Obviously some will disagree with me, and that's good... it provides different perspectives. If everyone disagreed with me strongly, I'd be worried. But as I expected, I'm getting mixed results. But in the end, I will do what I think is right, whether advice here swayed my views or not.

What do I want? I just want Troy's superior to know what Troy did, and respond in whatever way he deems appropriate. I sent the letter to get their attention, and they responded, so I sent a last, brief reply to Troy and his superior, including the text of Troy's e-mail in case his superior wasn't BCC'd on it. I also turned down the free passes, to illustrate that I was not motivated by a desire for free shit. I am now pretty confident that his superior is aware of what happened, so I let it rest there. Like I said several posts ago... it's done, it's over. That is, unless they decide to follow up on it or something, which I doubt.

If your question is meant to explore why I still seem irritated about the events, it is because although Troy grossly mistreated my wife and I-- loyal customers-- I suspect he got little more than a hand-slapping over this. He got away with being an asshole in a profession which shouldn't tolerate that, and in the end, my wife and I had to eat the shit sandwich. Maybe I'm wong, maybe he's been written up and is now on probation or something, but I suspect not. Either way, I've ended my efforts, as I stated.

I'm interested in this depth.

I assert that a healthy psyche MUST value the input of others, though the weight given to any outside opinion should vary depending on the source's trustworthiness, awareness of key facts, state of mind, etc. Society is the product of opinions, and society gives us a yardstick against which to measure our success, allowing us to strive for improvment. Everybody wants to have value.

I think a healthy psyche has to first and foremost be solid in the inalieable constant of it own value, by virtue of being alive, regardless of outside opinion. And I'm finding that the outside opinions and yardsticks, no matter how trustworthy or loving, are never going to ever give me a reading I find meaningful, really, truly.

I think one's hot buttons are tied to those personal traits which one holds most valueable, because for another person to question those traits is to risk losing one's perceived value. Basically, for the benefit of my own self-worth, it is important to me that I am trusted... so to question my integrity triggers a strong defense mechanism.

I'm finding that my hot buttons are tied to ideas or actions that threaten my secure sense of myself. They threaten to expose a deep fear or reveal some emotion that can be uncomfortable to deal with. Sounds corny, but for me, its growing past the protective defense reflexes learned as a kid. I'm tougher than that now.

[rant]That's the weird part of this case to me. McDs was not in a position to judge her competence to handle a hot cup of coffee (of course they'd be sued for descrimination if they refused to serve anyone). However, the driver of the car who ordered and handed the coffee to her and allowed her to put the coffee in her lap rather than in a cup holder (if available) would seem to carry most of the blame... Knowing the way our society has turned from individual responsibility, McDs law dept should have prevented the whole thing by making them sell cool coffee in the first place. Who at the Arches made the final call on coffee temp? If McDs is liable (big if) then the individual who made the call is responsible, but its not about responsibility, its about money. Well, at least Jonathon Edwards will never be POTUS.[/rant]

nope. it SHOULD MATTER. that's the problem with us. we've grown into this culture of rudeness, disrespect, hateful humanity doesn't matter any more. it SHOULD MATTER. alan is doing exactly what EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US should do....standing up, being firm, saying, NO! i will not go gentle.

go, alan.

yeah...she has a body part that she wasn't even USING anymore, and now she has three million dollars to buy it jewelry.

hell, she should feel sorry for ME.

unless you BRING something with a point to the theater.

Alan did what he should have done by standing up to the bastard on the spot, then writing to his superiors to alert them to his behavior. i was saying that beyond that, his efforts seemed fruitless or worse.

oh, and the old lady only wound up with 480K after the appeal.

I didn't get one red cent. And don't call me an old lady. :D

yeah, well, 480K would still change MY life......... or am i the only one on the cellar that feels this way?

would you rather have your health or $480K and what's behind curtain #1:

What if she used the cup holder J -- because then, if the coffee spilled, the people who sold her the car could be included in the suit.

She didn't get as far as the cup holder. She wasn't driving. The car wasn't in motion.
She was handed a cup of coffe and she was attempting to put cream and sugar in it - as provided. She was using the product correctly and it burned her twat off.

ok, now you're just egging me. but, I'll bite anyway.

IF the cupholder was defective, and IF the court was to award for that defect, it would be the MANUFACTURER, not the poor, abused car salesman who was just trying to feed his family when he sold her the car at practically no profit, and almost lost his job over the deal he gave her.

UNLESS the only reason that she purchased the car was the saleman's promotion OF the cupholder particularlly, which he went so far as to describe as "spillproof" ... verbally warranting what the manufacturer does not.

It's all the salesman's fault.

aaahhh, that thing prolly looked like an old wallet anyway.