Jay Leno joke

Socializing and general posts on wide-ranging topics. Remember, it's Poststructural!
User avatar
gonzo914
Posts: 2776
Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Near the squiggly part of Kansas

Re: "That's not what it says on the label..."

Post by gonzo914 »

Innocent Bystander wrote:And anyway, let's hear it for White Castle Burgers! Half a dozen of them is very nearly a meal!
Can you get Slyders in the UK? Man, I can't even get them in Kansas, and that's where they started out.

Image

First White Castle opened in 1921 in Wichita, Kansas

(Although I will say that the frozen White Castle burgers from the grocery store are almost as good as the real thing if you heat them carefully.)
Crazy for the blue white and red
Crazy for the blue white and red
And yellow fringe
Crazy for the blue white red and yellow
suejnnhe
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 4:53 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1

Post by suejnnhe »

Flyingcursor wrote:So much to say, so little time.

First of all, it's not an inherent God given right to go to McDonalds or Burger King. If you don't like their food, don't go there. They are under no obligation to alter their business for anyone.

The name is "Burger King". I believe the word "burger" ought to give away the idea that they serve MEAT. They may cook their fries in MEAT oil. MEAT may come in contact with other products.

To sue or complain because you might get FAT eating at a greasy spoon that has a MEAT product in their very name is like complaining because you stick your head in an oven and get burned.


Those lawsuits are frivolous, absurd and based on three very fundamental errors.
Error 1: Because of TV you are somehow obligated to eat at McDonalds.
Error 2: You have a basic right as a human being to eat at McDonalds
Error 3: A business should cater to the whims of every individual based on errors 1 and 2 or on personal religious beliefs.
Ditto!
HeySue!
_________
Don't Panic!
User avatar
Mitch
Posts: 1826
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:58 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: Wombatistan
Contact:

Post by Mitch »

suejnnhe wrote:
Flyingcursor wrote:So much to say, so little time.

First of all, it's not an inherent God given right to go to McDonalds or Burger King. If you don't like their food, don't go there. They are under no obligation to alter their business for anyone.

The name is "Burger King". I believe the word "burger" ought to give away the idea that they serve MEAT. They may cook their fries in MEAT oil. MEAT may come in contact with other products.

To sue or complain because you might get FAT eating at a greasy spoon that has a MEAT product in their very name is like complaining because you stick your head in an oven and get burned.


Those lawsuits are frivolous, absurd and based on three very fundamental errors.
Error 1: Because of TV you are somehow obligated to eat at McDonalds.
Error 2: You have a basic right as a human being to eat at McDonalds
Error 3: A business should cater to the whims of every individual based on errors 1 and 2 or on personal religious beliefs.
Ditto!
Dear Igor,

The secret enzyme is working well (evidence attached). Judjing by sales volumes this year the special memory reducing hyper-lipid also seems to be doing the trick - AND TASTY I must say! Now what was I doing just now ... ah yes! Fish & Chipple ...

:boggle:
All the best!

mitch
http://www.ozwhistles.com
User avatar
Flyingcursor
Posts: 6573
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: This is the first sentence. This is the second of the recommended sentences intended to thwart spam its. This is a third, bonus sentence!
Location: Portsmouth, VA1, "the States"

Post by Flyingcursor »

Mitch wrote:
suejnnhe wrote:
Flyingcursor wrote:So much to say, so little time.

First of all, it's not an inherent God given right to go to McDonalds or Burger King. If you don't like their food, don't go there. They are under no obligation to alter their business for anyone.

The name is "Burger King". I believe the word "burger" ought to give away the idea that they serve MEAT. They may cook their fries in MEAT oil. MEAT may come in contact with other products.

To sue or complain because you might get FAT eating at a greasy spoon that has a MEAT product in their very name is like complaining because you stick your head in an oven and get burned.


Those lawsuits are frivolous, absurd and based on three very fundamental errors.
Error 1: Because of TV you are somehow obligated to eat at McDonalds.
Error 2: You have a basic right as a human being to eat at McDonalds
Error 3: A business should cater to the whims of every individual based on errors 1 and 2 or on personal religious beliefs.
Ditto!
Dear Igor,

The secret enzyme is working well (evidence attached). Judjing by sales volumes this year the special memory reducing hyper-lipid also seems to be doing the trick - AND TASTY I must say! Now what was I doing just now ... ah yes! Fish & Chipple ...

:boggle:
Not sure of your point but...ah...OK.

Thanks suejnnhe.

My daughter and I had a conversation about this subject yesterday afternoon. She agreed with my three points but said that McDonalds had specifically, clearly and publicly stated they their fries had no wheat flour nor any contact with animal products thereby making them safe for vegetarians. If that were so then McDonalds is clearly at fault because they lied. In that case the issue isn't any of the above but a matter of corporate honesty.

It seems that the problem lies in the presentation. McD's announced in 1990 that they were switching to 100% Vegetable oil for their fries.

In 2001 a Hindu vegetarian discovered the fries were seasoned at the main kitchens with beef flavoring before being sent to the stores in the US. McDonalds claimed no beef products are used in fries sold in primarily Hindu countries.

McD's claim they never said their product was vegetarian friendly but simply cooked in a different oil.

Who's right? Is it misleading? Yes and No. First of all there's no reason for anyone to assume that a potato cooked in 100% vegetable oil would contain a meat product. Therefore it is misleading. On the other hand let's not forget to let the buyer beware. Sometimes what is NOT said is just as important. Ultimately we are responsible for our actions. I'm on the fence at the moment.

Sadly the relatively simple issue, (of course at the hands of special interest groups), has been converted into something beyond it's rightful place.
James Pizzirusso, of the Vegetarian Legal Action Network wrote: "Corporate America needs to pay attention to consumers who avoid certain food products for religious or health reasons, or because they have allergies," he said. "They say they are complying with the law in terms of disclosing their ingredients, but they should go beyond the law." Vegetarian advocacy groups claim to represent as many as 15 million Americans. And while those groups are accustomed to confronting American corporations, the lawsuit is a watershed for the Hindus in the United States. Mostly first and second generation immigrants from India, with a smattering of American converts, they are estimated to number more than one million people. Until now, they have put far more effort into educating their children and building temples to perpetuate their religion than into pressuring the federal government or industry to accommodate their customs.
Ignoring spaghetti-like verbiage, the last sentence is especially unacceptable. Let's not convert what is essentially an issue of corporate honesty vs. personal responsibility into a matter of Church vs State.

Not all Hindu's agree with the lawsuit:
Parag Gandhi manager of the Taj Sari Palace in northwest Chicago wrote: ...thought the Hindu plaintiff foolish. "I don't think Ronald McDonald walked up to him and made him eat the French fries," Mr. Gandhi said. "People should know that if they are eating at a place that serves meat products that they have to be more than careful if they don't want to eat meat. Come on, I mean it's McDonald's."
I'm no longer trying a new posting paradigm
User avatar
Innocent Bystander
Posts: 6816
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:51 pm
antispam: No
Location: Directly above the centre of the Earth (UK)

Post by Innocent Bystander »

Nope, no Slyders in the UK. I saw them in Kentucky when I was there, but that was a few years ago.

In the Uk it's Wimpey. Not to be confused with the builders. Wimpey do a lovely Spicey Beanburger. Our local Wimpey, in Marlow, won an award for the best Wimpey in the country. And it still is pretty damn good. Then they deported the manager when they found out he was an illegal immigrant. How is that for unfair?
User avatar
Paul Reid
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Location: Markham, Ontario Canada
Contact:

Post by Paul Reid »

Image
PR

c[]|________||___o__o__O___o__O__º__º__||_]
      \\
susnfx
Posts: 4245
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Salt Lake City

Post by susnfx »

:lol:
But where are the red lights in the eye sockets??

Susan
User avatar
Paul Reid
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Location: Markham, Ontario Canada
Contact:

Post by Paul Reid »

Soosan!! It's not Christmas silly :P
PR

c[]|________||___o__o__O___o__O__º__º__||_]
      \\
Post Reply