Reply With QuoteI dont think Sinner posts here anymore... good god im glad its so.
etc
I suppose it was bound to happen.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58652,00.html
I dont think Sinner posts here anymore... good god im glad its so.
etc
I wonder how much these fat-asses have exercised during the time periods when they were forced into obesity through their unavoidable cravings.
What a ridiculous statement! A craving is something that can be dominated by force of will. The man is suing for his own lack of willpower. He probably fills his tub with "special sauce" and bathes in it, while watching TV, and sucking down Old Milwaukees Best. Not much gets under my skin, but this is infuriating."You don't need nicotine or an illegal drug to create an addiction, you're creating a craving," Hirsch said
Someone suggested today that lawsuits found to be frivilous should have all related costs paid for by the plaintiff. This is how they are doing it in England at this very moment.
Between the legal weed and lack of stupid lawsuits, Merry 'ol England is starting to sound better and better.
It was only a matter of time. The problem is, people tolerated this sort of dumbass lawsuit when the gun was pointed at the tobacco industry, and now we've set a precedent that can be taken to even more ludicrous extremes. We live in a country that places zero value on taking responsibility for your own actions. Oh-pah.
We'll if ole fat ass can sue, then I think it's time to go after Epic, Valve and ID because they wasted my life!! You frekin bastards!!!! Today, I wasted 3 hours playing deus ex.. 3 hours!!! What the fu*k!!! Warren Spector, I'm coming after your bank account bastard!!! And let's not even talk about all hours I wasted on UT and MOA:AA.. I got a B instead of an A on my special education 2 class. And it's UT's fault. I should sue them all...
Hmm... I do tend to spend an awefully amount of time here? And this forum has made me late on occasion and it has interfered with my job, my grades and other issues not worth mentioning.
Hmm......
:D
Come to think of it. I have a small penis and yes I admit it. I heard in High School that Mountain Dew caused this. I think I will subpoena my old high school friends, especially the cute girls, tell them of my penis plight and sue the makers of Dew.
Further more, I think the commercial with the Mountain Goats ramming "heads" is a blatant and unfeeling attack on my reduced manhood. I mean, they are saying, "Look at our big penises smashing into each other. They are so big and strong it does not even phase us. Yours is so puny, you might as well drowned your miseries in our wonderful, high caffiene product. It cannot get any smaller." That or it is a subliminal message trying to get everyone to watch gay porn.
Er, it's just a lawsuit, not a judgement. Why not take away free speech just because many people say stupid things?Originally Posted by Ben Sones
How about the loser gets to pay juror salary equivalency? That would help make jury duty less of a chore. That's maybe my onen big beef with frivolous lawsuits. Waste of time, I tell ya.
- Alan
This is such a ridiculous abdication of personal responsibility. McDonalds has salads and fat-free dressing - order that: http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/u...ads/index.html There is no need to shove a Big Mac & gargantuan fries down your gullet unless you want it. I regularly buy the kids Happy Meals at McD's (mostly for the toy) and then head over to El Pollo Loco for something less fatty for me.
I just got one of these shirts for my birthday, I think we need to send one to the plaintiff: http://www.game-skins.com/gspa002.shtml
The judgements against the tobacco industry are indeed real judgements, and it's a very similar situation. Identical, in fact. Any lawyer worth his salt is going to build on the precedent set by those judgements in this new suit.
I think the difference here is that the fast food corporations never withheld research on the health effects of their products like the tobacco corporations did. The reason PM, RJR, etc are getting taken to the cleaners is because they willfully lied to people, claiming that their products were neither harmful nor addictive. No fast food establishment has ever gone so far as to claim that foods high in fat and cholesterol are harmless and can be ingested without fear of health effects. This will get thrown out on its ear, and hopefully the attorney will be disbarred.
Oh, has McDonald's repeatedly denied that much of their food is fattening in the same manner that cigarette companies denied year after year that cigarettes were harmful?The judgements against the tobacco industry are indeed real judgements, and it's a very similar situation. Identical, in fact. Any lawyer worth his salt is going to build on the precedent set by those judgements in this new suit.
I'm not defending this particular lawsuit, just the idea that we shouldn't have the power to bring suit eroded. It's about the only tool individuals have to fight big companies.
Ritual fry eating. Only in Fattytown, USA.Israel Bradley, 59, said his ritual of eating a pound of french fries a week
>precedent set by those judgements in this new suit
Precendents don't decide judgments in civil litigation. Political opinions decide judgments. Precedents just give fact fact-finders ammunition to arrive at their politically motivated decisions, heh.
Spoken like a true transactions attorney :)
Dan
So, how come he didn't sue Carl's Jr., Taco Bell, or Jack-in-the-Box? Never ate at those places? There probably aren't any in his town. All of these places are guilty of one thing only; serving shitty food. But, (and this is his big butt) he is the one guilty of eating it. Instead of blaming McCrap-in-the-Bag for the way he most likely shoveled the garbage down, he should drive down (better make that jog down) to his local supermarket and pick up some Lean Pockets or something.
Or better still, if he wins the suit he'll be able to get himself liposucked, and still have enough to stuff himself again.
Sorry for the rant, but frivolous lawsuits irritate the hell out of me.
I just realized this entire thread was a thinly veiled ruse to get Sinner 3001 to materialize out of the woodwork.
Is jack-in-the-box still in business? I remember when I lived in Colorado they still had a few, but within a few years they were all closed.
Man, even by fast food standards, those guys sucked. Occasionally I'd go there to punish myself, or perhaps to subconsciously remind myself that yes, there actually were far worse places I could eat than Taco Bell or McDonalds.
Jack-in-the-Box is still all over California & Nevada, at least. Their food is much better than it used to be. If they would dump those stupid coated fries & go back to McDonald's style shoestrings, I'd be there more often. I haven't been to Burger King or JitB for months now, after both adopted those gross coated fries.
Galimo, don't be dissin' Taco Bell. Sacks of TB bean burritos are a Shoot Club staple.
I actually eat at Carl's Jr. all the time because they have the yummy and super-low-fat charbroiled BBQ chicken sandwich (3g of fat per sandwich). It ain't hard to find low-fat fast food.
>Is jack-in-the-box still in business
What kind of food comes out of a scary children's toy? A surprise case of salmonella? Were/are they a regional U.S. chain?
Funny you should mention that, as they are famous for killing four kids by serving undercooked e.coli-contaminated burgers in 1993.
http://www.meatnews.com/index.cfm?fu...le&artNum=1607
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...ack+in+the+box
I think he's making a reference to the incident.
They just opened a new Jack in the Box here in town. They actually tore down a strip club and built the resturant on the property. Another location in town is open 24 hours and is always really busy between 2 and 4 AM.
I love Chicago Beefs. They are great. Or a combo with an Italian sausage w/ beef and onion dipped bread and maybe some hot peppers on the side. Anybody like these?
When I went to California, they didn;t have these. That sucked!
etc
Nor did I say that they do. But any lawyer with half a brain is going to point out that if smokers get to reap huge, ludicrous settlements for having the poor sense to take up smoking, then why not give the same consideration to people that suffer the ill effects of unhealthful food?
I don't see them trumpeting the fact. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen McDonald's point out that their food is bad for your health. Sure, you could say "well DUH--that's common knowledge." But you can say that about smoking, too, and that didn't help the tobacco companies at all.Oh, has McDonald's repeatedly denied that much of their food is fattening in the same manner that cigarette companies denied year after year that cigarettes were harmful?
If we are going to hold them to the same standard to which we hold the tobacco industry, then every Big Mac needs a warning label: 'The Surgeon General has determined that high concentrations of cholesterol and saturated fat significantly increase the risk of heart disease, the number one cause of death in America." Not that warning labels have stopped people from smoking, any more than the common knowledge that it was bad for your health that existed prior to warning labels did.
And for the record, I've never said that people should be restrained from filing lawsuits. I believe no such thing. But I do think this particular lawsuit is stupid and frivilous--a prime example of yet another idiot trying to get someone else to pay the price for his poor decisions--and it annoys me. If there were justice in the world, the judge would throw it out and make this dork pay all court fees, for both parties.
But justice is the sort of thing that would, at the very least, force states to spend their huge tobacco settlements on anti-smoking campaigns, like they promised they would in court. Instead, many states have spent only a token amount of the settlement money in that manner, using the rest for whatever the hell they want (Medicade, bond payments, making up budget shortfalls, you name it). Four states spend none of the settlement money on smoking prevention. Alabama even had the gall to earmark a tidy portion of their settlement for public works improvements aimed at attracting a new tobacco processing plant to the state.
I guess if you are going to award people huge sums of money for acting irresponsibly, then you can't really expect them to use the settlement responsibly.
Next time you're inside a McD's, look on the wall next to the counter. There is usually a large poster displaying the fat and calorie content of every item on the menu.
The only thing identical about it, Ben, is that the end result of consuming the product is health problems. Tobacco contains an addictive substance that's so far gone unregulated and those lawyers were able to "prove" that cigarette companies willfully withheld the fact that cigarettes were harmfull. They even lied before Congress. Fast Food companies do reveal what's in their products and, unless I'm in the dark on something, they don't include addictive drugs that forced this guy to eat there.
So, um, where's the identical?
I also believe that tobacco judgements are ludicrous. I smoked for years, where's my free ride? Oh... I need a disease to get one? Hmmm...
This guy seems to be saying that, because he wanted Fast Food and couldn't cook for himself, he had to eat at McDonalds. Sounds to me like he would have starved to death had they not existed.
The reason for being fat is hardly singular. This guy could have eaten at home - or does he only cook burgers and fries at home because he is so addicted?
Unlike smoking, everyone has to eat. Or do we not really have to eat and the fast food companies created this addiction? If that is his case and he has proof - Damn them all!
You don't have to smoke. Most parents do not start their kids smoking by the time they are three. But your eating habits begin when you are young. So are we to assume his mother was also addicted and was forced to drag her son to the fast food crack house?
Chet
His mother is named in the suit as a defendant as well.
I believe the lawsuit is frivilous too. Hopefully the trial judge will see it the same way when the defendants file a motion to dismiss, which I don't believe has happened yet.
Unfortunately, for the plaintiff's lawyer this is a no lose situation. Even if the case is summarily dismissed, as it should be, look at all the free national publicity he's already received.
And to Ben: The plaintiff's lawyer will undoubtedly cite the tobacco cases as a precedent. That doesn't mean the judge will buy the argument. I can see two important distinctions between the two cases: (1) Unless somebody knows something I don't, fat isn't an addictive substance; (2) As previous posters have pointed out, the fast food industry has never denied the fat content of their food. No, they haven't advertised it, but there's a big difference--one which the law usually recognizes--between not advertising something and actively and deceptively denying it.
The tobacco industry took active measures to mislead and lie about the harmfulness of their product. The fast food industry hasn't, to my knowledge.
I think this fast food thing is a silly lawsuit also, but I'd rather put up with some silly lawsuits than limit the ability of individuals to sue, which the corporations would love.
The McDonald's coffee thing is a good example. Here's a case where McDonald's knew they were serving coffee that was dangerously hot. If we accept that this is an unsafe practice, how do we get them to desist? Pass legislation regulating the temperature that coffee should be served at in restaurants, or allow individuals to sue them for damages, thereby putting economic pressure on McDonald's to serve their coffee at a lower temperature? The latter makes more sense to me.
Silly lawsuits from individuals like this fatty fast food one are a pain, but it's corporations suing one another that are clogging the courts. Corporations are the litigious-crazy ones. They have lawyers on staff or retainer. They threaten to sue at the drop of a hat.
Posting Permissions