On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:51:35 GMT, "Vox Humana"
> scribbled some thoughts:


>
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Just makes me shake my head in amazement and despair. Why exercise some
>> personal responsibility and self-control when you can sue somebody
>> instead? I have no illusions about why I'm overweight--If there's
>> something that's bad for me, I'm pretty sure to like it. But nobody
>> ever forced me to go to McDonald's or Jack in the Box etc etc. Even
>> without a specific calorie and fat analysis, I never kidded myself that
>> I was eating healthfood, there. Even more than stopping people from
>> making bad lunch choices which I view as being far too nanny-stateish,
>> I wish people would stop looking on litigation as a form of recreation
>> in this country. It's an expensive form of whining. Eat what you want,
>> but be willing to accept the consequences of doing so.
>>
>
>The issue as I understand it is that Mc Donald's made misleading claims
>about their food, and the advertising that delivered the claims was targeted
>to teenagers. They will have to prove this. They have already convinced a
>court that the case has enough merit to proceed. I don't see a big issue
>here. It's not like the food industry has never adulterated food or engaged
>in false advertising or deceptive practices. When does an industry achieve
>a position where they can't be sued and who decides? Is the general public
>responsible for ignoring false advertising? Should children know that
>eating at McDonalds is bad for you? I think it will be an interesting case.
>Hopefully people won't distort the facts like they always do with the
>McDonald's litigation resulting from burns from insanely hot coffee.
>


But the proof also lies in the teenagers that they bought
the food and also ate it. The teenagers probably have lack
of willpower.

--

Sincerely, | NOTE: Best viewed in a fixed pitch font
| (©) (©)
Andrew H. Carter | ------ooo--(_)--ooo------
d(-_-)b | /// \\\