Deadbeat Dad

Scott Hardie | July 9, 2005
Last fall (link) we half-jokingly discussed the right of a husband – ok, me – to be absent from the delivery room while his wife gave birth if he doesn't have the stomach to watch. Now I'm even more convinced to wait outside: A Los Angeles man was killed last week when he fainted and struck his head while watching his wife receive an epidural. (link) The poor woman has my sympathy for her loss (and the loss to come when a judge throws out the lawsuit), but I join weak-stomached husbands everywhere in gape-mouthed horror at this possible delivery room scenario.

Jackie Mason | July 9, 2005
[hidden by request]

E. M. | July 10, 2005
[hidden by request]

Michael Paul Cote | July 11, 2005
The hospital did not force the husband to be there, simply asked (from what I gather from the link). Having been in the situation of both being in the delivery room when my son was delivered C-section, and present for my wife during several epidurals, and not having an extremely strong stomach for those types of things, I know that 1) the husband could have refused; and 2) all he had to do was look lovingly into his wife's eyes while whispering words of comfort and he could have avoided looking at the procedure altogether. It is a terrible tragedy, however, it brings to mind the lady suing McDonald's because she got burned by her hot coffee, just another frivolous lawsuit to tie up the already busy courts and another reason for health care costs to go up.

Anna Gregoline | July 11, 2005
Yeah, except the coffee lawsuit wasn't frivolous.

Scott Hardie | July 11, 2005
I'll write more tonight when I'm less busy, but for the moment I wanted to preemptively warn Mike that the McDonald's coffee lawsuit has been a hot-button issue here in the past: (link) (link) (link) Basically, whenever someone has used it as an example of out-of-control frivolous lawsuits, they've been met with somewhat impassioned replies that the lawsuit was wholly justified. The crux of it was that any coffee hot enough to cause third-degree burns and require multiple surgeries to repair was far too hot to drink. (link) I'm one of the people who tries to spread the word that the case was justified, but I still acknowledge that just because one frivolous case was not actually frivolous doesn't mean there's not an epidemic of ridiculous lawsuits going on in this country. Anyway, I wanted to provide some TC background before this turned into another silly argument in which we all essentially agree with each other. :-) I'll write more when I can.

Jackie Mason | July 11, 2005
[hidden by request]

Michael Paul Cote | July 11, 2005
Sorry, don't mean to beat a dead horse, but according to the wikipedia link, the coffee was brewed and served at the proper temp. Why not sue the makers of the sweat suit she was wearing for absorbing and holding the hot liquid against her skin? I saw an incident at the Marriott in NH where I was working where a server dumped 6 gallons of freshly brewed coffee onto herself. She suffered what was basically a bad sunburn, because she was able to get her clothes off (in the ladies room) within a couple of minutes. If I were being burned or even uncomfortable, I would not hesitate to remove the article of clothing. And I bet that if the lady had put the cream and sugar in the coffee and it turned out lukewarm, she would have complained that it wasn't hot enough (been there had that done to me). I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about this case, just stating my own feelings.

Anna Gregoline | July 11, 2005
Where does it say it was brewed and served at the proper temp? It says it was brewed and served at the temp required by McDonald's at the time, and that temperature has now since been reduced, because of this lawsuit and others.

Whatever anyone's feelings on the matter, the jury found McDonald's more responsible than the woman in the cause of the burns, and so I am relieved that justice prevailed in this case.

Kris Weberg | July 11, 2005
As to the second objection -- care to explain a safe method for removing clothing while driving an automobile?

Scott Hardie | July 12, 2005
Ed: I didn't know that organization existed, but since most of my knowledge of the health care industry comes from "ER," I shouldn't be surprised. :-) One thing I have always wondered: Why are interning med students made to work such long hours (upwards of 24 hours as I recall from some neighbors)? Is it so that they get accustomed to thinking clearly even while fatigued? Is it that hospitals are underfunded and merely taking advantage of exploitable labor? Or is it simply that each generation, once finished with the ordeal, is eager to subject the next one to it? It seems like one of the biggest steps hospitals could take to improve safety for patients would be to work their interns normal hours.

Jackie: I'm surprised we didn't discuss the finger-in-the-Wendy's-chili incident more when it happened. For me, what's most interesting about that case is the sweeping national desire to see that bitch locked up and the key thrown away; in other words, an inordinately strong desire to see her punished for the hoax. We can only speculate as to the combination of factors that causes the public to turn against an individual like that, since the American public is usually far more happy to accept a hoax without question rather than seek out the truth behind it, but in this case I think it's a lot of pent-up hostility from the McDonald's coffee case and others, where ordinary people were perceived to have been aggressively pursing big cash paydays in court for trivial slights and injuries, and it felt good to see someone finally get nailed for making the whole thing up. It hasn't exactly turned the tide, however; I have since read about two other finger-in-the-Wendy's-chili incidents since this one.

Kris: If you're referring to the McDonald's case, the woman wasn't driving; she was sitting in the passenger seat in a parked vehicle. But of course, you're right that we're not always capable of removing clothing after a liquid burn, and there's the larger point that whether or not the woman could have refused her clothing does not excuse McDonald's from serving coffee at dangerously high temperatures.

E. M. | July 12, 2005
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 12, 2005
"Is it that hospitals are underfunded and merely taking advantage of exploitable labor? Or is it simply that each generation, once finished with the ordeal, is eager to subject the next one to it?"

After reading a bunch of books on the subject, I feel that these two answers are the best ones. I'm really interested in the medical student process, it's practically medieval how they treat these students, and you know what? In the process, people DIE. It's shameful.

Part of the coffee lawsuit explains that her clothes melted/stuck to her skin, burning her for 90 seconds. She couldn't have gotten them off easily.

I recently got a bad burn from cigarette ash of a person next to me - it fell onto the couch and down my shorts, resting against the edge between butt and leg - I brushed and hopped and jumped and it finally came out - probably only about 6 seconds later. That was just one tiny little piece of ash and one tiny time frame, but I will have a lasting scar - that's how badly it burned me.

Burns happen FAST, and especially for something like liquid, which you can't escape from the same as brushing ash away from your skin, it's really easy to be burned badly. Of course the woman was stupid for putting coffee between her legs, but can anyone here tell me they haven't done the same at least once? The point and the ruling was that the coffee was too hot - her injuries would not have been as severe if the coffee was a safer temperature - which is now is.

Michael Paul Cote | July 12, 2005
"During the case it was discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius). Testimony by witnesses for McDonald's revealed that McDonald's did not intend to reduce the heat of its coffee. However, the National Coffee Association of USA recommends that coffee be brewed at 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit and, if not drunk immediately, should be maintained at a temperature of 180-190 for optimal flavor. [1] Starbucks, for example, serves its coffee at this temperature, and, indeed, has been subjected to similar lawsuits for coffee spills. Most courts have thrown these cases out."

I don't see where "too hot" comes into play if McDonald's and Starbucks and probably many other coffee purveyors follow the guidelines set by the National Coffee Association. I know at the Marriott our coffee makers would not brew if the temp was below 175. If you ask for coffee, you assume (at least I do) that it's going to be hot. If you are worried about spilling, you don't let your grandson drive away while you are trying to add cream and sugar. Since she was going to add cream, the temp of the coffee would probably have gone down to a "drinkable" temperature. And I still say she would be the first to complain the her coffee was "cold" if it wasn't up to temperature.

I do feel badly about her injuries, but come on. When are people going to stop looking to blame others for their own stupidity or leave it be what it was...an accident.

Am I the only one that remembers riding bikes without helmets; sledding down hills and slamming into trees; playing tackle football with no pads; the results of these all being getting bumped and scraped and occasionally broken bones? We didn't sue the neighbor whose tree we hit, or our friends that might have tackled us and skinned our elbow. I survived, and I assume that those who remember did also, none the richer (at least monetarily) or poorer for the experiences.

I have no great love for "corporate giants", but even though Bill Gates has created junk software and convinced anyone bright enough to use a mouse that they can be a graphic designer, I am not suing him for loss of income or for the frustration that comes with having to deal with the junk from his programs when they are brought to my shop. Did anyone ever stop to think about the cost for these lawsuits? Do you think that they have no effect on us? Couldn't that jury have been put to better use on an actual criminal case? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

And, I wonder, if the lady had gotten the same coffee at the same temp at a "Mom and Pop" cafe with the results being the same, would a lawsuit have happened at all?

Anna Gregoline | July 12, 2005
Fine, nevermind. I'm sick of arguing about this story. Anyone who disagrees with the ruling isn't going to change their mind.

Kris Weberg | July 12, 2005
Uh, Michael, having worked at a Starbucks for over a year, I can tell you that their coffee is, generally speaking, not served that hot. Lord knows I got it all over myself enough times, straight from the machines that brew it, and didn't get it off of myself in "two to seven seconds." Never suffered a 3rd-degree burn while I was there, either.

And even so, pretty much everyone who drinks coffee at Starbucks reduces the temperature before sipping as a side effect of all that milk you need to dump into it -- even the steamed milk isn't quite as hot as the coffee, and it cools faster as well.

If the National Coffee Association has a bad guideline, guess what? Still a bad guideline. They're not a government or a consumer group -- they're an industry group out to improve coffee-company revenues.

Coffee that, when spilled on a clothed human being, requires repeated surgeries is too hot to be safely served. Period.

Scott Hardie | July 13, 2005
Why does it have to be about changing each other's minds? There are a lot of excellent points being made by everyone so far and I'm learning a lot, even if I'm unlikely to be converted to the other side. I'm glad we're discussing this; I'm not out to convince anybody, just to talk.

Mike, I can't help but notice that most of your points are based on a presupposition that the old woman was greedy and/or scheming. You seem to be making assumptions about her personality – that she's a natural complainer who would gripe if the coffee had been too cold, or that her stupidity caused the accident (she was smart enough to have her grandson park the van in the first place) – assumptions that seem to be made up in the absence of any evidence (unless you have some?) and are useless when drawing a conclusion. All we can know about the case is what we read, not what we presuppose, so shouldn't we decide based on that? The fact that a lawsuit was brought on stable enough grounds to repeatedly convince judge and jury of its merit does not make me assume its plaintiff was greedy. I think our assumptions about what kind of person would bring a personal-injury lawsuit against Big Food are influencing our conclusions, both yours and mine.

About whether a lawsuit would have been brought had the coffee come from a small diner: Again, I'm speaking here from the viewpoint that the woman was a genuine victim, but I say yes, a different lawsuit smaller in scope. The old woman didn't sue McDonald's for such a large sum of money "just because," she chose that high figure because A) they had offered her an insulting settlement value that didn't begin to cover her medical expenses, and B) they had no intention of changing their coffee-temperature policy and she wanted a big enough legal victory to force them to change it. Since neither of those factors would have influenced legal action against a mom-n-pop diner, it seems to me that she probably would sought a settlement against the diner to cover her medical expenses, received a judgment in her favor, and left it at that (whether or not the diner could/would pay up).

I ask this totally independently of the McDonald's discussion and I'm not trying to prove any point: Am I the only person in the world who thinks coffee is served way too fucking hot at many restaurants? I hate sipping hot coffee while waiting for my meal and scalding my tongue in the process, so that I can't even taste the food I'm about to pay good money to eat. I don't order coffee any more for medical reasons, but back when I did, I wound up letting it sit on the table for several minutes before I even attempted a tiny sip to see if it had cooled off. Maybe my perception about hot coffee, which obviously differs from the National Coffee Association's recommendations for "optimal" flavor, is shaping my attitude in the McDonald's case, but honestly, I doubt it. I keep coming back to what I stated at the beginning of all this and what Kris repeated, that the McDonald's coffee required three damn surgeries, so how in the world was anyone supposed to drink it?

Amy Austin | July 13, 2005
Hehehe... this is probably the main reason that I am not a coffee/hot beverage drinker. It's just too damn hard to have them served at just the right temperature! See, I am one of those really picky folks who has to have my coffee/tea/cocoa as hot as it can be without scalding my mouth -- a couple of degrees less, and it just isn't satisfying. A couple more, and my tastebuds are likely to become impaired through... not just one, but possibly half a dozen meals, or more! Of course, I fully realize how demanding that is, too, so... I usually just don't order it to save everyone the trouble. ;-)

Anna Gregoline | July 13, 2005
If you want to talk about truly frivolous lawsuits....

(link)

Michael Paul Cote | July 13, 2005
To all: Points well taken. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I have seen it too often. I still feel that we are living in a society of "let's blame someone else when ever possible". I didn't mean to imply that the lady was greedy, I saw in the article that she only originally wanted the cost of the medical bills. Maybe a less than scrupulous attorney got involved and saw a chance for more. I don't know, again I speculate. My cynical nature coming out.
Kris, did you ever consider suing your employer because of the spills or if you had gotten burned, would you have considered it then?
I know many people from 6 years of banquet work and many others of restaurant work that are like Amy. If the coffee isn't "the right temp" it's too cold (or hot) . Wouldn't it be safe to assume that "hot" coffee is just that...hot?
I'm not attempting to change minds, just voicing my opinions.

Anna Gregoline | July 13, 2005
Hot, sure. But I don't assume that a cup of coffee is going to give me debilitating burns that require multiple surguries if I spill it on myself - do you? Or do you expect to just get a burn that will last maybe a week?

I personally probably wouldn't have sued simply because I am very poor and would probably have trouble paying legal fees. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't consider it - and in that woman's exact position, I think I would have. Because medical bills for that treatment would have been as devestating as the injury.

Jackie Mason | July 13, 2005
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | July 13, 2005
Michael -- if I had been burned badly enough to require three surgeries, I'd have used OSHA, the civil courts, and whatever else I could to sue them until they changed their policies.

Why?

Because a workplace in which teenage kids routinely work for a low hourly wage can get burned that badly would need to be made a hell of a lot safer, and until negative consequences accrue, I'd doubt such changes would be made.

E. M. | July 14, 2005
[hidden by request]

E. M. | July 14, 2005
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 14, 2005
There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case.

Wow.

And:

Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees.

Yeah, that has nothing to do with "old skin." That coffee would burn you and me just as bad.

E. M. | July 14, 2005
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 14, 2005
LOL, I love being laughed at. Thanks so much, that was awesome!

Third-degree burns involve all layers of skin, dude. Third-degree burns are so deep that only the edges will heal. You will have extensive scarring if you don't get skin grafting, provided the burn is in a large area, which this was. AND this coffee was hot enough to burn you and me bad enough for third-degree. What other proof do you need that ANYONE would be severely injured by this?

Do you honestly expect a third degree burn from coffee? I really, really doubt it.

But if you do, hey, more power to you. But I'm willing to bet that most of the populace doesn't, and shouldn't have to.

Kris Weberg | July 14, 2005
Yeah. Third-degree burns produce an eschar, basically a scab made up, not of dried blood and platelets, but of necrotic -- dead and rotting -- tissue. A small eschar eventually sloughs off. A large one turns into gangrene unless you have surgery to remove it, followed by skin grafts to replace the dead tissue that used to be skin.

This woman? Apparently enough eschars that it took three separate operations.

Note also that in the link you provide, an actual Burn Center told Mickey D's the coffee was dangerously hot.

Here's a short skit illustrating how I think the pre-lawsuit decision process might have gone --

Burn Center: "That coffee is too hot, and it'll cause serious, surgery-needing burns."

National Coffee Association: "But...but the flavor! It'll lose its flavor."

McDonald's: "And flavor is important. Way more important than having skin."

Burn Center: "What the fuck is wrong with you people?"

E. M. | July 14, 2005
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 17, 2005
Who likes being laughed at?

I don't like being laughed at any more than I like being condescended towards. I can't continue a conversation if I'm considered a joke - what's the point?

If I have treated you with disrespect, I am sorry - I was unaware that I had. All I want is to discuss things without it getting personal.

This wasn't a normal cup of coffee - I was asking if whether you or anyone else would expect to be burned as badly as this woman was from a cup of coffee you purchased in a store, that's all. As I said, I really doubt it. I never expect to have to go to the hospital from a cup of coffee I slopped on myself that I bought from a store - I don't know anyone who does! I also don't think we should have to live without that expectation - hence, my agreement with the ruling. It's partly our responsibilty to be safe - and of course this woman should have been more careful about how she handled her coffee. But I'm always surprised when people think that McDonald's didn't have a huge responsibilty here - to make sure that an accident of this nature didn't cause unnecessary suffering. This coffee was far too hot, the jury found it too hot, and the changes were made so that others wouldn't suffer the same unfortunate circumstances. But that's neither here nor there. You're as entitled to disagree with the ruling as I am to agree with it.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I *am* really glad that I don't live in a society where this sort of thing is acceptable - it would be a lot more dangerous out there!

It is never my goal to argue needlessly, despite what many people on this forum might think.

I'm not going to read this forum anymore. I have other places online where I feel that there is a level of discourse and respect that I enjoy more. I sincerely hope that you all enjoy the (most likely) years ahead and the many discussions to follow.

Adios, TC!

Scott Hardie | July 18, 2005
I guess we should have followed Melissa's suggestion of saying "hot coffee!" to each other.

Michael: If you can admit you're being too cynical, I can admit I'm being too naive. Honestly, when I hear about a lawsuit like this, my first thought is almost always "how do they think they can get away with that?" I wind up reminding myself that I don't know the specifics of the case or the legal precedent, and I often make myself assume that the case is valid unless it loses. And that's just as stupid as assuming the opposite. :-) Anyway, I'm glad we can agree that whether or not this lawsuit was unfounded, the vast majority of "frivolous" lawsuits deserve the label.

Jackie: I agree about emotional damages. Logically speaking, how do you put a price tag on them in court? (Steve is in Europe so this will have to be rhetorical.) If you are physically injured, you sue for the medical costs of repairing your body. Shouldn't emotional damages work out to be the cost of your psychiatric care? I don't think anyone except the super-rich spends millions on their shrink.

Ed: I appreciate your insights about the case, especially coming from your professional background, but please leave the attitude out of this. I don't know what you think entitles you to be rude.

Anna: I apologize for being all or part of that condescension. Here I told you that we shouldn't discuss to convince each other, and recently I argued the value of personal anecdotes, both of which points I realized at the time were common sense and should have gone without saying, but you brought them up and I didn't know what else to say. I was hoping you would respond to them and we could both clarify, but that didn't happen, so I'm sorry that all went the way it did.

It goes without saying how fond I am of you as a fellow author on TC. You have been closer to sharing my goal with this site than anyone else, and I know it couldn't have been any easier for you to delete your account than it was for me to pull the plug on TC earlier this year. (Like I did, I hope you'll reconsider.) In the end, I confess to having some of the same bafflement as other authors as to how to discuss with you. We exchange ideas and conclusions, but you keep repeating your same central finding as if trying to achieve a different effect each time. I think you know you can't convince anyone, and I think you know you're not being misunderstood, and it doesn't seem to be the basis of any new conclusion you're making, so I'm having trouble understanding why you keep repeating it. I don't say that to be mean or condescending like it sounds; I'm just expressing a wish that you were still around to provide more clarification to help me understand. Perhaps it could be said that you've been more guilty than the rest of us of participating in discussions with your ears closed and your mind already made up, leaving with the exact same mindset in which you entered, but that doesn't begin to invalidate or diminish your points, and it doesn't mean your not valuable as an author.

Another point I wish you had clarified came from the tug-of-war over personal anecdotes, when you said that the old TC used to be about real discussions and now it's all about telling stories. I still don't know what you meant by that, and I've been around TC as long as you have (happy anniversary :P ), so I was hoping you would say more in that discussion and I could ask you. I missed the chance. I apologize for not bringing it up sooner.

As long as I'm mentioning things I wish I'd brought up sooner, it has come to bother me that you celebrated when your comment count finally exceeded mine in February. Oh, believe it, it bothered me at the time that someone had outdone me at my own site. :-) But the real uneasiness came a few days later, when another author patiently helped me realize that all along you had been chastizing authors like Amy and Scott for toasting their own comment-count milestones because "TC is not about that," then you launched your own discussion to celebrate yourself when it was your turn. You might regret it now; I have no idea. I just wanted to say it for the record while I still had a chance.

Anyway, I guess I'm still writing this as if I expect you to return, when in fact I have no idea whether you'll even see this at all. :-) But I couldn't let you go without saying goodbye. At various times you have been my partner, my muse, and my dearest friend. I look forward to seeing you in October and taking our relationship back offline where it started. Thanks for making the most of these last four years with me.

E. M. | July 18, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | July 18, 2005
[Ed, I'm going to write this on the site because I think it benefits all to read in the wake of Anna quitting; I hope you don't mind.]

Well, I too have had my own quoted links in this discussion used against me, so I know how you feel. ;-) I liked the comments that you made throughout this discussion and the input you provided; they were enlightening and useful, and I wish I had more to say in reply. Nothing you wrote bothered me except two statements to Anna, "you're so predictable" and "you make me laugh all the time." Those personal swipes at Anna were, imo, not appropriate. That's all I meant.

Anna has had a difficult time with plenty of other authors before (literally one week into her TC use, there was already a new discussion asking if anybody else found her so annoying), but today I think that's mostly fueled by different expectations of how TC is supposed to be. Other authors wander into TC from forums where ad hominem attacks and vapid chattiness are the norm, and Anna's determined high-falutin' ways can rub them wrong, like TC is her own personal ivory tower. But from her perspective, she and I have tried to keep this site about "real" discussion from the beginning, and it bothered her to see new authors wander in, trash the place, and cop an attitude with her for telling them they're doing something wrong. It may not seem like she owns TC any more than they do, except that she's the one following the official standards, and so she does.

For all the people who have a problem with her – and I know she's at her most frustrating when she doesn't even realize that she's being frustrating – the bottom line is, I agree with her, and it's my site. :-) While you're totally right in an ethical sense that when many people have a problem with one of their own, that one person is to blame, in this case Anna was using TC exactly as I intended it while most of her opponents were not. (Mike Eberhart was an exception; he didn't make personal attacks against her no matter how passionately he disagreed.) You would also be totally right in an ethical sense if you argued that TC should shift to match the values of its majority, but let's face it, this ain't no democracy. It's going to adhere to my standards as long as it's my site, and I disapprove of the sometimes corrosive ways of the new school as much as Anna does. The way I see it, if it's her comments that annoy, then it's her comments that should be impugned, not her. In other words, let's keep it about the discussion.

Amy Austin | July 18, 2005
Okay, it's well past 3AM, and I am having the distinct sensation of one who is about to walk into shark-infested waters, but... I can't help it. I am drawn to the ocean and its waves, I guess. Plus, one of those I see swimming there is no stranger to me, and even though I strongly suspect that he would really not appreciate my wading in, I also really feel like pummeling a shark or two right now.

I have just spent the last hour perusing old discussions here and thinking pretty hard on the things said in this one. I don't want this to be a long and drawn out comment, but I *do* want to get something off my chest pretty badly... so I wouldn't expect this to be short, either.

Scott, I realize that this is your site and, along with that, your total right to run it as you see fit. However, I really do think that there is just something that clouds your judgment when it comes to Anna. And that's understandable... after all, she is no "virtual stranger" to you, either -- she is someone that you would want to rescue from the sharks, too... and you go wading in time and again to do so. I can understand that.

And (not just) in case Anna is still reading up on the aftermath of this train wreck of a discussion (and I suspect that she is -- but if you were really worried that she won't see your post, Scott, I am certain that you still have her e-mail), I also wish to say in as complimentary a way as I can (and I'm not just "blowing smoke" when I say it; in fact, I know that I've already said this before!) that she has contributed much to this forum -- perhaps others, too -- in exactly the ways that you claim, Scott. In fact, I have visited her own site (one that she has mentioned here before, but I'm not sure if she'd want me to do so again), and -- believe it or not -- it is one that I could enjoy and might just possibly re-visit despite our history here. BUT...

I chalk this up to it being a blog format -- without the interaction and possibilities for rebuttal that TC has (unless I am mistaken...) -- and to her ability to passionately and adequately express her opinions THE FIRST TIME she writes them. You make the statement, Scott, that Mike is the only one not to "make personal attacks against her" and that "...if it's her comments that annoy, then it's her comments that should be impugned, not her." However, just the post before you also said that you "confess to having some of the same bafflement as other authors as to how to discuss with [her]." I don't think I need to repeat everything that follows that last statement to continue making this point, so I won't...

How *exactly* do you maintain a "non-personal" discussion with someone who is in the constant habit of reiterating their argument (in the legitimate sense of the word) ad nauseum/infinitum??? In other words, I am suggesting that yes, it *is* Anna's personality, by way of the endless repetition of her stance/comments that does bring about unpleasant dissent. To use a really rough analogy, it's like this...

Most folks know that there is no logical reason to get angry with an inanimate object like, say, a computer... but it sure as hell doesn't keep it from happening. A computer operates within set parameters that (unless you are a programmer, for instance) you cannot change. If you try to tell that computer something outside of those parameters, you are likely to get an "error" message of some sort. What you are telling that computer may or may not be valid information -- that knowledge isn't necessary for the completion of this metaphor -- but one thing *is* certain (and certainly predictable): that computer is going to continue to reject your input with its same annoyingly last word message for as long as you do not use the correct format/language/code/whatever! You know this about the computer, and so you try real hard to keep your wits about you while you continue attempting to access the much more desirable next screen of information contained within. But eventually... patience and persistance are quite likely to give way to wanting to cuss that machine out and smash it to pieces. We don't do that, though, because computers are valuable and expensive and contain worthwhile information that we'd like to share... better then just to walk away and try again later, we decide. After all, the computer isn't going anywhere -- it will continue on for as long as you will.
Does the computer have enough self-awareness to know how frustrating it is? No. Does that make it any less so? Not really. How many "error" messages might it take to set someone off??? Does it vary by familiarity with the computer and its language and quirks? Of course, it does.

Scott, it is *you* who has the advantage of a personal off-line relationship with Anna through which to filter. The only other person here (that I know of) with the benefit of the same is Kris, who also appears (to me) to have the least amount of trouble communicating with her. Obviously, the two of you are able to use the right language with a minimum of "errors" due to this familiarity... how great for you. But for those of us who find the repetition of input infuriatingly frustrating, it's horrible. I don't think anyone who's been around here for any decent length of time *wants* it to be that way -- and I think it's why they tend to walk away more often than not (how many comments has Dave Mitzman made lately?). Mike's display of stamina and restraint (if your above comment is indeed true) is impressive and no doubt a reflection on his military bearing... but I suspect that his patience is also restored by long absences from this forum. Not everyone has the time or inclination to muddle through writing (*or* reading) a two-hour post every time there's a stupid misunderstanding like this one (and that's not meant to be insulting to *anyone* but me for doing so!!!) -- I know that I wouldn't if I had a job. And besides, what fun is it (as Anna has apparently often wondered in a different light) to participate in a forum of "discussion" where it no longer feels like any "discussion" is actually taking place??? I guess the answer to that question is what emboldens me to make this very long and public comment... even though it may result in the absence of two more authors. (I have a pretty strong feeling that you can already count it as at least one more, as it stands.) Oh, well. Perhaps it will only serve to help assure her eventual return.

Kris Weberg | July 18, 2005
Actually, 99.99999% of the contact I've ever had with Scott has been on this site, and the rest has largely had to do with the FIN game. I consider Scott a good buddy, but that's entirely on the basis of the open conversations we and others have had here.

And while it's true that I'm friends with Anna elsewhere, you'll note that I don't comment much on her blog, and haven't for about a year. Why? Because I have a Mac, and her site isn't compatible with Safari. Again, I'd say that 99.999% of my conversations with Anna these days take place here -- our schedules are way too different to permit much phone conversation, because she has a job and I'm in grad school.

But do go on imputing motivations and assuming evidence that doesn't exist.

Amy Austin | July 18, 2005
And while it's true that I'm friends with Anna elsewhere...

With regards to you, Kris... this is the only thing I ever made any claim to in the above, based primarily on private conversation with Anna and secondarily on discussions here -- I really don't know where you came up with the rest. At the risk of becoming "rude", I will stop there.

E. M. | July 18, 2005
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | July 18, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | July 22, 2005
All very well written, Amy, especially for a woman still concentrating in the wee hours of the morning. :-) Anna would probably be insulted by the analogy but she has surrendered the luxury of replying; me, I'm glad to read you explaining it so clearly from your perspective. In addition to your theory that it's my in-person contact with Anna that lets me communicate well with her (to tell the truth, I haven't seen her in person since before TC started), I suspect that we don't argue much because we agree on so many things. I can't remember ever arguing with Jackie and that's probably also because we agree on nearly everything.

Hopefully I'll see both Anna and Jackie this October when I visit Chicago. Going to the wedding, Kris? I'd like to see you too.

Ed, I definitely agree about the hospital lawsuit. Unless there's some significant detail about the incident that we missed, it should be an open-and-shut case of shit happens. Then again, I didn't bring this up in the first place to talk about lawsuits; my interest in the hospital incident was that having a queasy stomach for medical trauma actually killed this poor guy, not that his widow is suing. I'm still convinced to stay the hell out of there if it's ever my turn.

Amy Austin | July 22, 2005
Thanks, Scott. ;-) I suppose that I was rather just hoping to simply remain ignored after going to bed on it, but it really is the way I feel. And even though I did somewhat suspect that she just might find it offensive, that was only a matter of perceived odds -- not at all the intent. In fact, I even tried to be complimentary by stating the value of computers and the information contained within... because it's true. I didn't really think it was necessary for her to leave, and her decision to do so only seems (to me) to dramatically declare communications as insurmountably difficult -- and I'm sorry that she feels that way.

I'm also sorry if you found my mention of in-person contact presumptuous (as Kris seemed to) -- but I really wasn't presuming anything about the current frequency of contact between *anybody* here... merely pointing out that having any amount of in-person familiarity (past or present) would give somebody a huge advantage in online communications with another. Frequency of contact doesn't really matter, it's just having a prior knowledge of someone's physical presence (body language, tone, etc. -- all those things that are so important to effective communication, but are very conspicuously absent among "virtual strangers") that I was pointing to as the benefit that isn't had by everyone here. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you or to Kris, and I didn't mean to sound demeaning by it, if I did.

And sure... agreement on the issues always helps, too -- in fact, it makes for the basis of many a fine friendship! It's good that no matter what is going on here, you will clearly still have that with some folks... like Anna. But thanks for allowing me to offer up the occasional (but friendly!) voice of dissent here, Scott... I think that can be a fine basis for friendship as well. ;-)

Scott Hardie | July 22, 2005
Absolutely, Amy. I was glad you explained yourself; so many hours had passed since Anna's final message that I was starting to worry that you would say nothing. And besides, I had already been long-winded and didactical on the subject, and it bugs me (but only a little bit!) when my arguments go silently unchallenged on TC, as if my opinion is the end-all-be-all. I'm really grateful to have your say on the matter.

And I wasn't offended at all by referring to my in-person relationship; you were just making a generalization. I normally agree most of the time with Kris but I don't know why he got snippy. :-)

Jackie Mason | July 22, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | July 22, 2005
I agree. I do not tolerate charges that this website could make me antisocial; it has kept me in touch with so many people who would otherwise have drifted out of my life, and introduced me to so many witty and intelligent strangers. Here's looking forward to the visit.