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   (First | Last)

Pearl
2006-02-22 07:46:13 EST
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:y%RKf.1974$S25.408@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> 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).
>
> the link shown is what it was BEFORE the update.

'* denotes when site was updated'. 1. Has it, or has it not
been updated since Mar 30, 2005? 2. That was the last update
(that shows up), but where do you see "Contains derivatives
of wheat and dairy, but has been verified by the University of
Nebraska to be allergen and gluten free" as in the version you
posted, or as it now, since updated again 2.21.06 (correctly)
states: "Contains derivatives of wheat and dairy."? (doh!)
http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.categories.ingredients.index.html






Leif Erikson
2006-02-22 12:08:19 EST
pearl wrote:

> "Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:y%RKf.1974$S25.408@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>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).
>>
>> the link shown is what it was BEFORE the update.
>
>
> '* denotes when site was updated'. 1. Has it, or has it not
> been updated since Mar 30, 2005?

NO, you goddamned fucking shit4braincell moron. That
link dated Mar 30 2005 is to what it was BEFORE the
update. There would be no need for them to archive
what it is *now*, you colossal piece of shit, until
it's changed again.

Shrubkiller
2006-02-22 19:05:48 EST

Leif Erikson wrote:
> 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.





LOL!!!

Why not take some time off and laze about inventing some new words
Goober?

You're overwrought and charging around squealing and shrieking like
you've been shot.


Dave
2006-02-24 09:58:32 EST

John Wesley wrote:
> In article <1140571745.482046.226620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> notgenx32@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!

Do you think individuals should have the right to decide what they
do or do not eat, John?


Rick
2006-02-24 15:41:57 EST

"Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140793112.291515.129910@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> John Wesley wrote:
>> In article
>> <1140571745.482046.226620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> notgenx32@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!
>
> Do you think individuals should have the right to decide what
> they
> do or do not eat, John?
======================
Where was anybodys right to eat what they choose denied?


>



Dave
2006-02-24 17:17:35 EST

rick wrote:
> "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140793112.291515.129910@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > John Wesley wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <1140571745.482046.226620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> notgenx32@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!
> >
> > Do you think individuals should have the right to decide what
> > they
> > do or do not eat, John?
> ======================
> Where was anybodys right to eat what they choose denied?

I don't know that it has been in this case. presumably the vegan
decided to sue because she felt her freedom to not eat dairy had
been compromised. Although I realise John's comment was
probably tounge in cheek the general tone of their posts make me
wonder whether John or Maizlich really respect people's right to
choose not to eat animal products.

>
> >


Beach Runner
2006-02-25 10:29:10 EST


John Wesley wrote:

> In article <1140531587.276329.14740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> rita.kolesar@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.

Like my uncle years back after Debakey did early heart surgery and sent
him to the Pritikin institute? Or myself, an engineer with a major
company and worked for years on a classified project. Discrimination
prevents you from having to think.

B*@canada.com
2006-02-25 19:12:31 EST

S. Maizlich wrote:
> rita.kolesar@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I agree that the mom and daughter with allergies should sue for medical
> > expenses.
>
> It's not clear they should prevail, though. They may
> have a cause of action, but it's not at all clear they
> should prevail.
>
>
> > I think the vegan has just as much a right to know what is
> > in her food,
>
> She should ask *before* she eats.
>
>
> > however sueing for that is a bit rash.
>
> She has no case. She suffered no real damage.



So I could sell you a "Big Mac" and instead of hamburger I could use a
similar weight of cabbage and you'd be fine with that?

You suffer no real damage and it doesn't matter that what you believe
you are eating isn't what you are actually eating.




>
>
> > If you are a vegan
> > stay away from fast food restaurants because you never know what they
> > put in your food. The BK "veggie" burger has a chicken base I just
> > found out. The moral of the story is.. be informed don't sue, just
> > don't eat there again.
> >

Page:  Previous  1 2 3   (First | Last)


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