Search this site:


Previous: Hidden links | Main | Next: Sign on glass doors

April 12, 2005 12:02 AM

Broken: (Just for fun) Chopsticks instructions

ChopsticksNeed I say more?



hardly broken.. dont stick the chopsticks up your nose.. it can be dangerous.. in the game True Crime, the guy jams this chopstick into another guys ear.

Posted by: Dragon at April 12, 2005 02:55 AM

Sounds like sound advice to me.

Posted by: Ilan at April 12, 2005 06:42 AM

so thats what I was doing wrong, man the next time I'm at a chinese place I won't make a fool of my self anymore!

Posted by: Vic at April 12, 2005 07:27 AM

Not broken, but still funny.

They're trying to save the people with 4 IQ points left.

Posted by: JC at April 12, 2005 08:46 AM

In case you didn't notice, this is a "just for fun" entry.

Posted by: Jay at April 12, 2005 08:57 AM

Jeez, every entry someone says "This isn't broken." Gt a sense of humor. This is a "Just for fun" entry. Maybe this indicates their CUSTOMERS are broken, not grasping how to use chopsticks!

Posted by: Grey Hodge at April 12, 2005 11:58 AM

and of course... sarcasm is lost during a text transition online, yes its funny, of course its not broken.. but that still doesnt make it not funny, just cause i dont say "roflmao" doesnt mean im not laughing on the inside... looks like your the one who needs a sense of humor hodge, considering your anger at the apparent lack of everyone elses.

Posted by: Dragon at April 12, 2005 12:02 PM

What's broken is that there is a need to point out the obvious because if you don't some dumb#$% is going to get a lawyer and sue. What's broken is that there are lawyers who would take the case and put some restaurant owners and a chopstick company out of business and 36 people out of work. What's broken is that said same lawyer would righteously defend his client's right to seek damages (and his right to 33% or better of same). What's broken is that 12 otherwise average people once placed on a jury would suddenly lose all the common sense God gave a chipmunk and actually reward said damages.

/Rant mode off

Post defending tort lawyers in 3, 2, 1....

Posted by: Erich at April 12, 2005 12:10 PM

Erich it's funny you went off on that kind of rant. Just this past weekend I got a breakfast meal from McDonald's, and I got the coffee with it. I was reminded of the lady that sued McDonald's successfully because the cup didn't state that the coffee would be hot, so she scalded herself.

What idiot would order hot coffee and then be surprised that the contents were, in fact, hot? She needed the cup to be labeled telling her so? What if I fill the cup with ice water, could I then sue McDonald's on false advertisement over the fact that the contents are actually cold?

Maybe this chopstick warning was a joke, or maybe it was done because someone wanted to cover their a$$ because of money-grubbing retards who think they can hire a lawyer anytime they spontaneously lose their common sense.

Posted by: Manni at April 12, 2005 12:49 PM

Manni, not to burst a bubble on a perfectly good rant, but the McDonald's coffee case is not a case of lawyers run amok. It's actually a case of the legal system doing what it's supposed to do.

McDonald's was sued because it was published company policy to keep coffee just below boiling (about 20 degrees hotter than needed and maintained by other restaurants), because they'd have to brew less often. McDonald's new it would cause injuries, and had stated in company policy that they were willing to accept the cost of lawsuits for that because the cost savings of having to brew fewer pots a day was worth it. The woman who sued did so only after McDonald's refused to pay any medical bills at all (she suffered third-degree burns). And the final judgement was not for millions, but about $400,000.

I'd suggest reading the facts about the case:

Posted by: Steve at April 12, 2005 01:25 PM

Steve, my first inclination is to shake you violently and call you derogatory names. The fact that you can see the validity of this lawsuit is a sign that the Apocolypse is upon us.

Coffee is hot. Regardless of industry temperature standards, it should not be poured on your skin. If it was because of a McDonald's employee that the woman was burned, then yes they should have covered her medical bills. They are not responsible if you spill it on yourself. Perhaps this is just natural selection taking control?

This is not an example of the legal system doing what it was intended to do. This is a horrible corrupted version of what the founding fathers had in mind. Do you really think it's valid to sue over anything that is not explicitly warned against? If that's the case, then I'll be able to choke myself nearly to death with my phone cord, and sue because the documentation never told me not to do that.

Posted by: Manni at April 12, 2005 01:48 PM

Also, Mc Donalds had already ignored several complaints from customers that were injured by their product (in this case coffee).

I thought the same thing about the lawsuit until I did some research on the case.

Posted by: Porthos at April 12, 2005 01:49 PM

Pardon my veering away from the chopsticks issue, but not too long after the Mickey-Dees coffee incident a man in the UK sued them claiming that his apple pie squirted out of the shell, the filling then burning his arm. All I can say is: when was the last time you got a hot apple pie at McD's? They've been ice cold (which is of course why I stopped buying them!).

Posted by: Robert A. Dugger at April 12, 2005 01:57 PM

Manni, maybe your first inclination should be to actually find out the facts of the case, and not put words in people's mouths, rather than to shake me or call me names.

When a company knows there's an issue and does not take reasonable precautions to avoid it (like not serving coffee 20 degrees above where it needs to be, in order to save money), then it is negligent. Just like if I know that the gutters on my house are loose and could fall off at any moment, and I don't do anything about it for months, and it falls off one day and knocks you out cold from hitting you in the head, I'm liable and negligent.

That's a different case than suing because something wasn't explicitly warned against, and I said no such thing supporting a view.

Please stick to the facts and what people actually say, rather than holding on to preconceived notions.

And in a desparate attempt to keep on topic - the chopsticks illustration is hilarious. I like seeing that more and more companies are having fun with these sorts of things rather than being so dry about it.

Posted by: Steve at April 12, 2005 03:07 PM

every company out there has at least 1 employe that goes on this website so thay have the company make stupid and broken products just so they can get posted on this site.

Posted by: hi at April 12, 2005 03:43 PM

also that 3 means after 3 tries of trying to shove the chopstics all the way up your nose, hold that chopsticks this way

Posted by: hi at April 12, 2005 03:44 PM

Brewing temperature for coffee is at 195F give or take a bit, coffee is best drunk hot, many people prefer to still drink their coffee at apprx. 145F. 1st degree burns begin at 118F and second degree at 130, irrelevant or brewing and storage temperature, coffee is supposed to be drunk while it is hot, and most to all people know with common sense to let their coffee cool a bit to their palatable level

"Truth: Lieback was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson's car holding a coffee after purchasing it from a drive-through window of a McDonald's. When she opened the lid to add cream and sugar, she spilled the coffee.

The simple accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of her body. She was treated in a hospital for a week. McDonald's served coffee 20 or so degrees hotter than the industry standard. The woman, Stella Liebeck, underwent numerous skin-graft surgeries as a result of her third-degree coffee burns to her thighs and groin area. She had permanent scarring on more than 16 percent of her body."

imbecilically, she tried to open the cup of coffee, holding the cup between her legs, as opposed to.. oh i dunno? placing it in a cup holder.

Tell me this, if you brewed up a fresh, steaming pot of coffee, and poured it on your skin without waiting for it to cool, would you be burned by it? 20 degrees or not, she immediately spilled fresh coffee on herself which would have cause near the same damage.

Posted by: Dragon at April 12, 2005 03:52 PM

I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to everyone who read today's thread. Apparently I'm insane, and the only one who thinks the McDonald's lawsuit is a load of crap.

I read the facts, and it has not swayed my opinion. They handed her the coffee, she spilled it on herself while trying to put the cream and sugar in while in the car instead of at home on a sturdy table. Even at 20 degrees cooler it still would have scalded her or at least caused moderate discomfort.

I guess I can't understand how you can sue because something was provided as you expected it. The only time I've had coffee that *wouldn't* have burned me, I complained because it was too cold. I just feel that we've gotten so ultra-sensitive as a society that we coddle to everyone's slightlest little whim rather than considering the bigger picture. Then again, I'm alone on my opinion that the lawsuit was retarded.

Posted by: Manni at April 12, 2005 03:59 PM

Also, Third degree burns occur within 5 seconds at 140 degrees, and mcdonalds stored their coffee at approx 190, 20 degrees higher than standard. As such, the standard becomes 170 degress approx. still higher than the even 1 second, third degree burn time of 160 degrees, coffee is dangerous, get a clue.

Posted by: Dragon at April 12, 2005 04:02 PM

From a simple picture of a person sticking chopsticks up his nose...and all of a sudden everyone is ranting about

Posted by: Jonathan at April 12, 2005 04:09 PM


Posted by: hi at April 12, 2005 04:23 PM

at least the coffee case is more intelligent than the case in which a woman claiming she was "caused severe cuts and severe pain from a pickle that was placed in her burger" sued McDonalds. Her husband also sued because he claimed that she was in too much pain to have sex with him, and that McDonalds should be held responsible. I have no idea how the case turned out.

Posted by: real_saddam at April 12, 2005 05:14 PM

I can use chopsticks with my nasal cavities.

Maybe this ad is warning against learning it yourself, as it's a Chinese-cornered market and they don't want to lose their hold on it. It could topple their economy if the "Nose Chopstick Circus" gets shut down because of competition.

Posted by: Manni at April 12, 2005 05:27 PM

OK, what would you do if you got a cold cup of coffee? What's that? you'd complain? That's what I thought!

Posted by: Vic at April 12, 2005 06:19 PM

you all suck arguing about stupid mickey d's stuff... macdonalds sucks but the tards who sue them suck even more...

how bou't we just say that they all suck and settle it at that? can we go back to talking about chopsticks, please, i have some shoved up my nose and wanna find out what to do...


Posted by: help me pull these chopsticks out of my nose at April 12, 2005 06:34 PM

Must agree with Steve here.

"It's actually a case of the legal system doing what it's supposed to do."

It's easy to blame the customer, if you take it at face value (read: don't get the facts). But corporations serve the people. We deem that they must take some responsibility. We deem that 'profits ahead of safety' and 'let the buyer beware' is NOT the way we want to run our society.

Posted by: DaveC426913 at April 13, 2005 10:30 AM

....So, a man walks into the Doctor's office with complaint. The Doctor immediate states: "Your problem is you're not eating right....."

Posted by: hutch at April 13, 2005 10:47 AM

Law suits that seem stupid are the very small price to pay for a legal system that is biased towards the individual citizen rather than the institution (whether government or corporation), which is far more benefitial to the common good than attempting to eliminate so called frivolous (to you) law suits.

When you really are injured by something you can prove in court to be criminal behavior, even if nobody believes you, you MUST have a chance to present your evidence to the court, or our judicial system is useless; we might as well dissolve it.

Posted by: Reed at April 13, 2005 11:19 AM

McDonald's was negligent in keeping their coffee at a high temperature for the expess purpose of saving money. Stella Lieback was negligent in opening a hot cup of coffee in the car as opposed to a safer location. If she received only $400k (a pittance to a huge company like McD's), sounds fair to me.

Posted by: Jay at April 13, 2005 11:33 AM

Wow, must have missed that big label that said "WORMS" on the can I opened yesterday! Cut myself on the lid, so now I'm suing the canning company.

Re: McD's, I'm familiar with the case and still think it's ridiculous (to nobody's surprise, I'm sure). I especially like Dragon's analysis. Ain't nothin' like a thinking man's approach.

Back to what's broken and why, I think Jay's approach sums it up. The idea of "they're so big you gotta sting 'em to make 'em feel it" only means two things. First, damages get hyped up beyond any reasonable measure. The same folks who join Amnesty International in condemning countries for lopping off hands for petty shoplifting then turn around and see nothing wrong with a $400,000 settlement for something the woman caused herself.

Secondly, and more importantly in the long run, the entire economy is affected as prices rise to cover malpractice and liability insurance and pay out damage claims. McD's is so large that when they introduce a new sandwich they can slew prices in several markets (beef, chicken, etc), and an extra several cents per sandwich means millions of dollars in aggregate that won't be spent on other things.

I've never understood how folks who can appreciate the "butterfly effect" and philosophize on the law of unintended consequences can then think that a huge damages award doesn't itself do disproportional damage when the whole "let the punishment fit the crime" theory gets tossed out the window. That, folks, is BROKEN!

/Dang button stuck in rant mode again....

Posted by: Erich at April 13, 2005 02:06 PM

the company does not want to get sued if someone put the stick in their nose and got a hammer and pound the chop sticks all the way up their nose

Posted by: unknown at April 13, 2005 05:08 PM

all of y'all got it wrong: if you want to pour coffee up your nose don't get burned by the chopsticks

Posted by: almost at April 13, 2005 06:00 PM

*Beats head on table*

Posted by: Gaaaaaaaah! at April 13, 2005 06:15 PM

not sure what kinda twisted news story.. but the reason wasnt really because they'd have to brew less often.. they could keep the temperature hot and not brew at all and have truck stop style coffee.. the real reason is that most CUSTOMERS prefer HOT Coffee..The Hotter the better..

Posted by: Infinity at April 13, 2005 09:56 PM

I seem to recall another site's pointing out this instruction pictogram. Someone had replied that he recalled a restaurant that had several pseudo-instructional pictograms like this with other "These are things you shouldn't do with chopsticks" instructions. His take was that it was obviously intended to be funny.

He couldn't remember where it was he saw 'em. I was disappointed, because I'd like to have seem them.

(And the world sighed in relief because I stayed on topic.)

Posted by: Bill Eccles at April 14, 2005 09:06 AM

I didn't trace every branch of the tree, but I did check the link at and found no reference to McDonald’s keeping the coffee "20 degrees hotter than industry standards" in order to save money. Firstly, coffee is a very delicate thing, subject to very rapid oxidation and volatilization of its flavor and aroma components. This is why coffee that has been sitting in the pot for an hour is so nasty (I can tell the difference between just-brewed and 20-minute old coffee, and after 30 minutes it's not only easy to tell the difference... it starts to taste NASTY)

I mention this because McDonald's cannot possibly save any money whatsoever by keeping their coffee extra hot, since heat only accelerates the demise of coffee (not that McDonald’s coffee is all that good to begin with). Either the claim is pure web-legend, or McDonald’s is clueless about how to save money on their coffee. Given the “heat” on both sides about tort reform, if I had to guess, I’d say somebody crafted the accusation because casting a corporation as “greedy and heartless” is the best way to bolster the case for punitive damages and take the spotlight off of the greed and total lack of principles of tort lawyers in general (this applies to lawyers on BOTH sides).

Furthermore, I seriously doubt that there is any such thing as an “industry standard” temperature for coffee. More web-legend, I’ll wager. Certainly, water will boil at 212 F, so that is the UPPER limit. And coffee taken off the burner will cool down. So if you take an “industry average” of coffee temperature, those that keep their coffee ON the burner will be above the average. And, given that McDonald’s is a very busy place, I kind of doubt that their coffee ever gets much of a chance to cool down.

Personally, I take my coffee off of the burner immediately after brewing, and I microwave a cup of it just before drinking, if it isn’t hot enough.

But the chopsticks thing? Hilarious. And probably not a joke… unless you consider our tort system to be a (rather unfunny) joke.

Posted by: Brett at April 14, 2005 02:56 PM

Brett: Don't underestimate MacDonalds. How much they brew their coffee is like a million dollar decision. They are obviously right - it saves them money or something. You are wrong.

Posted by: no one at April 14, 2005 06:38 PM

Mark Hurst chang this post to McDonalds

Posted by: unknown at April 15, 2005 04:43 PM

Wanna no wats broken???? this forum is broken uyr all changing topic here u r all broke!!!!!!!!

My rant is over

Posted by: Im helping you get out those chopsticks! at April 16, 2005 08:27 AM


Posted by: thanks... owww, that smarts... at April 16, 2005 10:20 AM

LIKE I SAID. "Mark Hurst change the topic and pic to McDonald" 97% of the posts r about mcdonalds.

Posted by: unknown at April 16, 2005 10:25 AM

doesn't anyone have anything to say about the pickle law suit?

Posted by: real_saddam at April 17, 2005 09:00 AM

what pickle law suit.

hay saddam what was it like in that hole in the ground where the US found u

Posted by: unknown at April 17, 2005 03:29 PM

first of all, this isnt a set of instructions. it is the fortune from a fortune cookie.

ive had this one b4 - let me think. i think it roughly translates: when you eat sushi, your nose hair stops growing uncontrollably.

Posted by: saddam hussein at April 18, 2005 12:54 AM

isn't that a GOOD thing

Posted by: unknown at April 18, 2005 09:50 AM

if someone wants to stick chopsticks up their nose, go ahead and let them. just let the supreme court kill the case before it even starts because the person is a dumass

Posted by: General Dump at April 18, 2005 06:31 PM

scratch supreme court, replace w/ grand jury

Posted by: General Dump at April 18, 2005 06:32 PM

I am reminded of the Dilbert quote, "...a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty."

Posted by: N\A` at May 16, 2005 07:52 AM

to unknown:

It was very nice actually, i got to meet bugs bunny. and i'm talking about the lawsuit i mentioned earlier where the woman sued for "being cut by a pickle" and for the "burning sensation the acidic pickle caused". Then her husband sued because "his wife was in too much pain to have sex with him

Posted by: real_saddam at May 20, 2005 03:50 PM

Can you tell me about the pickle lawsuit? Never heard of it.. Google'd it but haven't found it yet.. :) Thank you

Posted by: liz at July 28, 2005 04:25 PM

Say I'm on a posting rampage, but that was hillarious!!! I hope nobody accidentally takes their own brains out by accident...

P.S. I guess the resturaunt who gives those out wants people to bring their manners and put their silliness in their pockets...for when they're drunk.

Posted by: another guy named Alex B. at April 19, 2006 08:10 PM

Comments on this entry are closed

Previous: Hidden links | Main | Next: Sign on glass doors

Previous Posts: