: > JEASUSSESS-- AS near as I can tell all Mac's ever did was sell
: > hamburgers, which is exactly what every other restaurant in the world
: > does.
: What does the final product (hamburgers) have to do with McDonald's (and the rest of the industry's) guilt in terms of environmental damage, exploitation of works, animals and children?
: > As to owing damages to the kids who eat there-- isn't it the parents'
: > job to control diet.
: Yes. And it would be easier without McDonald's (an the like) deliberatly targetting children in their adverts and exploiting their
: guliable nature with promotional gimmicks that make them pester their parents into going to McDonald's.
: > As to the lawsuit, however, I am sort of impressed that anyone could
: > get a huge corp to spend millions and years on a message that could't
: > win (i.e. "we aren't wrecking the world) --- if they had had any
: > sense, they would have put the $ into ads saying "burgers are good
: > for you."
: The judge effectively ruled that McDonald's adverst which suggested that were missleading. I agree that they were stupid to go to court, they could not win because they were guilty. Regardless of the verdict, the evidence supports all the claims.
>YAWWWWNNN!!! - p...lease if you want a sensible debate then talk sense
Steve has the same idea as me G E T R E A L!!!
Your constant wailing and gnashing of teeth reads as though written by a failed over-zealous Political Science student fed up with daytime telly.
G E T R E A L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !