> 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 does the final product (hamburgers) have to do with McDonald's (and the rest of the industry's) guilt in terms of environmental damage, exploitation of works, animals and children?
> As to owing damages to the kids who eat there-- isn't it the parents'
> job to control diet.
Yes. And it would be easier without McDonald's (an the like) deliberatly targetting children in their adverts and exploiting their
guliable nature with promotional gimmicks that make them pester their parents into going to McDonald's.
> 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."
The judge effectively ruled that McDonald's adverst which suggested that were missleading. I agree that they were stupid to go to court, they could not win because they were guilty. Regardless of the verdict, the evidence supports all the claims.
