So, you should totally just open a specialty beer store instead.

And be like "Oh and I can make pizza on the side."

2/7/2011 2:18:44 AM

There is a 55%/45% food/alcohol ratio that must be met

2/7/2011 2:20:11 AM

Wait, is that VA only or based on your permits?

Because I know lots of small business owners that run specialty beverage (beer, coffee, tea) stores in NC that don't have any food whatsoever.

2/7/2011 2:23:26 AM

Knowing Virginia... just Virginia


Virginia just passed a bill allowing people to carry guns in bars.
But they can't trust you with a beer in public.

2/7/2011 2:25:37 AM

I finished the french fry pizza I was working on.

In the end it has:

A whole can of Chili.
A pound of French Fries.
Extra Chili Seasoning.
Jalapeno Laced Nacho Cheese.
This one has onions, but I usually do green peppers.
Real Bacon pieces.
7-Blend of pizza cheeses.
Freshly Chopped Green Onions on top.
A dash of salt & Old Bay Seasoning on top.
With two sides of Sour Cream to dip.

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 2:37 AM. Reason : .]

2/7/2011 2:37:01 AM

When i was in the bar business there was a specific percentage of food vs alcohol in NC that determined whether or not you were a private club or not. Can't tell you what it is now and i won't venture forth with decade old knowledge. but usually when its a scenario of alcohol sales most states have a ratio that creates difference in membership bars and clubs and restaurants. for retail vending sales its a different permit called an off premise. thats why certain stores can sell beer and only beer without being a restaurant or a private club. they don't sell it to drink on property.

like i said the laws could have changed but i used to own a liquor license in 2000-2002 and thats how it was then.

2/7/2011 3:38:25 AM

^^ Damn that looks pretty good. Extremely unhealthy. But good.

2/7/2011 4:57:00 AM

I have a feeling some of geniusboy's rant about owning a small business is meme worthy, i'll have to bookmark it and try it out later.



anyway, this was a good read, 10/10 sorry for your losses though. that pizza looks delicious.

2/7/2011 6:28:38 AM

okay, so now i believe GeniuSxBoY is an alias...specifically because of:

Quote :

"I paid 3 times was the place was worth to get my foot in the door."

not because it's unbelievable, but because this user has been too inconsistent for him to have actually done this and still believe he was anything but a craptastic businessman

2/7/2011 7:55:40 AM

Him flipping out over his username had me thinking he's an alias. Or nutty.

2/7/2011 8:47:45 AM

Quote :

"hating your customers and employees"

I was always under the assumption that GeniuSxBoY hated his customers. Thought they were all poor white trash and were trying to "rip him off". There's been more than one thread where he talked about putting out a coupon or a promotion and then getting bitchy/pissed off when too many people came into to use the coupon or the promotion. If you didn't like the idea of them coming in buying just the bare to use the coupon (like buying a $15 pizza to use a $10 off coupon), then why put out coupons at all?

Quote :

"I figured military are young, stupid and wouldn't like to cook. They also don't care what they eat thanks to the shitty military food so they just buy cheap shit that fills them up for $5"

Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen. This is how not to think of your customers.

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 9:38 AM. Reason : better fix his name before he goes off]

2/7/2011 9:38:08 AM

Quote :

"the mcdonalds lawsuit isn't the frivolous when you realize that hot coffee isn't typically scalding hot. if you spill normal coffee on yourself you will not get full-thickness (3rd degree) burns. the discovery process revealed more than 700 claims of people being burned and documents showing that mcdonalds advised coffee be kept at 180-190 degrees (coffee is typically served at about 135 degrees, which is good because anything over 140 starts to have a burn potential)"

Actually, a lot of coffee is served at 180 degrees. Cup a Joe does, most of the Counter Culture shops do.

Just throwing in.

2/7/2011 9:48:31 AM

^ no, you're wrong

2/7/2011 10:14:56 AM

Definitely not an alias

2/7/2011 10:16:35 AM

^^, ^^^ My quick google search shows that the ideal coffee serving temp is b/w 155 and 175 degrees

2/7/2011 10:17:42 AM

^ doesn't matter

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 10:19 AM. Reason : the mcdonald's lawsuit wasn't frivolous because you've been told that it isn't]

2/7/2011 10:18:50 AM

Regardless of how hot coffee is supposed to be, the old lady suffered major 3rd degree burns and was willing to settle for $20,000 (McDonald's offered to settle for $800). So it went to trial, and the jury awarded her crazy amounts of money.

I feel like if you have 3rd degree burns all over your genital area + legs and spend 8 days in the hospital getting numerous skin grafts, asking for $20K is not being very greedy...

And when I worked at a coffee shop I think we weren't supposed to go above 150-170... but the owner could have been scared of people being burned for all I know

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

2/7/2011 11:53:53 AM

i admit that i do not know the details...i assume, though, that a mcdonald's employee spilled the coffee on her? or was she clumsy?

in my mind, she has a valid point if only the former and not the latter

2/7/2011 11:55:58 AM

She had the coffee between her knees and opened the lid, then accidentally spilled the coffee on her lap apparently... Car wasn't moving (she was a passenger). I feel like she had a good case for asking them to just pay the $20K for hospital bills considering it was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns to 16% of her body :\ I think McDonald's brought the $2+ mill amount on themselves by not settling with her in the beginning and being dicks about it..

2/7/2011 11:58:44 AM

From what I remember, she was the passenger and put the coffee between her legs. She opened the lid to put in sugar and the driver took off.

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 12:01 PM. Reason : ^Damn! Too slow with my typing skillz]

2/7/2011 12:00:58 PM

McDonald's brought it on themselves by revealing that they knew for years the company mandated temperatures could cause severe injuries to their customers, but kept serving it because the previous burn injuries were "statistically insignificant." corporate indifference to a long history of consumer injuries (she wasn't the first person with severe burns) did them in

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2011 12:19:17 PM

Noen owned the fuck out of this thread.

2/7/2011 12:25:42 PM

Quote :

"I realize this thread is about running a Pizza place into the ground ....which I have not."

2/7/2011 12:37:43 PM

GeuniaXylBoa may have mucked up TWW with his failure to launch, but I'd eat the career-destroying restaurant-failing borrowed-capital shit out of that french fry pizza.

2/7/2011 12:42:16 PM

Quote :

"From what I remember, she was the passenger and put the coffee between her legs. She opened the lid to put in sugar and the driver took off."

sounds like an inconsiderate/careless driver and clumsy passenger, personally

hot beverages are hot...it was an accident, sure, but blaming mcdonald's that hot coffee is too hot to be spilled on yourself is kind of stupid

but hey, she's the one that won the money, so i guess i'm the sucker for being careful and using common sense

2/7/2011 12:43:33 PM

you really need to educate yourself on the case. because common sense says to fuck the shit out of McDonald's for what the actual facts of the case were

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2011 12:45:25 PM

It's not that they're suing because hot coffee could burn you, but because their coffee was unreasonably hot to produce burns of that magnitude. It kind of domino'd from there too because McDonald's was seen to have known about the issue but did nothing to correct it. It was also easily demonstrated that other chains/restaurants all serve coffee at a lower temperature than McD's company-mandated temperatures. Et cetera.

2/7/2011 12:46:52 PM

^^ ah, i gotcha

ability to make millions because you're clumsy >>>>>> personal responsibility for said clumsiness

i'd have hung THAT jury had i been on it...i have no particular love for mcdonald's or any multinational corporation, but i have no particular love for clumsy folks who can't stomach taking responsibility for their own mistakes

^ so they were violating a law? or just commonly accepted practices? i'll concede if they were knowingly violating a law they had already been called into account for

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2011 12:54:34 PM

Dude you need to post that pizza to http://www.thisiswhyyourefat.com/.

That looks awesome.

2/7/2011 12:59:49 PM

^

2/7/2011 1:08:32 PM

I've had 200 degree steamed milk poured on my hand and I didn't sue


I should have though

2/7/2011 1:11:01 PM

more like NotSoGeniuSxBoY

amirite?

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM. Reason : asdf]

2/7/2011 1:13:00 PM

^^ only if competitors were using 199°F milk

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 1:13 PM. Reason : carats]

2/7/2011 1:13:13 PM

while I think it is stupid that the lady got a bunch of money when the burns came from her spilling it on herself, McDonalds also had poor quality control in that case. They had numerous counts of reported burns previously, and were even documented saying that they knew the temperature they were serving it at was well above the temperature required for consumed beverages/food to cause burns. If the lady who got all that money was the first time anything like this was every brought up at McD's it would have been ludicrous.

Well, it still was in many ways, but if McD's had the least bit of intelligence regarding previous incidents they would have avoided this altogether. It was pretty much a perfect storm of McD's shooting themselves in the foot by not acting on previous reports and someone doing something stupid.

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2011 1:16:37 PM

Quote :

"There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story. Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds. After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap. The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused. During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard. McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee. Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn. McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving. McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales. Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit. The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful. No one will ever know the final ending to this case. The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned. "

this is what really happened based on this unknown lectic law library
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2011 1:44:24 PM

and it's completely ridiculous that mcdonalds even give up enough money to cover medical care. it's 100% her fault that she got burnt. not 20%

2/7/2011 2:34:41 PM

do you also think that Ford should not have been held accountable for knowingly launching a car that could be dangerous like they did with the Pinto? After all, driving can lead to death and people should know that. the argument that Mcdonald's superheating their coffee isn't on them is like saying an exploding gas tank isn't on Ford.

2/7/2011 2:51:42 PM

Quote :

"do you also think that Ford should not have been held accountable for knowingly launching a car that could be dangerous like they did with the Pinto? After all, driving can lead to death and people should know that. the argument that Mcdonald's superheating their coffee isn't on them is like saying an exploding gas tank isn't on Ford."

if you can't understand the distinct difference between the two, i truly do pity your completely inability to grasp simple concepts

spilling coffee on oneself is not using the product as they should, while driving a car correctly and safely IS using the product as they should...mcdonald's coffee doesn't randomly explode

good try, though...i give you 1/100 of a point for writing it out

2/7/2011 2:56:42 PM

holy word explosion from the OP on page 5

2/7/2011 3:04:13 PM

you don't understand the fact that both companies knew a product they were putting on the market could cause harm to consumers beyond what is to be reasonably expected and willingly ignored the fact because they found it cheaper to deal with paying off lawsuits instead of making it safer.

no coffee served to a consumer should be able to result in this:

Quote :

"A vascular surgeon diagnosed Liebeck as having suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. These third degree burns extended through to Liebeck’s subcutaneous fat, muscle, or bone. While she was hospitalized for eight days, Liebeck underwent skin grafting, and later underwent debridement treatments. Liebeck was permanently disfigured and disabled for two years as a result of this incident."

clearly a consumer should expect coffee to be hot enough to destroy skin and reach the bone

i award you no points for trying to weigh in on a case which you are clearly and wholly ignorant.

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2011 3:15:30 PM

Quote :

"you don't understand the fact that both companies knew a product they were putting on the market could cause harm to consumers beyond what is to be reasonably expected"

yeah...everything after you said that exploding gas tanks are the same thing as some clumsy chick spilling coffee ON HERSELF is just rabble...your analogy makes sense in YOUR head because you're too stupid to understand the difference

it's like saying that ford should be sued because their cars explode when someone drives them off a cliff

2/7/2011 3:32:33 PM

wow, cue the thread direction pic

2/7/2011 3:43:21 PM

not even an attempt at a logical, coherent response there quagmire02, I expected about as much.

2/7/2011 3:44:33 PM

well they are both cases where discovery showed that they had knowledge of the danger and still chose to make decisions that resulted in injury

2/7/2011 3:46:34 PM

For once, I actually agree with goalielax.

Quagmire, however, is spouting his usual drivel.

2/7/2011 3:52:57 PM

You guys are being really mean to GeniuSxBoY

He seems like a cool guy to me, I think he'll figure something else out. I wish him the best in his endeavors.

2/7/2011 3:55:02 PM

it matters not who agrees with me...doesn't change the fact that goalielax's analogy comes from someone who clearly doesn't understand the point of an analogy, which is to compare similar things...exploding cars that do so with no misuse by the operator simply isn't the same as some dumb bitch who spills coffee on herself

i couldn't care less whether anyone AGREES with me because it doesn't change the fact that i called out a dumb fuck for being a dumb fuck and he's STILL a dumb fuck

2/7/2011 3:56:59 PM

geez, argumentative for the sake of argumentative much?

his analogy works perfectly, but you are taking it way too literally to try and make your point. Yes we know a fucking exploding car and a cup of coffee are not the same thing. But two mega corporations putting out products known to be unsafe to the consumer? THAT IS THE FUCKING ANALOGY. aye carumba...

2/7/2011 3:59:33 PM

Quote :

"But two mega corporations putting out products known to be unsafe to the consumer? THAT IS THE FUCKING ANALOGY."

you, unsurprisingly, have failed to recognize the fundamental difference between the two:

ford's product is unsafe BY DEFAULT while mcdonald's is not...mcdonald's is ONLY unsafe when some idiot fucks up enough to make it so

by that logic, knife companies should be sued for having knives that are TOO SHARP WHEN YOU SLIP AND CUT YOURSELF

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 4:02 PM. Reason : also, why don't you people like me? i NEED your approval ]

2/7/2011 4:01:54 PM

throw out the analogy then...

we are still right

2/7/2011 4:02:20 PM