: I think that the McLibel folks need to get a life and get a career or something! Got both, thanks.
: If they hate McDonald's that much why even bother with them??Who do they think that they are to spread fabrications and very narrow personal opinions in the manner that they did??
One. The facts, as set out in the Factsheet are either from a) McDonald's internal company documents or b) reputable third parties and research groups (like the World Health Organisation).
Take, for example, that famous quote from an internal 1986 McD's document;
"McDonald's should attempt to deflect the basic negative thrust of our critics.....How do we do this?
By talking 'moderation and balance'. We can't really address or defend nutrition. We don't sell nutrition and people don't come to McDonald's for nutrition".
Two. The leaflet was produced to counter the fact that McD's can get their message _everywhere_ simply by throwing enough money around. As McDonald's are themselves well practiced in twisting facts to suit their profits or their image (e.g. pretending to children that burgers come from a "burger patch" rather than a slaughterhouse - which children would find distressing).
Take, for example, the nutritious qualities of Coca-Cola...
David Green, Senior VP of Marketing was a witness in the case;
When asked if Coca Cola is 'nutritious' he replied that it is 'providing water, and I think that is part of a balanced diet'. He agreed that by his definition Coke is nutritious.
If that isn't a severely twisted fact, what is?
Never mind that Coke contains caffeine (a stimulant drug) and phosphoric acid (which does _nasty_ things to your stomach)...
Oh, and if you feel that he's right, go and eat an iceberg...
:These veggie munching hippies would not like it very much if I condemned them for slaughtering all those poor little helpless lettuces and carrots that can't beall that healthy for you with all those insecticdes and herbicides they use in modern agriculture.
Well, it's unclear whether plants feel something analogous to pain or not - quite possibly they do. However, the world can't afford to support Western levels of meat overconsumption - our gluttony is aiding desertification worldwide and using the grain that would otherwise feed the Third World. On the subject of agrochemicals, they're unnecessary, expensive and a health risk. However, dioxins concentrate themselves most strongly not in vegetables, but in the things that eat vegetables, namely food animals like cows.
:Morris and Steel should hear themselves.I'd say that it's about the same.Freedom of speech is a great right but only when it used for constructive manner. You go to far and it becomes abusive.
Oh, right. So external censorship is OK, because you've hurt someone's feelings? Especially in an issue such as this, where millions of people's health is likely to suffer as a result of the McPoison? No. There is a genuine issue here and it is worth debating. I'd say that improving the world's health, the environment and the welfare of people worldwide is a constructive use of free speech.
Every word you say is likely to offend someone somewhere. Does that mean you shouldn't speak?
: Her's another question. When this was in the news,Morris and Steel were either out of work or were working only part-time. They got a lot of media exposure. They must have benefitted from this and have full-time jobs now right?
Wrong. Dave is doing what he's always been doing - working as an unpaid activist. Helen is currently travelling. Neither of them have taken a penny's profit from the Mclibel Support Campaign. They're not in it for the money.
:SO, how much of their comments did they actually believe in personally and how much of this did they do only to get some attention and cash in on their 15 minutes of fame???
They believe all of it, and are prepared to take this as far as it goes. Neither did they do it for the attention. After all, they were held accountable not for writing the leaflet, but for merely handing the thing out. Three years in court for handing out a leaflet? There are any number of easier ways if you want to become famous.
The case is currently in a suspended state - it has been accepted as a genuine appeal by the British judicial system and is likely to be heard in 1999. Hopefully, the scales should be tilted slightly less strongly in McDonald's favour, as they may be able to place the burden of proof on McDonald's - meaning that McD's will have to sweat once more in the McSpotlight.
And when they do so, the McLibel Support Campaign will be behind them all the way.
:Just asking!
Well, there's your answer.
None.
