JEASUSSESS-- AS near as I can tell all Mac's ever did was sell hamburgers, which is exactly what every other restaurant in the world does. What in this makes you feel that Mac's owes anything to anyone (beyond the taxes, wages, etc. that they agree to as the costs of doing business.) Is their crime the fact that they have done a better job of selling burgers-- a sort of "high profile" tax? --ie. as soon as anyone does a project successfully-- someone is automatically "explioted" entitling you to a cut-- what a load.... As to owing damages to the kids who eat there-- isn't it the parents' job to control diet. As to the kids that work at Macs- I have always felt that Mac's the major factor that launched the outfit as the biggest restaurant chain in history was the institutional ability to motivate teen-agers. Do you really feel that getting kids to learn a job, learn work habits, and to take some pride in their jobs is exploitation---- another load [if your message was actually parody -- never mind this) -----
As to the lawsuit, however, I am sort of impressed that anyone could get a huge corp to spend millions and years on a message that could't win (i.e. "we aren't wrecking the world) --- if they had had any sense, they would have put the $ into ads saying "burgers are good for you."
NOW-- ABOUT SECOND HAND SMOKE.............[later]
