The Official McDonald’s-Coffee-Post-Commenter Awards

As I said yesterday, the comments to this excellent post by the Curmudgeonly Clerk were so witty and entertaining that I think some of the commenters deserve awards.

If you haven’t taken the time to read the comments, that’s your own fault. Go ahead and read them now if you must, but in the meantime, I have some awards to present.

• Best Use of His Own Identity . . . goes to Ted Frank, who as far as I can tell, was the only commenter brave enough to say something substantive from this side of the wall of anonymity.
• Most Stalwart Defender of Starbucks Coffee . . . goes to Mr. Poon, who said to Ted Frank: “I fail to see what Starbucks has to do with it.” Unfortunately, this didn't persuade Ted about the non-relevance of Starbucks coffee to the McDonald's coffee case.
• Most Heartfelt Expression of Contempt for Plaintiffs’ Lawyers . . . goes to Ted Frank, who flatly declared, “[T]he plaintiffs' bar regularly lies.” (Warning: quote taken slightly out of context to increase its funniness-quotient. Come to think of it, this warning should be understood to apply to all the quotes in this post.)

• Most Heartfelt Expression of Contempt for ATLA . . . goes to Ted Frank, who wrote, "The claim that the sweatpants exacerbated Liebeck's injuries comes directly from the ATLA propaganda sheet on the subject” (emphasis added).
• Most Knowledgeable about Coffee Makers . . . goes to Ted Frank, who wrote, “The higher-quality coffee-makers sold on Starbucks's website for home-use heat the coffee to 205 degrees, making it clearly capable of being served at the McDonald's temperature.”
• Best Use of Sarcasm . . . goes to the commenter "Taint," who wrote to Ted Frank, “The founding fathers did not intend the commoners to have access to the courts, because, by nature, their injuries ARE their fault.”
• Best Impersonation of Jesus in the Temple with the Money-Changers . . . goes to The Curmudgeonly Clerk, who swooped down on the commenters and declared, “I am chagrined to see that my post has somehow devolved into a discussion of ATLA's position on the Liebeck suit. Given the length and thoroughness of what I wrote, it would be nice if tort reformers got around to dissecting my post rather than hammering away at the American Trial Lawyer's Association.”
• Best Line I’m Most Likely to Steal for Use in Comment-Wars of My Own . . . goes to The Curmudgeonly Clerk, who wrote to Ted Frank, "[Y]ou continuously insinuate that no one can make a principled case for Liebeck and that all those who defend it are schills for the plaintiffs' bar.”
• Best Use of Unusual Law-Inspired Blogging Jargon . . . goes to The Curmudgeonly Clerk, who wrote to Ted Frank, "I think that you are something of an 'eggshell blogger.' This isn't the first time that you have struck a pose of being terribly offended where this topic is concerned.”
• Most Insensitive to the Feelings of College Girls . . . goes to Taint, who wrote to Ted Frank, "What you are able to, however, do is tell the world that you are 'offended' when someone dares question your viewpoint. This might cut it for college girls but amongst lawyers it is even worse than telling a judge that the resolution is 'obvious.'”
• Best Example of the Mysterious Power and Ease-of-Use of Hypertext . . . goes to Ted Frank, who wrote, "Taint, I don't know why it's so difficult for you to click my name and find my website. Really now.”
• Most Pronounced Failure to Protect His Flanks . . . goes to The Uncivil Litigator, who picked a fight with all of the foregoing when he arrived late and declared, "This debate is a perfect example of overanalysis by legal experts leading to nothing other than mass confusion of the issues.”
• Best Recovery After a Failure to Protect His Flanks . . . goes to The Uncivil Litigator, who defended himself later by noting, “A lawyer who does not know how to 'feel' the law is missing some terribly important instincts, unless he happens to live in a jurisdiction which resolves 100% of all civil cases through summary judgment motions.”

And on that note, our awards ceremony comes to an end. After you're safely home and in front of your computer again, be sure to check out Beldar's excellent and entertaining war story, which concludes, "I don't have the same reaction that Mr. Frank or Professor Bainbridge have to the McDonald's coffee verdict. I tend to view it as an aberration, rather than as something indicative of a basic flaw in the law or the civil justice system."

Comments

[David Giacalone]

An award-winning post from you, Evan! You're going to be sued some day, Mr. Schaeffer, not for your hot coffee, but for distracting far too many lawyers from billing, employees from working, and law students from studying.

(Geez, why am I sucking up so much lately?)

[Federalist No. 84]

(Geez, why am I sucking up so much lately?)
>>>>

Because these past couple of weeks, Evan has been in rare form. I'll suck up too if it keeps the humor coming!

[Scheherazade]

Love it. This is why I'm scared to write anything about the law on my blog. I'm afraid it will turn into a mean name-calling contest of folks pointing out who's smarter than whom. Why does this happen when people discuss law or politics on blogs? Is this kind of debate fun for everyone but me?

[David Giacalone]

Hi, Scheherazade,

Although I engaged in such misbehavior for decades, it never really was fun for me. I've been doing my best to resist joining in such verbal melees ever since I noticed that it actually caused me "lotsa agita".

Sad to say, it's not just lawyers and political junkies who do this: take a look at some of the weblogs that critique the arts. It may be a male thing. Very few women seem to waste their time on such wheel-spinning and (pseudo)intellectual sabre-rattling.

[David Giacalone]

p.s. If you want to see how low commenting can get on an otherwise reputable weblog, check out this Open Thread at TalkLeft. When you're away all day, do you know what your visitors are up to?

[The Curmudgeonly Clerk]

Mr. Schaeffer:

I read with interest your comparison of me with Jesus. When read in conjunction with Mr. Giacalone's warning about the danger of a potential lawsuit, I can only conclude that you owe me your coat and your cloak.

[Mr. Poon]

The irony of it all is I can't stand Starbucks. Not the taste, mind you, but the fact that my girlfriend loves it and law students have it so much better than med students and she'd use that to guilt me into fetching some for her.

I'm not generally whipped, but I sure am in the coffee-fetching area. It's like liberal-guilt or something.

[UCL]

First: LOL!

Second: Yes, it is a male thing. Some of my best "couple friends" are lawyers, and the lawyer wives are always making fun of the fact that the only heated debates about law that take place during our get-togethers are by their testosterone-overdosing neanderthal lawyer husbands, myself included.

[Ted]

Evan: I happen to agree that the McDonald's coffee case was an aberration. Most courts throw such litigation out before it gets to trial. ATLA, however, defends the Liebeck verdict, and suggests that it was the aspirationally appropriate way to resolve the case.

You nicely elide this issue, as you did with the obesity lawsuits, where you rejected the idea that a law was needed to protect food manufacturers, but then endorsed the theory of liability of the food industry. Where do you stand on Liebeck? Is it an incorrect aberration or is ATLA correct that it's an example of how the tort system is supposed to work?

Poon: you think you have irony? I don't even like hot coffee! I always order iced.

(For the record, I am and was not offended by disagreement, as evidenced by my continued courteous relationship with Mr. Schaeffer, but by repeated baseless and insulting claims in the Clerk's comment section that I made up facts, when those same facts were readily verifiable from cites I gave.)

[Evan]

Ted: As always, I appreciate the comment. However, I do not want to answer your substantive questions about Liebeck in the comment section of this particular post. As propietor of this weblog, I would like to keep this one light-hearted, rather than starting up Comment War II (or XIV, as the case may be). Perhaps I'll do another post in a few weeks.

[Ted]

"Proprietor"

[Evan]

Damn, you got me. I'd have to pay you $20, enough for nearly two cups of iced Starbucks coffee, except for the rule stated at the end of the post to which you linked: "errors in my comments don't count." That's because, like many weblog commenters, I frequently dash comments off in a fit of overheated passion that doesn't allow time to check for errors of grammar, usage and spelling.

This week, I'm afraid, you'll have to purchase your coffee at McDonald's.