This Gym Pissed Me Off

Off Topic
21

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:
OP, do you own the company? Did you pay for the equipment? Did you pay for the building? Do you pay to use the equipment?

If the answer is NO to any question, than your opinion doesnt matter nor do you have a right to complain.

Slightly on topic, I actually built my company’s ‘wellness center’. There are huge legal and insurance issues with free weights. I was given pretty strict guidlines what I could and couldnt have in the center by our HR and Legal team. I also understood that I wasnt building a hardcore bodybuilding, PLing, OLYing gym. I was creating something that would give people who sit on their butts for 8+ hours a day a chance to move. So I got treadmills that have Facebook in them, a ping pong table, etc. Stuff people can use and enjoy and get moving.

Also my last point, Shell does not have a flawed view of what a gym should be, you have a flawed view on entitlements. Never complain about something that is free for you and costs others money. Also never complain about something you pay for, just stop paying for it. [/quote]

What are the insurance risks of free weights? Everything you do that can hurt you would be your own fault not the companies. I guess that does not keep someone from suing.
[/quote]

Hopefully someone in the field can chime in here since my knowlegde on this is second hand. It was my understanding that regardless of waivers etc, getting hurt on site allows the employee to qualify for workman’s comp and opens the door for negligence lawsuits.

We are talking about a country where an 80 year old woman can sue for spilling coffee on her crotch for millions despite no 80 year old crotch being worth that much. [/quote]

That’s correct. If it’s a corporate facility it could be an activity considered to be within the scope of employment (depending on the jurisdiction). There have even been cases where all the company did was contribute part of the amount toward a gym membership and the employee received work comp. benefits, even though he was working out off site and after work hours.[/quote]

Thanks, you’re a lawyer right?

22

[quote]

Hopefully someone in the field can chime in here since my knowlegde on this is second hand. It was my understanding that regardless of waivers etc, getting hurt on site allows the employee to qualify for workman’s comp and opens the door for negligence lawsuits.

We are talking about a country where an 80 year old woman can sue for spilling coffee on her crotch for millions despite no 80 year old crotch being worth that much. [/quote]

If its covered by workers’ comp., negligence suits against an employer are barred. Workers’ comp. is a no-fault system with limited damages and limited defenses.

You also ought to read up of the facts of the coffee case before repeating a bunch of bullshit about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case

23

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]

Hopefully someone in the field can chime in here since my knowlegde on this is second hand. It was my understanding that regardless of waivers etc, getting hurt on site allows the employee to qualify for workman’s comp and opens the door for negligence lawsuits.

We are talking about a country where an 80 year old woman can sue for spilling coffee on her crotch for millions despite no 80 year old crotch being worth that much. [/quote]

If its covered by workers’ comp., negligence suits against an employer are barred. Workers’ comp. is a no-fault system with limited damages and limited defenses.

You also ought to read up of the facts of the coffee case before repeating a bunch of bullshit about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case[/quote]

What part of what I said was inacurate? She was 79(i said 80 sorry), she spilled coffee on her crotch. She recieved millions of dollars in punative damages. No 80 year old crotch is worth millions of dollars.

24

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]

Hopefully someone in the field can chime in here since my knowlegde on this is second hand. It was my understanding that regardless of waivers etc, getting hurt on site allows the employee to qualify for workman’s comp and opens the door for negligence lawsuits.

We are talking about a country where an 80 year old woman can sue for spilling coffee on her crotch for millions despite no 80 year old crotch being worth that much. [/quote]

If its covered by workers’ comp., negligence suits against an employer are barred. Workers’ comp. is a no-fault system with limited damages and limited defenses.

You also ought to read up of the facts of the coffee case before repeating a bunch of bullshit about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case[/quote]

What part of what I said was inacurate? She was 79(i said 80 sorry), she spilled coffee on her crotch. She recieved millions of dollars in punative damages. No 80 year old crotch is worth millions of dollars. [/quote]

She didn’t get “millions” or even “a million” and the “punitive” award isn’t “compensation” it is punishment for reckless behavior, which the evidence in the case easily supported. So the value of her “old [third-degree-burned] crotch” is largely irrelevant to this aspect of the judgment.

25

97% of the population would benefit from a few sets of machine exercises and stationary cycling.

26

And that is slightly disingenuous. Most coffee experts say coffee should be brewed minimum 190 with ideal being 200. In a poll of coffee drinkers, 175 seemed to be the preferred drinking temp but that ranged all the way down to 130. By the time the coffee is poured and served in a drive thru, if it was at 180 it is probably approaching that 175 mark. Did McDonald’s spill the coffee on her? If not then it is ridiculous that they should have to pay because of a customers incompetence.

27

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
And that is slightly disingenuous. Most coffee experts say coffee should be brewed minimum 190 with ideal being 200. In a poll of coffee drinkers, 175 seemed to be the preferred drinking temp but that ranged all the way down to 130. By the time the coffee is poured and served in a drive thru, if it was at 180 it is probably approaching that 175 mark. Did McDonald’s spill the coffee on her? If not then it is ridiculous that they should have to pay because of a customers incompetence. [/quote]

Yeah, buying your coffee at McDonalds is pretty incompetent.

But realistically, I’d expect the McDonalds coffee to be right around 195-205. I might actually check that tomorrow.

(I actually brew my coffee at 195, since I think it tastes best like that.)

28

Haha maybe it is, I actually prefer their coffee to Starbucks though. I hate Starbucks coffee and just the brand in general though. For drive-thru fast food coffee McDonalds has to have the win. Incompetence was also probably the wrong word there and a little harsh. Mistake would have been a better choice.

29

[quote]Nards wrote:
97% of the population would benefit from a few sets of machine exercises and stationary cycling.[/quote]

*** I doubt it. I speak as a 49 year old who has been inactive for the first 45 years or so. There is nothing worse that a slow bike or treadmill that burns 100 calories tops. All that does it cause a person to give up and eat more when their trips to the gym do nothing and have no effect.

It wasn’t until I dropped the cardio and went for some heavy lifting that I saw some real improvement. The weight is up as is the strength and stamina across the board while the waist line is shrinking. Right up to and including parallel bar dips and pull ups at 240 lbs. That is motivation to keep going. That and the young hotties that come out in their yoga pants after their kids have gone to school ~ 830am.

30

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
And that is slightly disingenuous. Most coffee experts say coffee should be brewed minimum 190 with ideal being 200. In a poll of coffee drinkers, 175 seemed to be the preferred drinking temp but that ranged all the way down to 130. By the time the coffee is poured and served in a drive thru, if it was at 180 it is probably approaching that 175 mark. Did McDonald’s spill the coffee on her? If not then it is ridiculous that they should have to pay because of a customers incompetence. [/quote]

Back then the cups were made very cheaply and easily crushed in your hands making spills inevitable, especially if you needed to remove the lid to add sugar or whatever. If you are going to make money handing someone a third-degree-burn risk in a car, you better make sure the cup is at least reasonably constructed. McD’s has changed cups since then to make them more rigid, but that aspect of the case also went largely unreported.

31

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]

Hopefully someone in the field can chime in here since my knowlegde on this is second hand. It was my understanding that regardless of waivers etc, getting hurt on site allows the employee to qualify for workman’s comp and opens the door for negligence lawsuits.

We are talking about a country where an 80 year old woman can sue for spilling coffee on her crotch for millions despite no 80 year old crotch being worth that much. [/quote]

If its covered by workers’ comp., negligence suits against an employer are barred. Workers’ comp. is a no-fault system with limited damages and limited defenses.

You also ought to read up of the facts of the coffee case before repeating a bunch of bullshit about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case[/quote]

What part of what I said was inacurate? She was 79(i said 80 sorry), she spilled coffee on her crotch. She recieved millions of dollars in punative damages. No 80 year old crotch is worth millions of dollars. [/quote]

She didn’t get “millions” or even “a million” and the “punitive” award isn’t “compensation” it is punishment for reckless behavior, which the evidence in the case easily supported. So the value of her “old [third-degree-burned] crotch” is largely irrelevant to this aspect of the judgment.[/quote]

But it’s completely relevant to my casual one-liner that you are in a sense heckling.

32

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]

Hopefully someone in the field can chime in here since my knowlegde on this is second hand. It was my understanding that regardless of waivers etc, getting hurt on site allows the employee to qualify for workman’s comp and opens the door for negligence lawsuits.

We are talking about a country where an 80 year old woman can sue for spilling coffee on her crotch for millions despite no 80 year old crotch being worth that much. [/quote]

If its covered by workers’ comp., negligence suits against an employer are barred. Workers’ comp. is a no-fault system with limited damages and limited defenses.

You also ought to read up of the facts of the coffee case before repeating a bunch of bullshit about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case[/quote]

What part of what I said was inacurate? She was 79(i said 80 sorry), she spilled coffee on her crotch. She recieved millions of dollars in punative damages. No 80 year old crotch is worth millions of dollars. [/quote]

She didn’t get “millions” or even “a million” and the “punitive” award isn’t “compensation” it is punishment for reckless behavior, which the evidence in the case easily supported. So the value of her “old [third-degree-burned] crotch” is largely irrelevant to this aspect of the judgment.[/quote]

But it’s completely relevant to my casual one-liner that you are in a sense heckling. [/quote]

33

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
And that is slightly disingenuous. Most coffee experts say coffee should be brewed minimum 190 with ideal being 200. In a poll of coffee drinkers, 175 seemed to be the preferred drinking temp but that ranged all the way down to 130. By the time the coffee is poured and served in a drive thru, if it was at 180 it is probably approaching that 175 mark. Did McDonald’s spill the coffee on her? If not then it is ridiculous that they should have to pay because of a customers incompetence. [/quote]

Back then the cups were made very cheaply and easily crushed in your hands making spills inevitable, especially if you needed to remove the lid to add sugar or whatever. If you are going to make money handing someone a third-degree-burn risk in a car, you better make sure the cup is at least reasonably constructed. McD’s has changed cups since then to make them more rigid, but that aspect of the case also went largely unreported. [/quote]

Fair enough, but if you purchase a third degree burn in a weak cup, you are accepting the responsibility that comes with not pouring it on yourself. If you don’t feel comfortable with that then you shouldn’t have bought it. Had the cup malfunctioned in some way by busting at the seams or having the body fall out, had the lid popped off while drinking, then I might could give some blame. By simply taking the lid off yourself, then spilling it onto yourself there is not responsibility there on anyone but yourself.

34

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]

Hopefully someone in the field can chime in here since my knowlegde on this is second hand. It was my understanding that regardless of waivers etc, getting hurt on site allows the employee to qualify for workman’s comp and opens the door for negligence lawsuits.

We are talking about a country where an 80 year old woman can sue for spilling coffee on her crotch for millions despite no 80 year old crotch being worth that much. [/quote]

If its covered by workers’ comp., negligence suits against an employer are barred. Workers’ comp. is a no-fault system with limited damages and limited defenses.

You also ought to read up of the facts of the coffee case before repeating a bunch of bullshit about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case[/quote]

What part of what I said was inacurate? She was 79(i said 80 sorry), she spilled coffee on her crotch. She recieved millions of dollars in punative damages. No 80 year old crotch is worth millions of dollars. [/quote]

She didn’t get “millions” or even “a million” and the “punitive” award isn’t “compensation” it is punishment for reckless behavior, which the evidence in the case easily supported. So the value of her “old [third-degree-burned] crotch” is largely irrelevant to this aspect of the judgment.[/quote]

But it’s completely relevant to my casual one-liner that you are in a sense heckling. [/quote]

So, are people supposed to ignore it when someone repeats falsehoods about a person that almost got screwed by a multibillion dollar company, and especially casts aspersions on such companies being punished for trying to screw over helpless old ladies (for sums that barely register to the company, no less)?

35

[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]

Hopefully someone in the field can chime in here since my knowlegde on this is second hand. It was my understanding that regardless of waivers etc, getting hurt on site allows the employee to qualify for workman’s comp and opens the door for negligence lawsuits.

We are talking about a country where an 80 year old woman can sue for spilling coffee on her crotch for millions despite no 80 year old crotch being worth that much. [/quote]

If its covered by workers’ comp., negligence suits against an employer are barred. Workers’ comp. is a no-fault system with limited damages and limited defenses.

You also ought to read up of the facts of the coffee case before repeating a bunch of bullshit about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case[/quote]

What part of what I said was inacurate? She was 79(i said 80 sorry), she spilled coffee on her crotch. She recieved millions of dollars in punative damages. No 80 year old crotch is worth millions of dollars. [/quote]

She didn’t get “millions” or even “a million” and the “punitive” award isn’t “compensation” it is punishment for reckless behavior, which the evidence in the case easily supported. So the value of her “old [third-degree-burned] crotch” is largely irrelevant to this aspect of the judgment.[/quote]

But it’s completely relevant to my casual one-liner that you are in a sense heckling. [/quote]

So, are people supposed to ignore it when someone repeats falsehoods about a person that almost got screwed by a multibillion dollar company, and especially casts aspersions on such companies being punished for trying to screw over helpless old ladies (for sums that barely register to the company, no less)?[/quote]

So because McDonalds has a lot of money they should be held to a different standard than a regular person. If I bought something from you, lets say a knife, took it home and accidentally cut my own finger off with it, how much would you feel like you owed me??

36

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Haha maybe it is, I actually prefer their coffee to Starbucks though. I hate Starbucks coffee and just the brand in general though. For drive-thru fast food coffee McDonalds has to have the win. Incompetence was also probably the wrong word there and a little harsh. Mistake would have been a better choice.[/quote]

Hah, yeah. I knew what you meant. And I think some of the fallout from that case, specifically, the better cups and lids that came out of it is a good thing.

Since I started drinking coffee, I’ve become a fan of local roasters. Indianapolis doesn’t have much to offer, but when I was working downtown Columbus, OH, there was a lot of good coffee within a 5 minute walk. I’ve got a French press both at home and the office, and a grinder at home, so it’s pretty easy to have good coffee.

While McDonalds and Waffle House do have some of the best in-house coffee, most of the time I’d rather just have a soda of some sort than have house-brewed coffee. For some reason I never cared for the taste of coffee until I had fresh roasted, fresh brewed coffee. Maybe that’s snobbish, I don’t know.

The only thing Starbucks is good for is their espresso drinks; not because of their espresso (which I don’t care for at all), but just because their drinks are basically a caffeinated coffee-flavored milkshake for those occasional sweet cravings.

37

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Haha maybe it is, I actually prefer their coffee to Starbucks though. I hate Starbucks coffee and just the brand in general though. For drive-thru fast food coffee McDonalds has to have the win. Incompetence was also probably the wrong word there and a little harsh. Mistake would have been a better choice.[/quote]

Hah, yeah. I knew what you meant. And I think some of the fallout from that case, specifically, the better cups and lids that came out of it is a good thing.

Since I started drinking coffee, I’ve become a fan of local roasters. Indianapolis doesn’t have much to offer, but when I was working downtown Columbus, OH, there was a lot of good coffee within a 5 minute walk. I’ve got a French press both at home and the office, and a grinder at home, so it’s pretty easy to have good coffee.

While McDonalds and Waffle House do have some of the best in-house coffee, most of the time I’d rather just have a soda of some sort than have house-brewed coffee. For some reason I never cared for the taste of coffee until I had fresh roasted, fresh brewed coffee. Maybe that’s snobbish, I don’t know.

The only thing Starbucks is good for is their espresso drinks; not because of their espresso (which I don’t care for at all), but just because their drinks are basically a caffeinated coffee-flavored milkshake for those occasional sweet cravings.[/quote]

I love almost all things coffee and can drink most any of it. I will still go back to just a good cup of med roast Folgers more often than not though. Takes me back to being a teen during the summer, drinking coffee out of the percolator with my grandpa before taking on whatever odd jobs he had lined up for me that day. Ha maybe its a comfort thing moreso than taste.

38

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Damn near pissed myself.

39

[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]

Hopefully someone in the field can chime in here since my knowlegde on this is second hand. It was my understanding that regardless of waivers etc, getting hurt on site allows the employee to qualify for workman’s comp and opens the door for negligence lawsuits.

We are talking about a country where an 80 year old woman can sue for spilling coffee on her crotch for millions despite no 80 year old crotch being worth that much. [/quote]

If its covered by workers’ comp., negligence suits against an employer are barred. Workers’ comp. is a no-fault system with limited damages and limited defenses.

You also ought to read up of the facts of the coffee case before repeating a bunch of bullshit about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case[/quote]

What part of what I said was inacurate? She was 79(i said 80 sorry), she spilled coffee on her crotch. She recieved millions of dollars in punative damages. No 80 year old crotch is worth millions of dollars. [/quote]

She didn’t get “millions” or even “a million” and the “punitive” award isn’t “compensation” it is punishment for reckless behavior, which the evidence in the case easily supported. So the value of her “old [third-degree-burned] crotch” is largely irrelevant to this aspect of the judgment.[/quote]

But it’s completely relevant to my casual one-liner that you are in a sense heckling. [/quote]

So, are people supposed to ignore it when someone repeats falsehoods about a person that almost got screwed by a multibillion dollar company, and especially casts aspersions on such companies being punished for trying to screw over helpless old ladies (for sums that barely register to the company, no less)?[/quote]

Yes. Otherwise the world would be devoid of humor.

40

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

No.

This is how you deal with hecklers.