- McSpotlight -

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Posted by: anon ( usa ) on September 01, 1997 at 16:55:50:

In Reply to: The truth is often upsetting! posted by Siamak on September 01, 1997 at 14:51:29:

: Are you really expecting us to believe your word (someone who was only "exposed to"... 13 years) over the Real Ronald! who do you think you are trying to kid Chris? The person you are so synically calling "your" Ronald has actually worked and been trained for that role, have you? Not only that, what he says about exploitation of McD makes sense and has now been proven true in the recent McLibel case.

I think I would choose to believe someone who had worked with the program for 13 years, instead of Giulliano, who only worked as Ronald a year and a half. After all, he admits in the interview that McDonalds paid him 5,000 dollars to remain quiet about the character.
He must not be very trustworthy since he broke that agreement. Did he return the money?

: I don't know why you defend McD but at least don't try to convince us there is nothing in it for you and you are impartial.

Maybe he's just fed up with the rhetoric put forth on this site. And before you say that this site is for balance against McD's advertising , remember we expect their advertising to be one-sided, that's what advertising is for.

: :My amazement is that this corporation could naively entrust the "care" of a BILLION DOLLAR trademark to someone ...

: Oooops, you dropped your mask! You just showed that all that talk about Ronald caring for sick children, wanting to do good in the community etc etc etc is just nonsense. What Ronald is really about is making huge profits for McD and the only thing he really "cares" about is the "BILLION DOLLAR" trademark.

He dropped no mask. The fact that Ronald may be a billion dollar trademark doesn't lessen the fact the character(actually we should say the guys who portray Ronald) has shown great caring for children( how often do you go read to sick children at the hospital?)

: : Even someone who is anti-McD should applaud the "live" Ronald appearances as a good thing.

: Exactly what qualities of Ronald should we applauding as parents? Brainwashing our children into thinking unhealthy food is good for them? Or encouraging children to pester their parents? Or perhaps we should be thankful that he spreads commercialism and ram it down our childrens' throut, or maybe all of the above.

There are various Ronald programs that should be applauded. Just a few are shows concerning reading, safety, self-esteem. You will find many doctors who would tell you that McDonalds food can fit into a balanced diet. You will find doctors who will tell you that great care should be taken when raising children on a vegan diet, some might even say a vegan diet is an unhealthy one for children.

: Come on, stop insulting our intelligence. You are not Ronald and we are not your "little fries"

You insult people's intelligence all the time with your unending desire for the rest of us to see as you do. And also your belief that if someone disagrees with you, they are somehow biased(like you aren't)

: :I have attempted to send this message as well to Mr. Giulliano without success, since his email address has not been listed at this site. I did send it to .bob. at McInfonet replying that I had no credible position from which to speak -- even though I worked with over 100 Ronalds and never experienced a bitter report like Mr. Guillianno's. Well, reader, you be the judge.

: OK then, as someone who has worked for McD (not as a Ronald though, thankfully) and someone who has read the court transcripts and McD's big guns' admission, I tell you what Mr. Guillianno says sound true and authorititive. And I don't think why McSpotlight should give you his e-mail if he does not wany you to have it. I would certainly criticise this site if they gave my e-mail address to anyone against my wishes.

Mr. Guillianno sounds like someone who just likes to rebel and garnish attention in that way. He is a trained actor anyway, and actors like being in the limelight.

: : I responded because the anti-Ronald interview...

: Hold on a sec. Before being anti-Ronald, the interview was honest and stated some facts which are certainly consistent with McD policies. Now if the the truth hurts the McD lovers just because it happens to be anti-Ronald then so be it.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup