Let's get this straight off the bat. I am not a conservative.
I am not a lawyer. I am a journalist, so I tend to sympathize
wiht defendants in libel suits and I understand the danger of
libel suits squelching fair debate and criticism.
However, McDonald's, whether you like them or not, is not the
monster you spoiled suburban hippie wannabees make it out to be.
I bet the company that makes those Doc Martin sandals most of
you are probably wearing has done more to destroy the envornoment
-- per-capita -- than McDonald's.
I don't think the central question here is why does a giant
multinational like McDonald's need to waste its time with a
small-time libel suit.
I think the issue is why does Greenpeace have to exaggerate the
truth to the point of isolating moderate thinkers (the majority
of the planet) into rejecting most of your arguments.
There is much wrong with the world. Stick to the facts and you
make a difference. Until then you will be a group of fringe
crybabies whose only real accomplishment is to strengthen the
forces you seek to destroy.
Any high school debating coach will tell you the easiest way
to win a debate is to let your opponent stretch the truth.
You are noble in your intentions, but you must stick to the
undesputable facts to win the battle. Also, get out of your
insulated activist world and try to understand the realities
of life in 1996. It's not all black and white. Sorry, but there
are other opinions out there and they are no less valid than