Vegetarian Discussion: Two Hypochondriacs And A "vegan" Sue McDonald's

Two Hypochondriacs And A "vegan" Sue McDonald's
Posts: 28

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page:  Previous  1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Leif Erikson
2006-02-21 12:58:12 EST
Rita wrote:
> Ok maybe not dishonest. Highly secretive is more like it. They don't
> let out their ingredients unless they get sued.

In fact, you are *comletely* wrong. It took me less than 30 seconds
after my earlier reply to find the complete - and I do mean *complete*
- ingredients list for McDonald's menu items. It's here:

http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.categories.ingredients.index.html


Here's what they say about their French Frieds:

French Fries:
Potatoes, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural flavor (beef,
wheat and dairy sources), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (to
preserve natural color). Cooked in partially hydrogenated vegetable
oils (may contain partially hydrogenated soybean oil and/or partially
hydrogenated corn oil and/or partially hydrogenated canola oil and/or
cottonseed oil and/or sunflower oil and/or corn oil). Contains
derivatives of wheat and dairy, but has been verified by the University
of Nebraska to be allergen and gluten free.


R*@gmail.com
2006-02-21 13:07:51 EST
If you read the article S. Maizlich posted
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/19/fries.suits.ap/index.html

The last line says:

"Before its acknowledgment Monday, the company had quietly added
"Contains wheat and milk ingredients" to the french fries listing on
its Web site."


Leif Erikson
2006-02-21 13:19:42 EST
r*r@gmail.com wrote:
> If you read the article S. Maizlich posted
> http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/19/fries.suits.ap/index.html
>
> The last line says:
>
> "Before its acknowledgment Monday, the company had quietly added
> "Contains wheat and milk ingredients" to the french fries listing on
> its Web site."

How long before? And why did the left-leaning CNN feel it necessary to
editorialize "quietly"? Naturally, they don't *say* how long, probably
because they don't know, but they're clearly trying to create the
impression that McDonald's did something sneaky. Maybe McD's *did* do
something sneaky, but CNN doesn't know that, and has no reason to
believe it...except for their political orientation.


R*@excite.com
2006-02-21 19:46:34 EST

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Rita wrote:
> > Ok maybe not dishonest. Highly secretive is more like it. They don't
> > let out their ingredients unless they get sued.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't believe that.


You don't believe anything.

You are an intellectual black hole.

Stuff goes in but nothing *ever* comes out........nothing worth noting
anyway.

So just shut-up, pack up your various nyms, and bugger off.


Pearl
2006-02-21 20:02:37 EST
"Leif Erikson" <notgenxagain@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1140545982.067732.206260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> rita.kolesar@gmail.com wrote:
> > If you read the article S. Maizlich posted
> > http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/19/fries.suits.ap/index.html
> >
> > The last line says:
> >
> > "Before its acknowledgment Monday, the company had quietly added
> > "Contains wheat and milk ingredients" to the french fries listing on
> > its Web site."
>
> How long before? And why did the left-leaning CNN feel it necessary to
> editorialize "quietly"? Naturally, they don't *say* how long, probably
> because they don't know, but they're clearly trying to create the
> impression that McDonald's did something sneaky. Maybe McD's *did* do
> something sneaky, but CNN doesn't know that, and has no reason to
> believe it...except for their political orientation.

The last update edit that shows up on the web archive is "Mar 30, 2005 *" -
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.categories.ingredients.index.html

'French Fries:
Potatoes, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural flavor (beef source),
dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (to preserve natural color). Cooked
in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (may contain partially hydrogenated
soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated corn oil and/or partially
hydrogenated canola oil and/or cottonseed oil and/or sunflower oil and/or
corn oil).
..
This list is effective 03-21-2005.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050330030731/http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.categories.ingredients.index.html



Dave
2006-02-21 20:03:08 EST

S. Maizlich wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
> >
> >
> > rita.kolesar@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> I agree she suffered no real damage and every veggie should ask before
> >> ordering. (I do)
> >> About the allergy thing, I was saying they should sue based on what I
> >> know of allergies. I am an allergy sufferer as well as a vegetarian
> >> and I ask a barrage of questions before chowing down. However things
> >> can get cross contaminated and a reaction can occur. If they didn't
> >> have anti-histamines or epi pens handy, and the allergy is full blown
> >> they could die. If the case is that they went to the hospital and
> >> nearly died, I can see the law suit having some solid ground.
> >>
> > This ignores that fact that McDonalds was being purposely dishonest.
>
> How were they? Did they say their fries contain no
> wheat or dairy? You don't know that. You don't know
> *any* of the facts of the case.
>
>
> > If they didn't say anything that would be one matter but being purposely
> > dishonest is another.
>
> Prove they were being "purposely dishonest".
>
>
> >
> > And if Vegan is a spiritual or moral code for someone, clearly McDonalds
> > violated that trust and should be liable.
>
> The "vegan" has no case. You can hold whatever
> fuckwitted "spiritual code" you want; it is not
> "violated" by McDonald's including dairy in its
> products. You do not have a "right" to have your
> so-called "spiritual code" respected.

If you enquire whether a product is vegan and you are told
that it is then you are morally entitled to expect it to be vegan.
Making false claims about the products you sell is unethical
and, quite rightly, illegal. Whether or not that was what
happened I don't know. If the vegan simply assumed the fries
were vegan without actually being told so then she has no
case. Exactly the same applies to the hypochondriacs.


Leif Erikson
2006-02-21 20:29:05 EST
idiot "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered:
> S. Maizlich wrote:
> > Beach Runner wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > rita.kolesar@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> I agree she suffered no real damage and every veggie should ask before
> > >> ordering. (I do)
> > >> About the allergy thing, I was saying they should sue based on what I
> > >> know of allergies. I am an allergy sufferer as well as a vegetarian
> > >> and I ask a barrage of questions before chowing down. However things
> > >> can get cross contaminated and a reaction can occur. If they didn't
> > >> have anti-histamines or epi pens handy, and the allergy is full blown
> > >> they could die. If the case is that they went to the hospital and
> > >> nearly died, I can see the law suit having some solid ground.
> > >>
> > > This ignores that fact that McDonalds was being purposely dishonest.
> >
> > How were they? Did they say their fries contain no
> > wheat or dairy? You don't know that. You don't know
> > *any* of the facts of the case.
> >
> >
> > > If they didn't say anything that would be one matter but being purposely
> > > dishonest is another.
> >
> > Prove they were being "purposely dishonest".
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And if Vegan is a spiritual or moral code for someone, clearly McDonalds
> > > violated that trust and should be liable.
> >
> > The "vegan" has no case. You can hold whatever
> > fuckwitted "spiritual code" you want; it is not
> > "violated" by McDonald's including dairy in its
> > products. You do not have a "right" to have your
> > so-called "spiritual code" respected.
>
> If you enquire whether a product is vegan and you are told
> that it is then you are morally entitled to expect it to be vegan.
> Making false claims about the products you sell is unethical
> and, quite rightly, illegal. Whether or not that was what
> happened I don't know. If the vegan simply assumed the fries
> were vegan without actually being told so then she has no
> case. Exactly the same applies to the hypochondriacs.

The "vegan" has no case. She suffered no damages.


Leif Erikson
2006-02-21 23:45:18 EST
pearl wrote:

> "Leif Erikson" <notgenxagain@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1140545982.067732.206260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>rita.kolesar@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>If you read the article S. Maizlich posted
>>>http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/19/fries.suits.ap/index.html
>>>
>>>The last line says:
>>>
>>>"Before its acknowledgment Monday, the company had quietly added
>>>"Contains wheat and milk ingredients" to the french fries listing on
>>>its Web site."
>>
>>How long before? And why did the left-leaning CNN feel it necessary to
>>editorialize "quietly"? Naturally, they don't *say* how long, probably
>>because they don't know, but they're clearly trying to create the
>>impression that McDonald's did something sneaky. Maybe McD's *did* do
>>something sneaky, but CNN doesn't know that, and has no reason to
>>believe it...except for their political orientation.
>
>
> The last update edit that shows up on the web archive is "Mar 30, 2005 *" -
> http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.categories.ingredients.index.html
>
> 'French Fries:
> Potatoes, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural flavor (beef source),
> dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (to preserve natural color). Cooked
> in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (may contain partially hydrogenated
> soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated corn oil and/or partially
> hydrogenated canola oil and/or cottonseed oil and/or sunflower oil and/or
> corn oil).

You stupid, STUPID fucking cunt: the link shown is
what it was BEFORE the update.

Sweet fucking jesus in a chicken basket, you ugly twat
- you really *work* at being stupid.

John Wesley
2006-02-22 00:32:38 EST
In article <1140531587.276329.14740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
r*r@gmail.com says...
> McDonalds and every other fast food chain is essentially dishonest.
> Any well informed Vegan should know that they fry their fries in the
> same oil as their chicken nuggets and fish sandwiches. Every chain has
> been secretive about what ingredients they use in their food, due to
> heavy competition from other chains. McDonalds used to fry everything
> in a mixture with a beef tallow base. As a vegetarian I don't eat
> there and any well informed person wouldn't either. There are many
> resources out there about the actions of fast food chains all one has
> to do is read it. Vegans and Vegetarians need to make an informed
> decision when they eat out. And I feel that she has no ground for a
> suit if she was naive enough to think McDonalds just serves plain fries.
>
>
I think vegans and vegetarians should just stay home and eat. They
usually are hippies who don't bathe and they stink and I don't want to
smell them. Also the women don't shave thier legs and that is really
nasty.

John Wesley
2006-02-22 00:36:38 EST
In article <1140571745.482046.226620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
n*2@yahoo.com says...
> idiot "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered:
> > S. Maizlich wrote:
> > > Beach Runner wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > rita.kolesar@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I agree she suffered no real damage and every veggie should ask before
> > > >> ordering. (I do)
> > > >> About the allergy thing, I was saying they should sue based on what I
> > > >> know of allergies. I am an allergy sufferer as well as a vegetarian
> > > >> and I ask a barrage of questions before chowing down. However things
> > > >> can get cross contaminated and a reaction can occur. If they didn't
> > > >> have anti-histamines or epi pens handy, and the allergy is full blown
> > > >> they could die. If the case is that they went to the hospital and
> > > >> nearly died, I can see the law suit having some solid ground.
> > > >>
> > > > This ignores that fact that McDonalds was being purposely dishonest.
> > >
> > > How were they? Did they say their fries contain no
> > > wheat or dairy? You don't know that. You don't know
> > > *any* of the facts of the case.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If they didn't say anything that would be one matter but being purposely
> > > > dishonest is another.
> > >
> > > Prove they were being "purposely dishonest".
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And if Vegan is a spiritual or moral code for someone, clearly McDonalds
> > > > violated that trust and should be liable.
> > >
> > > The "vegan" has no case. You can hold whatever
> > > fuckwitted "spiritual code" you want; it is not
> > > "violated" by McDonald's including dairy in its
> > > products. You do not have a "right" to have your
> > > so-called "spiritual code" respected.
> >
> > If you enquire whether a product is vegan and you are told
> > that it is then you are morally entitled to expect it to be vegan.
> > Making false claims about the products you sell is unethical
> > and, quite rightly, illegal. Whether or not that was what
> > happened I don't know. If the vegan simply assumed the fries
> > were vegan without actually being told so then she has no
> > case. Exactly the same applies to the hypochondriacs.
>
> The "vegan" has no case. She suffered no damages.
>
The vegan should be thankful to be able to eat such tasty fries!
Page:  Previous  1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron