> Suppose I arranged for 20 or 30 people to stand outside a particular
> person house handing out leaflets saying the people inside cause
> cancer. They drive a car which puts out exhaust fumes into the air.
> Is that a fact.Is that a question? You can say that the exhust fumes from cars are linked to cancer (if that is the case) - there is no problem there. But you say that the people cause cancer. That is not what the 'What's Wrong With McDonald's?' factsheet said (if that is what you are trying to suggest).
The factsheet said "a diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt (sodium), and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals - which describes an average McDonald's meal - is linked with cancers of the breast and bowel, and heart disease."
Anyway, you continue..
> Now these people also wear clothing made in china. Does that mean
> they exploit workers.
Do they know the consequences of their purchases from China?
If so then one could indeed argue that they exploit workers (if one could show that those clothes were produced by a manufacturer that exploited workers).
> These people also wear leather belts. Does this mean they support
> destruction of rainforests.
Again, that depends on whether they are aware of the links between the cattle industry and the destruction of the rainforests. Whether they do know or not, they may well be contributing to that destruction if they are financially supporting the cattle industry.
> Oh no someone walked into the house smoking a cigarette. That means
> they support the abuse of children.
What? I don't think I'll waste my time on that one.
> The list can go on & on. This is what propaganga is.
Look up the word 'propaganda' in the dictionary, ask a few
people what they tink it means and then look again at what you
have written and see if you still think that is propaganda.
You continued..
> Now the residents of this house have had enough and decide to defend
> themselves in court. I'll show you my expert witness and you show me
> yours. Now can someone please explain the difference between say
> Jim & Tammy Baker and Mcspotlight. They both stand up on their
> soapbox damning whatever cause to hell.
I don't think I can answer that because I don't know who the Bakers are. I am also unsure whether you meant to say McSpotlight or the
McLibel defendents because McSpotlight is a website and not a person.
> Ah but theres a catch. PLEASE SEND MONEY NOW SO WE CAN CONTINUE OUR
> FIGHT. How much of this money goes into the fight and how much goes
> into lining their pockets. Please show us some AUDITED figures.
> Please include your personal expenses that you have drawn from this
> fund.
Again, it is not clear whether you are talking about McSpotlight or the McLibel defendents. If you are speaking about McSpotlight then the audit would be very quick since the total funds from donations or sales of merchandise have only just reached ú500. Personal expense accounts? You must be joking! I personaly have loaned the campaign several hundred pounds of my own money in order that T-shirts could be printed to raise funds. If you expected an audit of our accounts to reveal people stealing the funds you would be very wrong.
If you meant the funds raised by the McLibel Support Campaign (who I can not speak for) then you can write to them for a full breakdown of the way the funds have been used. You will not find any extravigant expence accounts - in fact the person who co-ordinates the office actually sleeps on the office floor.
> Can a refund be expexted by people who have donated or will
> you just move on to your next " cause".
How did you get to be so cynical without ever asking yourself any of
the really important questions?
