay for his malpractice insurance.
This isn't anywhere at all representing what SHOULD be the level of
litigation protection against normal malpractice. It's indicative of the
HUGE and highly lucrative BUSINESS that the practice of malpractice law
has become.
And this is only the TIP of this iceberg :-))
>
>> When lawyers seek clients to initiate litigation against large
>> corporations, the formula changes, or at least has a tremendous
>> ability to change, into a corrupt attempt to initiate lawsuits against
>> corporations for a profit motive instead of a protection motive.
>
> And here is where the judges enter the picture. It comes down to a
> judgment in court. Why don't the meritless cases lose? =That's= where
> the responsibility lies.
>
> Jose

I agree that the judges are indeed included in the equation that defines
unethical law practice....but then again, judges are lawyers :-))

Jose, it's not any one thing that's wrong with the legal system. It's
the entire thing that's wrong. You can look in any direction and find a
constantly degrading curve of ethics and greed. It's the OVERALL result
of this that defines the legal system as we see it here today in the
United States.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

I should also add in fairness that there is indeed an aspect of blame
for the poor condition of the legal system that can be laid directly at
the feet of a greedy public, but no matter how you cut this down, it is
the lawyers, NOT the public, who have been entrusted with keeping the
system honest and ethical.
The bottom line is that the blame must lie with the legal profession and
not the greedy public troth from which the profession feeds.




Jose wrote:
>> What's missing from the statement, and unfortunately deliberately so
>> in many cases, is that if the system is used as it was MEANT to be
>> used, the citizen has to SEEK OUT the lawyer for protection instead of
>> the other way around.
>
> It used to be that way... at least it used to be that lawyers (and
> doctors and drug companies) were prohibited from advertising. (Whether
> by law or by their professional organizations I don't know). The
> concept of freedom of speech (that it is up to the listener to decide
> the merits, rather than up to some other agency to decide what the
> listener may or may not hear) was part of the stated rationale.
>
>> When lawyers seek clients to initiate litigation against large
>> corporations, the formula changes, or at least has a tremendous
>> ability to change, into a corrupt attempt to initiate lawsuits against
>> corporations for a profit motive instead of a protection motive.
>
> And here is where the judges enter the picture. It comes down to a
> judgment in court. Why don't the meritless cases lose? =That's= where
> the responsibility lies.
>
> Jose


--
Dudley Henriques

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:
>
> The education problems all boil down to a combination of some bad
> teachers, some bad administrators, some bad parents, and state and
> federal lawmakers and courts stepping in to make a bad situation
> worse.
>
> We need to get rid of silly federal and state mandates for student
> testing that require teachers teach to a test and little else. We
> need a system of getting rid of bad teachers and rewarding good ones.
> We need a process that allows us to get kids that cause problems out
> of the schools but only after teachers are given the right and
> responsibility to deal with those on the bubble in the classroom. And
> we need to make parents responsible for how their children act when
> they are in school.
>
It seems to me that all the conversation about education in this thread
misses a few key points.

In the US, primary education is not a national priority, nor a state-level
priority, and in many if not most communities, not a local priority. On a
national level, we struggle with issues such as standardization and
"leaving no children behind", but put no substantial financial support
into either area. States largely fund education through property taxes (a
practice that was deemed unconstitutional here in Ohio more than once, yet
there is no change on the horizon), which largely works against
standardization and ensuring equal educational opportunities. On a local
level, school systems are sometimes unbalanced in terms of the ratio of
administrators to teachers.

What I find curious is that the teachers in this thread aren't speaking of
the teacher/student ratio. Given the significant increase in necessary
knowledge beyond what was needed when I was in K-12 almost 50 years ago,
and that class sizes are now about 3 times what they were then, I don't
know why it isn't apparent that this has to at least contribute to the
issues under discussion.

The way I see it, there need be no other reasons for the results that
we're getting other than the priorities and structure that we're working
with.

Neil

[[email protected]]

On Dec 4, 7:35 am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2007-12-02, > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 2:30 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
> >> The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions. So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
> >> in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...
>
> > So, why do so many of them have boots and hot props and all
> > the rest? It would seem to add a lot of expensive weight if flight
> > through known ice is forbidden.
>
> It's there to give you more time to escape icing conditions, not so you
> can simply fly in known icing conditions.

So then: Why does the FAA or Transport Canada call it
certification for flight into known ice? An aircraft is either
certified for flight into know ice (like all modern airliners and many
smaller airplanes and some helicopters) or it's not. There's no
certification basis for flight into "possible ice." On this continent,
ice is present much of the year in a wide range of altitudes and there
is simply no escape from it other than staying on the ground. An
aircraft that is not certified for flight into known ice is, in Canada
at least, prohibited from filing IFR if ice is "forecast or reported."

Dan

Dan

[Ross]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Dec 3, 3:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>>Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, what you are saying here is that
>>the outcome of this trial can be directly laid at the feet of an
>>ill-advised reply by a single individual and a jury's interpretation of
>>this reply.
>
>
> That was the lesson of this case. Regardless of how silly you think
> someone's demands are you should always appear to have some sympathy.
>
>
>>So the ACTUAL verdict wasn't based on any reasonable conception of
>>justice at all but rather the jury's reaction to the MacDonald's reply?
>
>
> Juries can do what they want. I think the combo of seeing the pictures
> of the woman's deformity bothered the jury and then to see how callus
> McD's was in responding to her made the jury mad. The verdict came
> from anger in my opinion.
>
>
>>Interesting!! So the lawyer's success in litigating this case was not in
>>proving to the jury that this woman had suffered legitimate severe
>>damage that had truly hurt her and on THAT basis asking the jury to find
>>against MacDonald's, but rather it would seem the lawyers used her
>>damage simply as a tool to force the jury to compare the coldness of the
>>MacDonald's replies, thus building a case against MacDonalds in the
>>minds of the jury based on the attitude of the company rather than the
>>damage to the woman.
>>Interesting!
>>You just gotta love the "justice system" :-))
>
>
> Again you are dealing with juries. Going to trial means you can't
> predict the results. That is one reason so many companies are moving
> to binding arbitration; because they get frustrated at the inconstancy
> of jury trials.
>
> Its a jury of our peers and they can be idiots. Look at OJ or many
> aviation related cases to see that.
>
> -Robert

It is not a jury of our peers. It is a selected jury. And, the side that
does the best selection will probably win the case. Sometimes I think we
should have professional juries; ones trained and have some smarts.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Jose]

> I remember as a young man coming up through the educational ladder when lawyers were respected members of the community. Lawyers were sought after for opinion and their opinion was considered by almost everyone 9I knew anyway) as delivered through a foundation of honesty and integrity.

Would that it were true for politicians. :)

Seems to me that this is a natural consequence of a capitalistic system;
although it might be "honorable" to forgo money in exchange for
integrity in business, it is an inherently unstable situation. Nobody
wants to be the poor schmo that gets stepped all over while everyone
else gets the goodies.

These instabilities are evident in other contexts too - how many
monopolies do you know of that voluntarily keep their prices and profits
low, for the greater good?

> Jose, it's not any one thing that's wrong with the legal system.

True enough. It comes down to human nature. But the system is supposed
to be a defense against human nature. Alas, it is run by... er... humans.

> It's the entire thing that's wrong.

Got a proposed fix? (No, I'm not interested in becoming benevolent
dictator :)

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> We need to get rid of silly federal and state mandates for student testing
> that require teachers teach to a test and little else.

I agree with everything else in your post, but this.

IMHO, No Child Left Behind -- flawed though it may be -- is the first
step in the right direction toward improving our schools. For the
first time in my lifetime teachers are being held to a real,
measurable standard -- which is the first necessary step to addressing
any systemic problems that may exist.

WRT to Jim's concerns, BTW, it's also the best way to disprove that
systemic problems DON'T exist.

There are many things I'd change in NCLB -- but discarding it entirely
would be a mistake.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Maxwell]

"Ross" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is not a jury of our peers. It is a selected jury. And, the side that
> does the best selection will probably win the case. Sometimes I think we
> should have professional juries; ones trained and have some smarts.
>

I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit of
their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most reasonable
conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey shoot.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jose wrote:
>> I remember as a young man coming up through the educational ladder
>> when lawyers were respected members of the community. Lawyers were
>> sought after for opinion and their opinion was considered by almost
>> everyone 9I knew anyway) as delivered through a foundation of honesty
>> and integrity.
>
> Would that it were true for politicians. :)
>
> Seems to me that this is a natural consequence of a capitalistic system;
> although it might be "honorable" to forgo money in exchange for
> integrity in business, it is an inherently unstable situation. Nobody
> wants to be the poor schmo that gets stepped all over while everyone
> else gets the goodies.
>
> These instabilities are evident in other contexts too - how many
> monopolies do you know of that voluntarily keep their prices and profits
> low, for the greater good?
>
>> Jose, it's not any one thing that's wrong with the legal system.
>
> True enough. It comes down to human nature. But the system is supposed
> to be a defense against human nature. Alas, it is run by... er... humans.
>
>> It's the entire thing that's wrong.
>
> Got a proposed fix? (No, I'm not interested in becoming benevolent
> dictator :)
>
> Jose
I think you have summerized it up nicely. It seems our capitalist legal
system has some serious built in flaws and if these flaws are used for
unethical purposes, the result can easily become what we are seeing today.

I honestly have no idea what the fix might be. What absolutely
freightens me to death is that there might not be a fix, and even if
there were, human nature will be too much a factor to allow it's
implementation.

In the meantime, I watch the stock market go up and down with my money
with some kind of unexplainable hope in my heart, and do the very best I
can in life to avoid any and all contact with the legal system :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jose]

> I honestly have no idea what the fix might be. What absolutely freightens me to death is that there might not be a fix, and even if there were, human nature will be too much a factor to allow it's implementation.

I think that it =is= the case that there is no fix... at least no fix
that doesn't break something else we hold dear. It is all about
balance, and different people's ideas as to where it should balance.

> In the meantime, I watch the stock market go up and down with my money with some kind of unexplainable hope in my heart, and do the very best I can in life to avoid any and all contact with the legal system :-))

I tried to make money in the stock market. Now I make money in the
basement. Alas, that makes it harder to avoid contact with the legal
system. :)

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jose wrote:
>> I honestly have no idea what the fix might be. What absolutely
>> freightens me to death is that there might not be a fix, and even if
>> there were, human nature will be too much a factor to allow it's
>> implementation.
>
> I think that it =is= the case that there is no fix... at least no fix
> that doesn't break something else we hold dear. It is all about
> balance, and different people's ideas as to where it should balance.

I fear this is correct.
>
>> In the meantime, I watch the stock market go up and down with my money
>> with some kind of unexplainable hope in my heart, and do the very best
>> I can in life to avoid any and all contact with the legal system :-))
>
> I tried to make money in the stock market. Now I make money in the
> basement. Alas, that makes it harder to avoid contact with the legal
> system. :)

It's getting harder and harder to open and maintain an honest business
in the United States. Between the ungodly taxes and the cost of
litigation protection it's becoming more and more a global business
environment.
Everywhere I look I see decline and chaos. Cheery picture I know, but I
keep trying to visualize the old bottle as being half full anyway.

What the hell....I can't change anything. A friend of ours owns a paint
store. On the shelf he has a can of paint that says on the back of the
label;
"Don't take internally". The guy this is written for nullifies my vote
!!! :-)))))))))))))))

>
> Jose


--
Dudley Henriques

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:

> I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
> agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
> often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit of
> their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
> looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most reasonable
> conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey shoot.

Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
peers.

-Robert

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:35:48 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>On 2007-12-02, > wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 2:30 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>>
>>> The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions. So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
>>> in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...
>>
>> So, why do so many of them have boots and hot props and all
>> the rest? It would seem to add a lot of expensive weight if flight
>> through known ice is forbidden.
>
>It's there to give you more time to escape icing conditions, not so you
>can simply fly in known icing conditions.

So all the information on flight into known icing and the related
procedures and required equipment, as documented in the POH and TCDS,
which do not contain language to the effect that "Must use this
equipment to run away as soon as any ice shows up", is wrong?

We're not talking about a SR22 with weeping wing here (I don't think
any of them are known-ice certified, but some do have inadvertant
encounter escape systems, and language to the effect of "Must use this
equipment to run away as soon as any ice shows up.")

[Doug Carter]

On 2007-12-04, Neil Gould > wrote:

> In the US, primary education is not a national priority, nor a state-level
> priority, and in many if not most communities, not a local priority. On a
> national level,...

Regardless of priority, the presumption that U.S. education is underfunded is a
persistent myth as is the belief that funding levels and results (educated
students) are causally related. <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa126.html>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>
> > I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
> > agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
> > often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit of
> > their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
> > looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most reasonable
> > conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey shoot.
>
> Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
> Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
> going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
> employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
> up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
> peers.

hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
I sure didn't get excused.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> > On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> >
> > > I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
> > > agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
> > > often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit of
> > > their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
> > > looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most reasonable
> > > conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey shoot.
> >
> > Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
> > Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
> > going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
> > employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
> > up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
> > peers.

> hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
> I sure didn't get excused.

Around here hardly anyone ever gets excused from showing up for jury
duty.

Getting past the questioning and actually getting seated on a jury
is a different story.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 4, 4:03 pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:35:48 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
>
> > wrote:
> >On 2007-12-02, > wrote:
> >> On Dec 2, 2:30 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
> >>> The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions. So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
> >>> in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...
>
> >> So, why do so many of them have boots and hot props and all
> >> the rest? It would seem to add a lot of expensive weight if flight
> >> through known ice is forbidden.
>
> >It's there to give you more time to escape icing conditions, not so you
> >can simply fly in known icing conditions.
>
> So all the information on flight into known icing and the related
> procedures and required equipment, as documented in the POH and TCDS,
> which do not contain language to the effect that "Must use this
> equipment to run away as soon as any ice shows up", is wrong?
>
> We're not talking about a SR22 with weeping wing here (I don't think
> any of them are known-ice certified, but some do have inadvertant
> encounter escape systems, and language to the effect of "Must use this
> equipment to run away as soon as any ice shows up.")

If the Caravan is certified for known ice, then it's
certified. Transport Canada's document alerts the pilot to the changes
required by the AD (which is, in turn, requested by Cessna and
mandated by the FAA). The placard warns the pilot to get clear of ice,
and it's probably a CYA thing to protect Cessna. Many airplanes will
accumulate ice fast enough to get into trouble pretty quick, de/anti-
ice or not, and should get clear ASAP usually by climbing or
descending to get out of cloud, or to get into cloud that's either
above freezing or below the supercooled point (around -20°C). It's not
an inadvertent escape system; such systems are not "certified for
known ice" systems. If bozos keep killing themselves in the Caravan,
Cessna will likely get the known-ice certification suspended or will
get the FAA to require further training to legally fly it. There's
also various levels of icing risk, and the pilot needs to avoid the
worst of it.

Maybe we should consult the Caravan pilots themselves,
since they're the ones who do this all the time. See:

http://www.caravanpilots.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=460

Their opinion seems to be, almost universally, that
pilots are poorly trained and don't know how to handle ice and when to
get out of it. Very similar to my opinion that carburetor ice and its
management is very poorly understood; otherwise, why would so many
perfectly good airplanes, with functioning carb heat systems, quit
with their carbs all clogged up and fall from the sky, every one of
them happening when carb ice risk was elevated (temp/dewpoint spread
too small)? How many pilots *really* check out the atmosphere to see
what it's up to before they dive into it? Ignorance will kill you
dead.
Recently, not far from here, a commercial student, no less, had
his carb ice up and he let it happen, and he ended up inverted in a
creek, in fairly remote mountains, in early winter. One of our guys
heard him going down and found him and directed a helicopter to him
before the hypothermia got him.

Dan

[skym]

On Dec 2, 6:32 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Tom Conner" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck >
> > wrote:
>
> >> > > > I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
> >> > > > your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
> >> > > > against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
>
> >> > > Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING
> > HOT!
>
> >> > > Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding
> >> > > levels.
>
> >> > Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?
>
> >> Mickey D's coffee caused third-degree burns. The argument was that was
> > *too*
> >> effing hot.
>
> > I would be interested in knowing how much insulation the cup provided. If
> > it was paper then it couldn't have been to hot. If it was made of Shuttle
> > re-entry tiles then it probably was to hot.
>
> Regardless of her initial award, does anyone know how much she actually
> collected after appeal issues and such. I heard it was much less, but don't
> recall the numbers. Maybe $200k.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It was settled for $600,000.

[skym]

On Dec 2, 1:49 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
In
> your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
> against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
> --
> Jay Honeck


Here are the facts:

1. Pltf, age 79, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup.
2. She was passenger in the car; she placed the cp between her legs
to hold it whhile sh added cream and sugar.
3. As she removed the lid, the contents spilled on her legs.
4. Her sweatpants absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin.
A surgeon determined that she suffered 3rd degree, full thickness,
skin burns over 6% of her body, specifically her inner thighs,
perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin area..
5. She was hospitalized for 8 days, undergoing skin grafting.
6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous claims
by people burned in a ten year period just before this incident,
including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior knowledge of
the extent and nature of the hazard.
7. McD also said that it it intentionally held th temp between 180
and 190 F.
8. They admitted that they had made no effort to study the safety
issues of this temperature.
9. Other establishments typically serve it around 135-140 F.
10. McD enforces its rule to hold the temp at 185 +/- 5 deg.
11. McD admitted that it knew that any food substance served at or
above 140 F is a burn hazard, and that at the temp they served it, it
was not fit for human consumption.
12. They also admitted that they knew burns would occur, but had
decided to keep the temp at 185 anyway.
13. An expert on thermodynamics testified that liquids at 180 F would
cause full thickness skin burns in 2 to 7 seconds.
14. The evidence also established that as the temp increases over
155, the extent ofthe burn increases exponentially.
15. McD told the jury that customers buy coffee on their way to work,
intending to drink it there. However, their own research was brought
out that showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.
16. The plaintiff had initially offered to settle for $20,000.00.
17. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, but it was
reduced to $160,000 due to plaintiffs's own contributory negligence.
18. The jury ruled for $2.7 mmillion punitive damages, which equals 2
days' of McD's coffee sales.
19. The COurt reduced the pun dam tto $480,000, even though
characterizing McD's conduct as reckless, callous and willful.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts of
the case.
7.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> Jose wrote:
>>> It should also be noted that one of the purposes of the tort system is
>>> to act as a brake against corporations taking unfair advantage of their
>>> size by making our lives more risky to the benefit of their bottom
>>> line. To that end, it is quite reasonable to take the corporation's
>>> attitude into account when deciding on a verdict.
>>
>> His grasp of the tort system is about on par with his other knowledge.
>>
>> And this guy's a teacher?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> The statement is true but not complete, as are all such statements made to
> push a position.
>
> There's nothing wrong with the concept that proposes protection for the
> "average citizen" from a corporation's bottom line, but the statement is
> deceiving if not completed as it actually exists in today's legal system.

Actually there is something wrong with it. Consider:

1) Outside of theft, fraud/misrepresetation, or negligence (no, not
where they need to be imniscient) what damage could a corporation cause that
should be illegal or civil tort?
2) Laws exist for EVERYONE, not just the "average citizen". If
everyone's rights, even just Bill Gates and his peers, then YOUR rights are
not secure. To wit:

"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

3) A companies bottom line is their ultimate profit after expenses are
deducted from revenues. Unless those revenues are gotten illegally (a
stretch right there, nowadays), what interest does anyone have outside an
"arms length" trade?


> What's missing from the statement, and unfortunately deliberately so in
> many cases, is that if the system is used as it was MEANT to be used, the
> citizen has to SEEK OUT the lawyer for protection instead of the other way
> around.

> When lawyers seek clients to initiate litigation against large
> corporations, the formula changes, or at least has a tremendous ability to
> change, into a corrupt attempt to initiate lawsuits against corporations
> for a profit motive instead of a protection motive.
>
> The kicker in all this are the lawyers. The problem is that if the citizen
> is dishonest, it is supposed to be incumbent on the lawyer to act as a
> shield between an honest corporation and the dishonest citizen.
> A HUGE percentage of the lawyers unfortunately for the country, have
> chosen NOT to act as this ethical buffer and instead BENEFIT from the
> dishonest citizen seeking litigation against corporations. The result of
> this has been a large enough swing from honesty and ethics among lawyers
> to influence the balance of the legal system away from ethics and into a
> large amount of dishonesty and unethical practice by lawyers that has
> literally turned the system into a business for profit.
>
> Add to this the dishonest lawyers THEMSELVES initiating action against
> corporations based completely on their personal dishonest and unethical
> practice and you have the present legal system of the United States.
>
> There are of course lawyers out here who are honest and ethical. You can
> spot them in 5 seconds. They are poor by the standard of living used to
> present the average income of lawyers in the United States. I actually
> can't think of 1 single lawyer (and I know many) known to me personally
> who is honest and ethical as I would define these terms, who I would
> consider in the top income level of the legal profession.

I agree with all that; but your very premises are steps 4-17 and 1-3 have
been deleted.

You assert that the "average American" is entitled to more protection that
others. That's a "gang" mentality. No one accrues more rights or entitlement
to protections by being a member of a group. That's a major facet of
collectivism.

You might consider this a major factor in how we got to this problem in the
first place.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Jose wrote:
>>> What's missing from the statement, and unfortunately deliberately so in
>>> many cases, is that if the system is used as it was MEANT to be used,
>>> the citizen has to SEEK OUT the lawyer for protection instead of the
>>> other way around.
>>
>> It used to be that way... at least it used to be that lawyers (and
>> doctors and drug companies) were prohibited from advertising. (Whether
>> by law or by their professional organizations I don't know). The concept
>> of freedom of speech (that it is up to the listener to decide the merits,
>> rather than up to some other agency to decide what the listener may or
>> may not hear) was part of the stated rationale.
>
> I remember as a young man coming up through the educational ladder when
> lawyers were respected members of the community. Lawyers were sought after
> for opinion and their opinion was considered by almost everyone 9I knew
> anyway) as delivered through a foundation of honesty and integrity.
> Lawyers were in fact some of the most respected members of the community.
> All gone now. Typical of the lawyers in my present community are an entire
> segment, and I literally mean an entire large office building, almost
> entirely filled with attorneys specializing in drop and fall, auto
> accidents, and the vast majority and the most financially rewarded, an
> entire cadre of attorneys specializing in medical malpractice.

One might say it began when lawyers found they could make buckets of money
getting criminals, particularly gangsters off from charges. In many cases,
they were consultants to gangsters, advising them how to conduct their
crimes with the least likelihood of capture or successful prosecution.

And no, I don't mean the "bootleggers" and bank robbers of the 1920's and
30's, I'm referring to the gangs of the 1870's and onward.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>>
>> > I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
>> > agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
>> > often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit
>> > of
>> > their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
>> > looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most
>> > reasonable
>> > conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey
>> > shoot.
>>
>> Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
>> Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
>> going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
>> employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
>> up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
>> peers.
>
> hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
> I sure didn't get excused.

He meant "being empanelled" (?), which is actually sitting on a jury.
Typically, 50-100 people get called for jury DUTY, but only 12 plus 3
reserves actually sit on a jury.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:

> > hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
> > I sure didn't get excused.
>
> He meant "being empanelled" (?), which is actually sitting on a jury.
> Typically, 50-100 people get called for jury DUTY, but only 12 plus 3
> reserves actually sit on a jury.

I knew what he meant. I've been called to jury duty 4 times in taxachusetts.
The first time was when I was self-employed. It didn't get me excused from
hearing the case, a 5 day trial. The self-employed get screwed since
taxachusetts expects employers to pay employees for the first three days,
and then taxachusetts pays some tiny amount for the remainder.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Doug Carter > posted:

> On 2007-12-04, Neil Gould > wrote:
>
>> In the US, primary education is not a national priority, nor a
>> state-level priority, and in many if not most communities, not a
>> local priority. On a national level,...
>
> Regardless of priority, the presumption that U.S. education is
> underfunded is a persistent myth as is the belief that funding levels
> and results (educated students) are causally related.
> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa126.html>
>
To begin with, I did not write that "education is underfunded" in the
sense that you are suggesting or that your cited reference uses. If you
wish to make such an argument, it would be a good idea to quote my entire
paragraph so that others can see how you have intentionally distorted its
meaning.

To support your conclusion based on the article, which IMO is suprisingly
poor for the CATO institute, one has to determine how much of the funding
actually reaches the individual student, as it is only "per pupil" if the
pupil directly benefits from it. The article was written in 1990, and
basically supports the NEA statement that there was a 31% increase in
government spending "for education" during the prior decade. What do we
know about that period of time that might raise questions about the actual
value of that money? How much did your car or your house cost in 1980 vs.
1990? I can tell you that my 1984 vehicle cost about 1/3 of what the same
make and model cost when I replaced it in 1991 (and the cost of the same
make and model was almost 60% more when it was replaced in 2001). Also,
expenditures that were typical in 1990 were non-existant in 1980, for
example purchases of personal computers. So, to me, that 31% increase is
not positively impressive.

Even so, my point was not about the *amount* of money, it was about the
PRIORITIES, in particular how that money is spent. In our community, we
spend more per pupil than all but one other community in the state, but we
are not getting that kind of return on our investment. I (and the state
auditor FWIW) attribute it to a top-heavy school system. So, on what do
you base the relevance of your "Regardless of priority..." as an argument
for our lack of success in educating these youth?

--
Neil

[Jay Honeck]

> I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts of
> the case.

THANK YOU for sharing the facts of the case. They are very
enlightening.

None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.

I'm curious to know: Did the woman's hired guns go after the Bunn
Corporation, makers of the coffee brewing equipment that McDonald's
used? Clearly their equipment is brewing coffee that is too hot?

How 'bout the makers of the stryofoam cups? How about the lid
manufacturer? How about the driver of the car who must've jerked
suddenly to make her spill the coffee?

Where does this end?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Ross wrote:
>
> It is not a jury of our peers. It is a selected jury. And, the side
> that does the best selection will probably win the case. Sometimes I
> think we should have professional juries; ones trained and have some
> smarts.

And you can have it right now in some types of cases and some jurisdictions.
The "professional jury" is a judge. Of course both sides have to go along
with it and the other side probably won't want to for the same reasons you
want to.

[kontiki]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> How 'bout the makers of the stryofoam cups? How about the lid
> manufacturer? How about the driver of the car who must've jerked
> suddenly to make her spill the coffee?
>
> Where does this end?
> --

You forgot the car manufacturer who designed a vehicle with
brakes that allow sudden stops or turns which caused the
coffee to spill.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>
>> I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have
>> to agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but
>> they too often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and
>> loose a bit of their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could
>> do a better job of looking at cases from different angles, and
>> reaching the most reasonable conclusion. The way we select juries
>> today can often be a real turkey shoot.
>
> Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
> Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
> going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
> employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
> up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
> peers.
>
> -Robert

That is the fault of the judges and in some cases the legislatures. We have
a judge around here that if you are called for jury duty you can pretty much
plan on being there because unless a close family member is expected to die
during the trial you will be up for selection and even then you will
probably be required to show up with a death certificate after they do at
which point you will be next up. He doesn't let anybody off.

When I was on the panel I saw him tell the CEO of a LARGE company who had
just explained that he had a stock holder's meeting scheduled that, "I know
your number 2 guy and he is more than qualified to handle the meeting and
luckily the trial will probably only last half a day."

This is the same judge that when after the jury pool was asked if we new any
of the lawyers or principles in the case and I answered "Yes, your honor, I
play golf with the defendant's lawyer as I often play with you." He said,
"Yes, Mr. Giacona, I've seen you allegedly play golf and I've seen you lie
on a score card but you weren't under oath so I won't hold that against
you."

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> We need to get rid of silly federal and state mandates for student
>> testing that require teachers teach to a test and little else.
>
> I agree with everything else in your post, but this.
>
> IMHO, No Child Left Behind -- flawed though it may be -- is the first
> step in the right direction toward improving our schools. For the
> first time in my lifetime teachers are being held to a real,
> measurable standard -- which is the first necessary step to addressing
> any systemic problems that may exist.
>

It was a great idea that doesn't work in its' application. The schools and
teachers have to spend most of the year doing nothing but teach to a test
and it isn't even a very well written test.

And how many individual teachers do you know that have been terminated
because of NCLB I know of none and of several that should have never been
allowed to teach in the first place.

[Peter R.]

On 12/5/2007 12:26:38 AM, skym wrote:

> I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

I do. Good coffee has to be brewed and served very hot.

http://www.peets.com/learn/coffee_basics.asp

Anyone who grinds right before they brew knows that.

--
Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts
>> of the case.
>
> THANK YOU for sharing the facts of the case. They are very
> enlightening.
>
> None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
> coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.

How about you respond as the defendant to these.

6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous claims
by people burned in a ten year period just before this incident,
including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior knowledge of
the extent and nature of the hazard.

7. McD also said that it it intentionally held th temp between 180
and 190 F. When

11. McD admitted that it knew that any food substance served at or
above 140 F is a burn hazard, and that at the temp they served it, it
was not fit for human consumption.

12. They also admitted that they knew burns would occur, but had
decided to keep the temp at 185 anyway.

15. McD told the jury that customers buy coffee on their way to work,
intending to drink it there. However, their own research was brought
out that showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Peter R. wrote:
> On 12/5/2007 12:26:38 AM, skym wrote:
>
>> I don't have an opinion one way or the other.
>
> I do. Good coffee has to be brewed and served very hot.
>
> http://www.peets.com/learn/coffee_basics.asp
>
> Anyone who grinds right before they brew knows that.


What does "Good coffee" or any other food product with the term good in
front of it have to do with McDs?

Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing coffee is
between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be served at that
temperature. If I cook a prime rib at 375 F I don't plan to serve it at that
temperature.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts of
> > the case.
>
> THANK YOU for sharing the facts of the case. They are very
> enlightening.
>
> None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
> coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.
>
> I'm curious to know: Did the woman's hired guns go after the Bunn
> Corporation, makers of the coffee brewing equipment that McDonald's
> used? Clearly their equipment is brewing coffee that is too hot?

Clearly the equipment is improperly designed since it allows the coffee
to be brewed and dispensed at too high a temp.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Ross]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>
>>On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
>>>agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
>>>often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit of
>>>their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
>>>looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most reasonable
>>>conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey shoot.
>>
>>Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
>>Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
>>going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
>>employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
>>up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
>>peers.
>
>
> hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
> I sure didn't get excused.
>

I see a lot of folks walk up and get excused but I cannot hear why. One
time I was going to ask for an excuse due to lots of work travel. Before
I did the judge gave his talk about duty. I swear I could hear America
the Beautiful playing in the background. After he retired I told him my
story and he laughed. I stayed that day.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Ross]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts of
>>the case.
>
>
> THANK YOU for sharing the facts of the case. They are very
> enlightening.
>
> None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
> coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.
>
> I'm curious to know: Did the woman's hired guns go after the Bunn
> Corporation, makers of the coffee brewing equipment that McDonald's
> used? Clearly their equipment is brewing coffee that is too hot?
>
> How 'bout the makers of the stryofoam cups? How about the lid
> manufacturer? How about the driver of the car who must've jerked
> suddenly to make her spill the coffee?
>
> Where does this end?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Kind of like the bartender that gets sued because someone leaves his
place and gets into an accident. I agree, where does it end and personal
responsibility take over.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Peter R.]

On 12/5/2007 10:40:30 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

> Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing coffee is
> between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be served at that
> temperature.

So you brew a pot of coffee at that temperature, then what? Wait 20 minutes
for it to cool down? Of course not. You draw off a cup right away.

Also your prime rib example is not a valid comparison. Beef has to sit 5 to
10 minutes before you cut into it or you risk losing all the juice and making
it too dry.


--
Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrot

> IMHO, No Child Left Behind -- flawed though it may be -- is the first
> step in the right direction toward improving our schools. For the
> first time in my lifetime teachers are being held to a real,
> measurable standard -- which is the first necessary step to addressing
> any systemic problems that may exist.

One big problem with it is that there are individual students that can not
cope with the setting that we are forced to put them into.

Also, vast sums of money are put into these very low performing students,
which take away from funds that are available to be spent on good kids like
Joe.

Also, the teaching to a test is a real problem. There is such pressure to
get to all of the material, that a teacher can not take the time to work
with something that the students have real interest in, and want to explore
in more detail. Sorry, got to keep moving on to the next unit.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote

> This is the same judge that when after the jury pool was asked if we new
> any of the lawyers or principles in the case and I answered "Yes, your
> honor, I play golf with the defendant's lawyer as I often play with you."
> He said, "Yes, Mr. Giacona, I've seen you allegedly play golf and I've
> seen you lie on a score card but you weren't under oath so I won't hold
> that against you."

I did a week once, and sat for two days, and finally got called for
interviewing for one case, which was a drunk driving case. The problem was
that the arresting officer was a good friend of mine.

The lawyer was told in a whisper that the police officer knew me, and asked
if I could be impartial, even though I knew the officer, and I said that I
would judge the case on its merits, to which the lawyer said that might be
hard since I was only human, and asked for me to be excused from that case.

I was finally seated on a medical incompetence hearing, and that was it for
the week.

Most of the time I was just trying to stay awake. Boring, to say the least.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
> coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.

I'm not sure that is right, Jay. No, I'm sure that is not right.

I'm not saying I agree with the verdict or the amount awarded, but Mc D's
does serve their coffee way too damn hot. It is reasonable to assume that
some will be spilled, on occasion. Who doesn't spill a bit of coffee, on
occasion. Anyone here that can say they have never spilled a drop of
takeout coffee on them? I doubt it. It should not be so hot that it causes
deep 3rd degree burns. When I am forced to stop there for coffee, I put ICE
in it, so I can drink it!

That would be about as reasonable as a place serving hydrochloric acid to
their customers, in flimsy cups with lids that can pop off, and when they do
pop off, sometimes some of the acid will spill on you.

McD's has a coffee temperature policy that places them wide open for
damages. That is for places that maintain the target temperatures. This
one place was more than likely well above the target temperature.

You should not put coffee between your legs and take off the lid, no doubt.
You should not pay for it with widespread 3rd degree burns, and skin grafts,
though.
--
Jim in NC

[BDS[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote

> How about you respond as the defendant to these.
>
> 6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous claims
> by people burned in a ten year period just before this incident,
> including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior knowledge of
> the extent and nature of the hazard.
>
> 7. McD also said that it it intentionally held th temp between 180
> and 190 F. When
>
> 11. McD admitted that it knew that any food substance served at or
> above 140 F is a burn hazard, and that at the temp they served it, it
> was not fit for human consumption.
>
> 12. They also admitted that they knew burns would occur, but had
> decided to keep the temp at 185 anyway.
>
> 15. McD told the jury that customers buy coffee on their way to work,
> intending to drink it there. However, their own research was brought
> out that showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
> immediately while driving.

And knowing all of that, and even if the cup had a warning on it that said
the coffee was at 195 deg F, I believe that the plaintiff would still have
put the cup between her legs and gotten the very same result.

BDS

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote

> Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing coffee is
> between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be served at that
> temperature. If I cook a prime rib at 375 F I don't plan to serve it at
> that temperature.

Exactly. NOBODY can drink coffee at 180 degrees. Few could drink it at
140.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote
>
>> Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing
>> coffee is between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be
>> served at that temperature. If I cook a prime rib at 375 F I don't
>> plan to serve it at that temperature.
>
> Exactly. NOBODY can drink coffee at 180 degrees.

You haven't met mrs. Bunyip. I'm not kidding.. Straight out of the pot, no
colling. She must have had her tongue cauterised by hot drinks until it was
leather when she was a child.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ross" > wrote

> Kind of like the bartender that gets sued because someone leaves his place
> and gets into an accident. I agree, where does it end and personal
> responsibility take over.
I don't see any connection between the two. The drink the bartender is
serving has no potential for damage, unless the user decides to drive drunk.
The bartender does not know if he is gong to call a cab, ride with a friend,
or walk after leaving.

The coffee going out the door will burn everyone who spills a little on him.
Every time, anyone. It, in itself is a hazard, not like the drink, who only
becomes a hazard- dependent on what the person does after consuming it
safely.
--
Jim in NC

[Doug Carter]

On 2007-12-05, Neil Gould > wrote:
> Recently, Doug Carter > posted:
>
>> On 2007-12-04, Neil Gould > wrote:
>>
>>> In the US, primary education is not a national priority, nor a
>>> state-level priority, and in many if not most communities, not a
>>> local priority. On a national level,...
>>
>> Regardless of priority, the presumption that U.S. education is
>> underfunded is a persistent myth as is the belief that funding levels
>> and results (educated students) are causally related.
>> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa126.html>
>>
> To begin with, I did not write that "education is underfunded" in the
> sense that you are suggesting or that your cited reference uses. If you
> wish to make such an argument, it would be a good idea to quote my entire
> paragraph so that others can see how you have intentionally distorted its
> meaning.

Sorry. I missunderstood your meaning; my bad.

> To support your conclusion based on the article, which IMO is suprisingly
> poor for the CATO institute, one has to determine how much of the funding
> actually reaches the individual student, as it is only "per pupil" if the
> pupil directly benefits from it. The article was written in 1990, and
> basically supports the NEA statement that there was a 31% increase in
> government spending "for education" during the prior decade. What do we
> know about that period of time that might raise questions about the actual
> value of that money? How much did your car or your house cost in 1980 vs.
> 1990? I can tell you that my 1984 vehicle cost about 1/3 of what the same
> make and model cost when I replaced it in 1991 (and the cost of the same
> make and model was almost 60% more when it was replaced in 2001). Also,
> expenditures that were typical in 1990 were non-existant in 1980, for
> example purchases of personal computers. So, to me, that 31% increase is
> not positively impressive.
>

I don't think that the rate of increase in education funding has ever been
below the inflation rate in this country.

> Even so, my point was not about the *amount* of money, it was about the
> PRIORITIES, in particular how that money is spent. In our community, we
> spend more per pupil than all but one other community in the state, but we
> are not getting that kind of return on our investment. I (and the state
> auditor FWIW) attribute it to a top-heavy school system. So, on what do
> you base the relevance of your "Regardless of priority..." as an argument
> for our lack of success in educating these youth?

Again, I read your post too quickly and missunderstood it. I agree completly
with your last paragraph. Lets start at the Federal level by disolving the
Department of Education as my fellow Republicans promised, but failed to do in
the mid '90s. Next, lets bust the state monopoly on primary and secondary
education.

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Ross wrote:
>>
>> It is not a jury of our peers. It is a selected jury. And, the side
>> that does the best selection will probably win the case. Sometimes I
>> think we should have professional juries; ones trained and have some
>> smarts.
>
> And you can have it right now in some types of cases and some
> jurisdictions. The "professional jury" is a judge. Of course both sides
> have to go along with it and the other side probably won't want to for the
> same reasons you want to.

True, but you loose the collective objectivity of a group, to someone who is
far to often a narrow minded "know it all".

[Maxwell]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>
>> I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
>> agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
>> often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit of
>> their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
>> looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most reasonable
>> conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey
>> shoot.
>
> Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
> Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
> going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
> employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
> up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
> peers.
>


I hear that's the way it is in my county as well. They seem to call far more
than they need, and offer reprieve many are vocal about the hardship.
Perhaps a good thing, when you have less people empanelled that truly resent
having to be there. But then that could very well effect the quality I
guess. I think I would almost support a professional panel of non-lawyers
for jurors.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> > hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
>> > I sure didn't get excused.
>>
>> He meant "being empanelled" (?), which is actually sitting on a jury.
>> Typically, 50-100 people get called for jury DUTY, but only 12 plus 3
>> reserves actually sit on a jury.
>
> I knew what he meant. I've been called to jury duty 4 times in
> taxachusetts.
> The first time was when I was self-employed. It didn't get me excused
> from
> hearing the case, a 5 day trial. The self-employed get screwed since
> taxachusetts expects employers to pay employees for the first three days,
> and then taxachusetts pays some tiny amount for the remainder.
>

When I was in Colorado, you'd get $7.50 for mileage, regardless of how far
you have to travel. An employer will pay your regular rate for 1-3 days of
jury duty, but if you're a contractor or self-employed, you're SOL.

I didn't get called for 20 years since I stopped registering to vote (1988).
I don't know how they do it in Wyoming.

My wife was called four times in the last 14 years, but never got past the
initial questioning since her brother is a former cop. All jury duty summons
were for criminal court, never civil court.

At least in Colorado, if you're not empanelled by about the middle of the
first day, you go home and don't have to come back.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Matt W. Barrow]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> How 'bout the makers of the stryofoam cups? How about the lid
>> manufacturer? How about the driver of the car who must've jerked
>> suddenly to make her spill the coffee?
>>
>> Where does this end?
>> --
>
> You forgot the car manufacturer who designed a vehicle with
> brakes that allow sudden stops or turns which caused the
> coffee to spill.

Or the steel mill that made the steel that the car manufacturer used....

It ends when no one but lawyers have deep enough pockets to rape.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts
>>> of the case.
>>
>> THANK YOU for sharing the facts of the case. They are very
>> enlightening.
>>
>> None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
>> coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.
>
> How about you respond as the defendant to these.
>
> 6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous claims
> by people burned in a ten year period just before this incident,
> including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior knowledge of
> the extent and nature of the hazard.

A bit more of discovery would find that there are thousands of such cases
nationwide, only a tiny fraction occurring at McD's.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 12/5/2007 10:40:30 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>
>> Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing coffee
>> is
>> between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be served at that
>> temperature.
>
> So you brew a pot of coffee at that temperature, then what? Wait 20
> minutes
> for it to cool down? Of course not. You draw off a cup right away.
>
> Also your prime rib example is not a valid comparison. Beef has to sit 5
> to
> 10 minutes before you cut into it or you risk losing all the juice and
> making
> it too dry.
>
Okay, you two -- take this to rec.fan.cooking :~)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Doug Carter > posted:

> On 2007-12-05, Neil Gould > wrote:
>> Recently, Doug Carter > posted:
>>
>> To begin with, I did not write that "education is underfunded" in the
>> sense that you are suggesting or that your cited reference uses. If
>> you wish to make such an argument, it would be a good idea to quote
>> my entire paragraph so that others can see how you have
>> intentionally distorted its meaning.
>
> Sorry. I missunderstood your meaning; my bad.
>
No problem, it happens.

>> To support your conclusion based on the article, which IMO is
>> suprisingly poor for the CATO institute, one has to determine how
>> much of the funding actually reaches the individual student, as it
>> is only "per pupil" if the pupil directly benefits from it. The
>> article was written in 1990, and basically supports the NEA
>> statement that there was a 31% increase in government spending "for
>> education" during the prior decade. What do we know about that
>> period of time that might raise questions about the actual value of
>> that money? How much did your car or your house cost in 1980 vs.
>> 1990? I can tell you that my 1984 vehicle cost about 1/3 of what the
>> same make and model cost when I replaced it in 1991 (and the cost of
>> the same make and model was almost 60% more when it was replaced in
>> 2001). Also, expenditures that were typical in 1990 were
>> non-existant in 1980, for example purchases of personal computers.
>> So, to me, that 31% increase is not positively impressive.
>>
>
> I don't think that the rate of increase in education funding has ever
> been below the inflation rate in this country.
>
Well, that may be a different issue, but you may be surprised. Do you know
what the rate of inflation was for that period?

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=1

Also, I wrote of expenditures that would probably be included in the NEA's
funding statement (the article took a backwards approach to this, so this
is speculation on my part).

>> Even so, my point was not about the *amount* of money, it was about
>> the PRIORITIES, in particular how that money is spent. In our
>> community, we spend more per pupil than all but one other community
>> in the state, but we are not getting that kind of return on our
>> investment. I (and the state auditor FWIW) attribute it to a
>> top-heavy school system. So, on what do you base the relevance of
>> your "Regardless of priority..." as an argument for our lack of
>> success in educating these youth?
>
> Again, I read your post too quickly and missunderstood it. I agree
> completly with your last paragraph. Lets start at the Federal level
> by disolving the Department of Education as my fellow Republicans
> promised, but failed to do in the mid '90s. Next, lets bust the
> state monopoly on primary and secondary education.
>
To what end? In this state, the voucher system has established a large
number of independent educational institutions. Most of them are just
ripping off the public coffers, and are doing a worse job than the public
schools.

I think there can be fiscal responsibility and appropriate priorities
within the existing structure. The reason that we don't have that now is
the real problem.

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

>>
>> 6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous
>> claims by people burned in a ten year period just before this
>> incident, including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior
>> knowledge of the extent and nature of the hazard.
>
> A bit more of discovery would find that there are thousands of such
> cases nationwide, only a tiny fraction occurring at McD's.

Objection, that states facts not in evidence and McD's is the only plaintiff
in trial here today.

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous
>>> claims by people burned in a ten year period just before this
>>> incident, including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior
>>> knowledge of the extent and nature of the hazard.
>>
>> A bit more of discovery would find that there are thousands of such
>> cases nationwide, only a tiny fraction occurring at McD's.
>
> Objection, that states facts not in evidence and McD's is the only
> plaintiff in trial here today.

Sustained.

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter R." > wrote:
> On 12/5/2007 10:40:30 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>
>> Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing
>> coffee is between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be
>> served at that temperature.
>
> So you brew a pot of coffee at that temperature, then what? Wait 20
> minutes for it to cool down? Of course not. You draw off a cup
> right away.

So heat a cup of water to 195 F and drink it. Then report back the results.

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote:
>> On 12/5/2007 10:40:30 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>>
>>> Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing
>>> coffee is between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be
>>> served at that temperature.
>>
>> So you brew a pot of coffee at that temperature, then what? Wait 20
>> minutes for it to cool down? Of course not. You draw off a cup
>> right away.
>
> So heat a cup of water to 195 F and drink it. Then report back the
> results.

DISCLAIMER: KIDS DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME. This experiment should only be
performed by masochists and those with reckless disregard for their own
safety. Also make sure your health insurance is paid up to date.

[Doug Carter]

On 2007-12-05, Neil Gould > wrote:
> Recently, Doug Carter > posted:
>>
>> Again, I read your post too quickly and missunderstood it. I agree
>> completly with your last paragraph. Lets start at the Federal level
>> by disolving the Department of Education as my fellow Republicans
>> promised, but failed to do in the mid '90s. Next, lets bust the
>> state monopoly on primary and secondary education.
>>
> To what end? In this state, the voucher system has established a large
> number of independent educational institutions. Most of them are just
> ripping off the public coffers, and are doing a worse job than the public
> schools.

Geez... is diversity and choice so bad? At least parents in your state have a
choice.

> I think there can be fiscal responsibility and appropriate priorities
> within the existing structure. The reason that we don't have that now is
> the real problem.
>
Since the prospects of the government giving up their monoploy are bleak, I
hope you are right but the cycle of underperformance and reform has been going
on for a long time :(

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> "Peter R." > wrote:
>>> On 12/5/2007 10:40:30 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing
>>>> coffee is between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be
>>>> served at that temperature.
>>>
>>> So you brew a pot of coffee at that temperature, then what? Wait 20
>>> minutes for it to cool down? Of course not. You draw off a cup
>>> right away.
>>
>> So heat a cup of water to 195 F and drink it. Then report back the
>> results.
>
> DISCLAIMER: KIDS DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME. This experiment should only be
> performed by masochists and those with reckless disregard for their own
> safety.


Anthony must be at it as we speak.


Bertie

[Peter R.]

On 12/5/2007 4:42:31 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:

> So heat a cup of water to 195 F and drink it. Then report back the
> results.

Bland to the taste, could use flavor.


--
Peter