On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:29:03 GMT, "Vox Humana"
> scribbled some thoughts:


>
>"Andrew H. Carter" > wrote in message
.. .
>> 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.
>
>Willpower isn't an issue if the product is defective or if is deceptively
>represented.
>


My guess it wasn't quality of the product, rather quantity.
Remember William "The Refridgerator" Perry, IIRC he would
typically have a dozen eggs at a sitting, for lunch maybe 2
Big Macs.

With most if not all people it's not what, but how much you
eat. Body builders will tell you, either put out more than
what you take in, or take in less than what you put out if
you want to lose weight.

--

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