For years, I wondered just who in hell actually NEEDED directions printed on their shampoo bottles. Lather, rinse, repeat; it’s not rocket science right?
When I first heard about this case, and the fact that Mc’Ds would be forced to put warning labels on their coffee, I knew at last, who those directions were for.
This topic is under Great Debates…telling me to shut up when I bring up a point inconvenient to your personal point of view is apparently a new debating technique I am unaware of…so sorry.
Its a point inconsistent with American jurisprudence in this area, not something inconsistent with our personal points of view. It suggests to me that you don’t understand the legal principles under which the case was decided.
Okay, I stopped reading on or about page 4, but this gem, from page 1, just needed repeating. Won’t anyone think of the poor McWorkers, striving for excellence every day and in every aspect of the culinary art, forced to cater to the lowest common denominator? That and my post count could use the boost.
A couple no-no’s here in GD: We don’t usually re-open arguments that ended 7 months ago, and we don’t quote one sentence out of context. I’ve asked the moderators to close this thread. If you want to talk about this case, or any other McDonald’s lawsuits, please start your own thread. Then you can be snotty to your heart’s content, m’kay?
Moderator’s Note: Since this is rather old now, and awfully long, and since the OP has asked, I’ve closed this thread. If any of you want to spend another 7 pages discussing the Great McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit, y’all can open another thread (and include a link to this one if you so desire).