http://tinyurl.com/3jfyv
http://tinyurl.com/63jtc

"An appeals court is allowing two Brooklyn teenagers proceed with a
notorious lawsuit that blames McDonald’s for making them fat. "

"The teens said in their suit that they would have stopped or at least
cut back on their visits to the Golden Arches if they had the straight
dope on what they were eating."

Here's a clue, kids: Eat broccoli.

What they really need is a lawsuit to compensate them for negligent
and incompetent parents or guardians.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Curly Sue wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/3jfyv
> http://tinyurl.com/63jtc
>
> "An appeals court is allowing two Brooklyn teenagers proceed with a
> notorious lawsuit that blames McDonald’s for making them fat. "
>
> "The teens said in their suit that they would have stopped or at least
> cut back on their visits to the Golden Arches if they had the straight
> dope on what they were eating."
>
> Here's a clue, kids: Eat broccoli.
>
> What they really need is a lawsuit to compensate them for negligent
> and incompetent parents or guardians.
>
> Sue(tm)
> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

oh pllllleeeaaase. When is this ridiculous crap gonna stop <shaking head>

--
Steve

Ever wonder about those people who spend $2.00 apiece on those little
bottles of Evian water? Try spelling Evian backwards...

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:36:21 GMT,
(Curly Sue) scribbled some thoughts:


>http://tinyurl.com/3jfyv
>http://tinyurl.com/63jtc
>
>"An appeals court is allowing two Brooklyn teenagers proceed with a
>notorious lawsuit that blames McDonald’s for making them fat. "
>
>"The teens said in their suit that they would have stopped or at least
>cut back on their visits to the Golden Arches if they had the straight
>dope on what they were eating."
>
>Here's a clue, kids: Eat broccoli.
>
>What they really need is a lawsuit to compensate them for negligent
>and incompetent parents or guardians.
>
>Sue(tm)
>Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!


Ideally, the burden of proof lies upon the teenagers as to
whether or not:

1) They patronized McDonald's
2) They ate the food.
3) Are they minors? If so, that sets a dangerous precedent.
Why, because if a minor can bring a lawsuit, then I should
think that it removes their protection as to privacy.
Chances are somebody put them up to it.

--

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

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.

Melissa

> wrote in message
ps.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.

Vox Humana wrote:

> 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.

I would suggest that the issue is the amount of McDonalds food you would have to
eat to get fat. Nobody gains a few pounds from eating a Big Mac and and order of
fries. They got fat because they ate too much of the stuff. One of the
complainants was reported to be 5'6" and 270 lb. That is one hell of a lot of
burgers and fries. The complaint is that McDonalds failed to provide free,
easily understood nutritional information about its fast food.

In order to make their case, the complainants should be required to provide the
court with documentation of the food they have been eating for the past few
years. For all we know, they could have been stuffing themselves with soda pop
and chocolate bars, and may never have been in the golden arches.

They should make the doors to McDonalds one foot wide, max.

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

>
> I would suggest that the issue is the amount of McDonalds food you
> would have to eat to get fat. Nobody gains a few pounds from eating a
> Big Mac and and order of fries. They got fat because they ate too
> much of the stuff. One of the complainants was reported to be 5'6"
> and 270 lb. That is one hell of a lot of burgers and fries. The
> complaint is that McDonalds failed to provide free, easily understood
> nutritional information about its fast food.

At McDonalds in Australia, they have been introducing nutrition panels on
product wrappers . Has this happened in the US? There's also been a big
push towards "healthier" alternatives on the menu. I was never a big
McDonalds eater (really only ever liked a cheeseburger - otherwise I
prefer a homemade hamburger or one from an independent takeaway or cafe),
and when I started trying to lose weight I purposely avoided it. Since
they started introducing the new items I've tried a couple.

It's not food that I would search out, but a feasible option if choices
were limited. They have what they call a Salads Plus menu here - a lean
beef burger (tried that - a bit skimpy - I could make a better, more
filling burger at home without significantly increasing the fat etc.), a
couple of salad choices, vegetarian (chick pea patty) burger, yoghurt,
smoothies, apples, low fat muffins etc. You can also buy cereals at
breakfast time.

I had a quick look on the US McDonalds site, but although there were some
salads I didn't see anything else resembling these items? Are they not
going down this road over there? They're really pushing this aspect in
their advertising over here - the nutrition information, the healthier
choices, the change to buns with less sugar content etc.

The last ad I heard they mentioned something about the upcoming "Deli
Choices" - had a look on the website and this is currently limited to
South Australia and Western Australia. Appears to be an attempt to
compete with Subway as it's a menu of rolls with different meat and salad
fillings. I figure since they mentioned it in ads I heard here in NSW,
they'll probably be extending it to the rest of the country eventually.

I was just wondering whether McDonalds in USA or Canada is taking this
tack also.

Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

In article >,
Rhonda Anderson > wrote:

> Dave Smith > wrote in
> :
>
<snip> > > . . . . . The
> > complaint is that McDonalds failed to provide free, easily understood
> > nutritional information about its fast food.
>
> At McDonalds in Australia, they have been introducing nutrition panels on
> product wrappers . Has this happened in the US? ..........

<snip again>
>
Earlier this month on a long drive from Louisiana to our home in
Arkansas we stopped for a burger in Mena Arkansas and the paper
whatchamacallit on the tray had the entire McDonalds menu with
nutritional information. Made for interesting reading whilst enjoying
our lunch.

Don't know how long they've been doing this or if its done everywhere.
Don't go into McDonalds all that often though I stop at the drive in
window frequently to get a cup of their ridiculously hot coffee.
Yumm!!!! ;^)

Regards,
Dave W.

--
Living in the Ozarks
For email, edu will do.

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell, (1903-1950)

Rhonda Anderson wrote:

>
> At McDonalds in Australia, they have been introducing nutrition panels on
> product wrappers . Has this happened in the US?

I can't help you there. I have not stepped into a McDonalds in years. Unlike
the teens in question, I learned long ago that a diet of burgers, fries and
half gallon soft drinks was unhealthy, and their food IMO tastes like dog
slobber.

>At McDonalds in Australia, they have been introducing nutrition panels on
>product wrappers . Has this happened in the US?

Who cares if it has or not? It wouldn't keep idiots from suing it.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Vox Humana wrote:
>

>
> I would suggest that the issue is the amount of McDonalds food you would
have to
> eat to get fat. Nobody gains a few pounds from eating a Big Mac and and
order of
> fries. They got fat because they ate too much of the stuff. One of the
> complainants was reported to be 5'6" and 270 lb. That is one hell of a lot
of
> burgers and fries. The complaint is that McDonalds failed to provide free,
> easily understood nutritional information about its fast food.
>
> In order to make their case, the complainants should be required to
provide the
> court with documentation of the food they have been eating for the past
few
> years. For all we know, they could have been stuffing themselves with soda
pop
> and chocolate bars, and may never have been in the golden arches.

I'm sure that the plaintiffs will be scrutinized with an electron microscope
by a teem of attorneys and private investigators. However, in our system,
everyone should have access to the courts. My objection to the comments
that I see is that people who have little or no actual knowledge of the
particulars seem to think that they know more than a judge and jury.
Everyone is an armchair judge and jury pronouncing a case "frivolous" and
question the right of the plaintive to litigate. As you can see from how
irresponsible the media is, you can't believe what has been reported. The
media tends to report what they think people want to hear. Headlines like
"fat kids sue McDonalds" are far more profitable than a serious analysis of
the facts leading up the case. Trying to examine the facts is essentially
useless anyway since a broadcast outlet will devote about 45 seconds to a
story and the print media will devote about four column inches. They know
people don't want to be bothered by details, especially when the details
will challenge their beliefs.

Ox Humana wrote:

> I'm sure that the plaintiffs will be scrutinized with an electron microscope
> by a teem of attorneys and private investigators. However, in our system,
> everyone should have access to the courts.

I agree, but I also think that we should also have protection from frivolous law
suits.


> My objection to the comments
> that I see is that people who have little or no actual knowledge of the
> particulars seem to think that they know more than a judge and jury.
> Everyone is an armchair judge and jury pronouncing a case "frivolous" and
> question the right of the plaintive to litigate. As you can see from how
> irresponsible the media is, you can't believe what has been reported. The
> media tends to report what they think people want to hear. Headlines like
> "fat kids sue McDonalds" are far more profitable than a serious analysis of
> the facts leading up the case.

But it seems that one of the facts leading to the case is that they are suing
McDonalds because eating there caused them to become fat and sickly. It is their
tenacity in this suit that has brought the attention. It has already been thrown
out twice. The article linked indicated that one of the kids was 5'6" and 270
pounds. Sorry, but that is fat. The article also indicates that they ate at
McDonalds 3-5 times per week. Let's be realistic, eating anything 3-5 times a
week does not make you balloon to that weight by the time you are 19. You have
to wonder what else was being eaten, and I doubt that they were balancing their
fast food with nutritious meals. It's more likely that they had a steady diet of
junk food and no exercise.

> Trying to examine the facts is essentially
> useless anyway since a broadcast outlet will devote about 45 seconds to a
> story and the print media will devote about four column inches. They know
> people don't want to be bothered by details, especially when the details
> will challenge their beliefs.

How much attention is warranted for a couple of fast foodaholics who are blaming
a major corporation because they can't control their weight?

Dave Smith > wrote:

> Vox Humana wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I would suggest that the issue is the amount of McDonalds food you would
> have to eat to get fat. Nobody gains a few pounds from eating a Big Mac
> and and order of fries. They got fat because they ate too much of the
> stuff. One of the complainants was reported to be 5'6" and 270 lb. That
> is one hell of a lot of burgers and fries. The complaint is that McDonalds
> failed to provide free, easily understood nutritional information about
> its fast food.
>
> In order to make their case, the complainants should be required to
> provide the court with documentation of the food they have been eating for
> the past few years. For all we know, they could have been stuffing
> themselves with soda pop and chocolate bars, and may never have been in
> the golden arches.

Unfortunately, you don't understand the US civil law system which IS THE
MOST RIDICULOUS ON THE PLANET.

Nobody put a gun to these clowns heads and made them eat Big Macs.

A worse case, in Arizona the families of Mexican illegal immigrants who
died of thirst illegally crossing the desert into America sued because
we didn't put water stations in the desert for them when it was 115Ëš F

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Smith > wrote:

> A worse case, in Arizona the families of Mexican illegal immigrants who
> died of thirst illegally crossing the desert into America sued because
> we didn't put water stations in the desert for them when it was 115? F
>

Citation, please.

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ps.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.
>
>

Good points. Remember, a decision that a suit can procede is not a decision
that the case is "right" - it simply states that the papers were filed
properly and that the case is not blatantly frivolous. Also, in the US this
sort of case is supposed to be decided by a jury of citizens and not by a
judge. Access to the courts, which is an important part of our rights, means
that frivolous and silly suits will be filed. WOuld you rather have the
alternative - a system where access to the courts is restricted by a
judicial elite?



--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ps.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?
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Good points. Remember, a decision that a suit can procede is not a
> decision that the case is "right" - it simply states that the papers
> were filed properly and that the case is not blatantly frivolous.
> Also, in the US this sort of case is supposed to be decided by a jury
> of citizens and not by a judge. Access to the courts, which is an
> important part of our rights, means that frivolous and silly suits
> will be filed. WOuld you rather have the alternative - a system where
> access to the courts is restricted by a judicial elite?

Technically, once you start filing appeals with the various appellate, state
and finally the federal "supreme" courts (if you lose in your lower court),
the decision to allow the appeal to be heard is decided by the "judicial
elite".

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
. ..
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ps.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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Good points. Remember, a decision that a suit can procede is not a
>> decision that the case is "right" - it simply states that the papers
>> were filed properly and that the case is not blatantly frivolous.
>> Also, in the US this sort of case is supposed to be decided by a jury
>> of citizens and not by a judge. Access to the courts, which is an
>> important part of our rights, means that frivolous and silly suits
>> will be filed. WOuld you rather have the alternative - a system where
>> access to the courts is restricted by a judicial elite?
>
> Technically, once you start filing appeals with the various appellate,
> state
> and finally the federal "supreme" courts (if you lose in your lower
> court),
> the decision to allow the appeal to be heard is decided by the "judicial
> elite".
>
> Jill
>
>

That's appeals and is irrelevent to this case.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Vox Humana" > ha scritto

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.

You're referring to the woman who got a cup of coffee from the drivethru
window and couldn't think of a better place to put it than between her
thighs? A bump and... Ouch!

I could see suing if a server poured coffee on me, but not after putting the
cup where anyone with half a clue would realize is dangerous as hell.

Kyle
(the email address won't work as is)

Kyle Phillips wrote:
> "Vox Humana" > ha scritto
>
> 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.
>
> You're referring to the woman who got a cup of coffee from the
> drivethru window and couldn't think of a better place to put it than
> between her thighs? A bump and... Ouch!
>
> Kyle

IIRC the elderly woman who filed the coffee lawsuit did not go through the
drive-thru. She just spilled coffee in her lap.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
.. .
> Kyle Phillips wrote:
> > "Vox Humana" > ha scritto
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > You're referring to the woman who got a cup of coffee from the
> > drivethru window and couldn't think of a better place to put it than
> > between her thighs? A bump and... Ouch!
> >
> > Kyle
>
> IIRC the elderly woman who filed the coffee lawsuit did not go through the
> drive-thru. She just spilled coffee in her lap.
>
Actually, she was a passenger in a car. She ordered coffee with cream. The
drive parked the car so she could add the cream. The coffee spilled,
causing 3rd degree burns to her genital area. The woman was hospitalized
for about two weeks, suffered immense pain, and had to have therapy
afterwards. She initially only asked to be reimbursed for her medial bills
which amounted to about $20K. Over 750 other people had reported burns to
McDonalds. Their own consultants told them to turn down the temperature
(from almost boiling) to 140F but they felt they would lose money if they
reduced the temperature to a normal 140F which is about what your home
coffee maker is set to. It was a calculated risk that had already resulted
in hundreds of known burns. McDonalds also claimed that the reason they
served he coffee at such a high temperature was because people bought it to
drink when they got to a their destination - except that internal documents
showed that they knew most people drank it in the car. Therefore, they knew
that the coffee was dangerously hot, most people drank it in moving
vehicles, and that the lid would have to be removed to put in cream and
sugar.

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 | /// \\\

"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.

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 | /// \\\

On 26 Jan 2005 17:11:08 -0800,
scribbled some thoughts:


>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.
>
>Melissa


Hear Hear. That's why I ONLY use butter, I love bacon and
even after working for a pizzeria for 3 years 1 month and 5
days (Chester's Pizzeria in Hamilton, Ohio), I still love
pizza. I also normally have a 5 egg omellette or scrambled
eggs with 5 eggs. I guess all those years of eating duck
and goose eggs got me addicted to a healthy portion of eggs.
Once you've eaten a duck egg or a goose egg, especially a
goose egg, a couple chicken eggs won't cut the mustard.
Also love 2% whole milk. Anything less is like drinking
water.

Give me bacon or give me death!
Give me butter or give me death!

--

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

"Andrew H. Carter" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Jan 2005 17:11:08 -0800,
> scribbled some thoughts:
>
>
> >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.
> >
> >Melissa
>
>
> Hear Hear. That's why I ONLY use butter, I love bacon and
> even after working for a pizzeria for 3 years 1 month and 5
> days (Chester's Pizzeria in Hamilton, Ohio), I still love
> pizza. I also normally have a 5 egg omellette or scrambled
> eggs with 5 eggs. I guess all those years of eating duck
> and goose eggs got me addicted to a healthy portion of eggs.
> Once you've eaten a duck egg or a goose egg, especially a
> goose egg, a couple chicken eggs won't cut the mustard.
> Also love 2% whole milk. Anything less is like drinking
> water.
>
> Give me bacon or give me death!
> Give me butter or give me death!
>

Death might be preferable to living in Hamilton!

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:28:01 GMT, "Vox Humana"
> scribbled some thoughts:


>
>"Andrew H. Carter" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On 26 Jan 2005 17:11:08 -0800,
>> scribbled some thoughts:
>>
>>
>> >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.
>> >
>> >Melissa
>>
>>
>> Hear Hear. That's why I ONLY use butter, I love bacon and
>> even after working for a pizzeria for 3 years 1 month and 5
>> days (Chester's Pizzeria in Hamilton, Ohio), I still love
>> pizza. I also normally have a 5 egg omellette or scrambled
>> eggs with 5 eggs. I guess all those years of eating duck
>> and goose eggs got me addicted to a healthy portion of eggs.
>> Once you've eaten a duck egg or a goose egg, especially a
>> goose egg, a couple chicken eggs won't cut the mustard.
>> Also love 2% whole milk. Anything less is like drinking
>> water.
>>
>> Give me bacon or give me death!
>> Give me butter or give me death!
>>
>
>Death might be preferable to living in Hamilton!


Some areas weren't bad, though it's been a while since I
last was there and like many areas, the concrete jungle is
spreading.

--

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

"Andrew H. Carter" > wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:28:01 GMT, "Vox Humana"
> > scribbled some thoughts:
>
> >>
> >
> >Death might be preferable to living in Hamilton!
>
>
> Some areas weren't bad, though it's been a while since I
> last was there and like many areas, the concrete jungle is
> spreading.
>

Not to worry. The concrete jungle has avoided Hamilton.

Curly Sue wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/3jfyv
> http://tinyurl.com/63jtc
>
> "An appeals court is allowing two Brooklyn teenagers proceed with a
> notorious lawsuit that blames McDonald=92s for making them fat. "
>
> "The teens said in their suit that they would have stopped or at least
> cut back on their visits to the Golden Arches if they had the straight
> dope on what they were eating."
>

Since when was it a restaurant's responsibility to teach nutrition to
people?


> Here's a clue, kids: Eat broccoli.
>
> What they really need is a lawsuit to compensate them for negligent
> and incompetent parents or guardians.

Exactly.

>
>
> Sue(tm)
> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

(Curly Sue) wrote in news:41f825b2.4506046
@news-server.nyc.rr.com:

> http://tinyurl.com/3jfyv
> http://tinyurl.com/63jtc
>
> "An appeals court is allowing two Brooklyn teenagers proceed with a
> notorious lawsuit that blames McDonald’s for making them fat. "

Although I agree that this lawsuit is pretty frivolous, there is a fairly
serious issue in many cities, which is an utter lack of access to decent
healthy food. Obesity in places like the South Bronx (which is much
improved since the 1970s!) is epidemic, much worse than the rest of the
country, and a primary reason is that residents simply can't buy good
food. The only restaurants are fast-food joints like McDonalds. The only
grocery stores are corner bodegas that sell only canned beans and a
couple of old apples. If I lived in such a neighborhood, I might sue
McDonalds too, in the hopes of getting a settlement that would allow me
to move somewhere where I could buy a turnip without a 30 minute bus
ride. Is McDonalds liable for obesity in poor urban neighborhoods? No, I
don't think so. But is their food a contributing factor? Yes,
undoubtably.

-Harlan

Harlan Harris wrote:

> Although I agree that this lawsuit is pretty frivolous, there is a fairly
> serious issue in many cities, which is an utter lack of access to decent
> healthy food.

And why is that? I am sure that if there was a nutritious food someone would
find their niche in the market. The problem is that too many people have been
sucked into the concept of cheap, fast food.

> McDonalds too, in the hopes of getting a settlement that would allow me
> to move somewhere where I could buy a turnip without a 30 minute bus
> ride. Is McDonalds liable for obesity in poor urban neighborhoods? No, I
> don't think so. But is their food a contributing factor? Yes,
> undoubtably.

Is it economics? When I was working on the road there were lots of fast food
options. I don't like McDonalds food. It may be fast, but it's not cheap.
Their fast food competition was no better. There were lots of places where I
could sit down and eat a meal, and lots of places where I could have a custom
made sandwich and a drink for less than it would cost me to eat at the golden
arches. I find it difficult to blame a restaurant for the obesity of their
customers when they can make better food at home for less. Perhaps their
obesity is just another manifestation of the laziness that drives (literally)
them to fast food restaurants for starchy greasy food instead of going to the
effort of shopping and cooking decent food.

In article >, Dave Smith
> wrote:


> Is it economics? When I was working on the road there were lots of fast food
> options. I don't like McDonalds food. It may be fast, but it's not cheap.


Yeah, what's with that? Fast food used to be cheap, but now I see people
dropping unbelievable money for mediocre food. We had a fast food place
open a couple of miles from my house. There was a good BBQ place in that
shopping center, and they put a sign in their window saying that you could
get a burger and fries there for the same price as a combo meal at the
fast food place.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...
> http://tinyurl.com/3jfyv
> http://tinyurl.com/63jtc
>
> "An appeals court is allowing two Brooklyn teenagers proceed with a
> notorious lawsuit that blames McDonald’s for making them fat. "
>
> "The teens said in their suit that they would have stopped or at least
> cut back on their visits to the Golden Arches if they had the straight
> dope on what they were eating."
>
> Here's a clue, kids: Eat broccoli.
>
> What they really need is a lawsuit to compensate them for negligent
> and incompetent parents or guardians.
>

I sort of agree with your last point. I do wonder if the parents would have
been of much help. I find that most people don't have a clue about
nutrition. They don't know generally how many calories are in a given
portion of food or even what a normal portion looks like. They don't know
how many calories they should eat. I have never understood why nutrition
isn't a required part of the school curriculum.

Dang, I wish I could sue the person who made all that beer I drank.
But unfortunately it was me.

(Curly Sue) wrote in news:41f825b2.4506046@news-
server.nyc.rr.com:

> "An appeals court is allowing two Brooklyn teenagers proceed with a
> notorious lawsuit that blames McDonald's for making them fat. "

Might be a good entry for the Stella Awards.

http://www.stellaawards.com/

(Curly Sue) wrote:

>http://tinyurl.com/3jfyv
>http://tinyurl.com/63jtc
>
I'm going to play devil's advocate. WARNING: I am not a lawyer, I
don't even play one on TV and I don't have all the information....
however, based on the second URL, one of the elements of the suit is
that " McDonald's failed - as it had agreed - to provide customers
with free, written, easily understood nutritional information about
its fast food.".
That's what the suit is.. not that eating there made them fat, but
that McD had agreed to something and they were not following-up on
whatever that agreement was.

OK, I've got my flameproof long-johns on , and I'm retiring to under
the desk - MIke

Michael Horowitz > wrote:

(Curly Sue) wrote:
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/3jfyv
>>http://tinyurl.com/63jtc
>>
>I'm going to play devil's advocate. WARNING: I am not a lawyer, I
>don't even play one on TV and I don't have all the information....
>however, based on the second URL, one of the elements of the suit is
>that " McDonald's failed - as it had agreed - to provide customers
>with free, written, easily understood nutritional information about
>its fast food.".
>That's what the suit is.. not that eating there made them fat, but
>that McD had agreed to something and they were not following-up on
>whatever that agreement was.
>
>OK, I've got my flameproof long-johns on , and I'm retiring to under
>the desk - MIke

Please ignore post. I see others have stated the same thing. - Mike

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:19:42 -0500, Michael Horowitz
> scribbled some thoughts:


(Curly Sue) wrote:
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/3jfyv
>>http://tinyurl.com/63jtc
>>
>I'm going to play devil's advocate. WARNING: I am not a lawyer, I
>don't even play one on TV and I don't have all the information....
>however, based on the second URL, one of the elements of the suit is
>that " McDonald's failed - as it had agreed - to provide customers
>with free, written, easily understood nutritional information about
>its fast food.".
>That's what the suit is.. not that eating there made them fat, but
>that McD had agreed to something and they were not following-up on
>whatever that agreement was.
>
>OK, I've got my flameproof long-johns on , and I'm retiring to under
>the desk - MIke


Then again, you've got Corporate owned McD's and Franchise
owned McD's Depending on the ownership of the unit, the
franchise owner and/or manager may be at fault. Such do
have some leeway with regards to a bit of the operation as
long as it doesn't differ too strongly from established SOP.

--

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