As ChantRant and Scalp 'Em milk the Aubrey Phillips mess for another day, we risk looking like Curley and Moe with Larry on summer vacation. But bear with us for one last blast to clarify a point: Why the woman who sued McDonald's for hot coffee and big old Aubrey renouncing his FSU agreement are birds of a feather.
- Both agreed to a "contract" (the woman to a coffee purchase; Phillips to play at FSU).
- Both accepted the terms of the contract (the woman to the fact the coffee was "hot" as stated on the menu board; Phillips that he would be coached by one nasty S.O.B.)
- Both were unable to deal with the execution of the agreement as it was advertised (the coffee was hot; the coach was an S.O.B. -- especially when you provoke him by not holding up your end of the deal by showing up grossly out of shape.)
- Both showed lack of character by playing the victim card despite receiving precisely what they had agreed to (a pet peeve of ours).
So while their motives were different (greed vs. revenge), their actions were the same: "I've been horribly wronged."
At least Heather Dininch of ESPN gets it and agrees that "his method of telling it wasn't exactly wise."
While Heather didn't imply Phillips was a crybaby as we did (with a photo), we believe the term fits. That isn't hate speech, it's simply criticism of a man child who screwed up.
And if it's a crime to criticize an 18-year old, then Rick Trickett and every other college coach are in a lot of trouble.
You need to check out the facts of the McDonald's lawsuit. Although I agree with your overall assertion as to Phillips and even your analogy to the McDonald case (somewhat), your statement that the woman in the McDonald's case lacked character is ignorant.
In fact, it is McDonald's who lacked character. Liebeck, the Plaintiff, received third degree burns around her crotch that required skin grafts. Evidence at the trial showed that McDonald's required their franchises to serve coffee at 180 degrees!She offered to settle with McDonald's for her medical costs ($11,000), but McDonald's only offered her $800.00. Any person in their right mind would have gone after McDonald's.
In contrast to the Phillips scenario, where he only got his feelings hurt, Liebeck had substantial medical treatment, as well as physical pain and suffering. She never agreed to have her skin burned as part of her .49 "contract" with McDonalds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
Posted by: JAB | July 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
What the heck does "insegrevious" mean? You made that word up!
Posted by: Joe | July 23, 2009 at 10:48 AM