Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Think for myself, Jan 30, 2023.
Were you under the impression that you had a point?
sure he will
If you read the complaint which has been provided to you, it will probably answer your question. Why should anyone do your reading for you.
yardmeat said: ↑
Can you quote the part that Woodward supposedly violated?
Thank you for admitting that neither you nor Bluesguy can provide said quote. No one is obligated to read 30+ pages to try to find the argument that you are making. If you can't articulate an argument, and you can't, then there's no conversation to be had.
Trump's not a fast learner. After the first book, he should have walked.
You didn't reply to what I wrote. If you actually bothered to read the complaint, you'd know that it is clearly stated where Woodward violated their agreement.
I'm not going down anymore of your rabbit holes. Enjoy your day.
I'm sorry that you think that substantiating your claim is a "rabbit hole." Enjoy your day.
YM, I pointed out that particular page in the complaint earlier in the thread. You can either 1) review the entire thread or 2) read the actual complaint. It's been posted by more posters than me.
I've already provided an answer to the same question earlier on the thread.
You're not entitled to any more than the above. It's not like you just jumped into the thread. You've been posting almost since the beginning of its inception and have been asking the same question over and over again even after you have received the answer.
Who wants to drink cold coffee. If I order a cup of coffee I expect it to be hot and will exercise caution in handling it. How many people aren't?
I think he made it very well. Hot drinks are better served hot.
There should be options other than "cold" and "hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns." Aside from some cold brew, I've never had a cup of coffee that falls outside those parameters.
Cold coffee, unlike coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, is actually drinkable. Which would you rather drink right now: cold coffee or coffee so hot that it causes serious injury?
Drinks so hot that they cause serious injury should not be served as a "drink" . . . hot take: maybe serve drinks that people can actually drink!
Well, I'm not going to belabor this issue with you. It's off topic even though I brought it up, it was only to make a point about strange lawsuits being won.
Could you explain? I don't know what you're trying to imply.
There's nothing "strange" about that case. Restaurants should serve consumables that can actually be consumed.
Because he's a narcissist (you must at least realize-- and be willing to admit?-- that much).
Someone, earlier quoted just the couple of words "written word," from the contract, in explaining that, according to the complaint, Trump had only allowed the use of the recordings, for the purpose of insuring the accuracy of quotes in the book. Of course, the important thing (as we have seen in the past), is not what Trump's lawyers allege, but what can be proven. Without seeing the contract, itself, I don't know how anyone has a basis for predicting how this case will turn out.
According to Trump himself he knows more about anything than anyone.
While that sounds like a very reasonable opinion, @Bluesguy 's post showed that water only needs to be 150°, to be able to cause 3rd degree burns, upon a 2 second skin exposure. He also cited the information that hot beverages, served by restaurants, are typically served at between 160 and 185 degrees-- that's why the take out lids, always include the caution, that the beverage is "hot."
The obvious point you overlook, is that any hot beverage cools over time. People generally like to drink coffee, while it is still reasonably warm; yet most don't want to be required to gulp it down, immediately, in order to do so. Let's say that coffee you pick up, in the drive-thru, is intended to be drunk at your workplace, which is ten or fifteen minutes away. And perhaps, after you arrive, you wish to be able to sip your coffee, for at least five minutes. So, if coffee were served at 150°, how warm is what is left in the cup, going to be, 15 or 20 minutes later? (Also, the less liquid that is in the cup, the faster it will cool, while one is drinking it.)
If that woman had a legitimate case, IMO, it would have been that the McDonald's lids were inadequate, to reasonably prevent that type of accident, or that, in this given instance, the McD's worker, had improperly seated the lid, on the cup, less firmly that it was meant to be secured.
He would still have to prove that in the document. And nothing he has put in that lawsuit said that Trump has any proof. All he is doing is throwing as much dung on the wall to see what sticks.
And what contract would that be. Usually, when a reporter such as Woodward or 60 minutes interviews a person of importance, the contract sets the date, time, place, lengh of the interview, what topics are on and off subject, and so forth. But what Trump thinks is that anyone who uses his name should pay him because he thinks his name is copyrighted and that whatever he is saying is copyrighted because he was President. That is the whole gist of his lawsuit. And it won't go far at all.
YOu might want to watch the video below. It is very interesting
I read it, it is a bunch of BS.
Separate names with a comma.