Peter A wrote:

> >
> > > But it's not their own actions, it's someone else's actions. You are
> > > asking an individual to be responsible for someone else's mistake. How
> > > is that right?
> >
> > Christ man, it's not as if the cheese was cleverly disguised inside the
> > burger. It was sitting right on top.
> >
>
> Why do you avoid responding to my points?
>
> Do you peel apart all your food to see what's inside? Or, do feel that
> you should be able to trust the restaurant to give you what you ordered?

As I said in another post, I do open up burgers to see what is in them, I
sometimes remove excess onion and tomato. If I was subject to serious
allergic reactions from something that is commonly in burgers I would most
certainly make a point of checking them.



> Then you come up with these feeble-minded scenarios about the "remote
> speaker" and so on. Give us a break.
>
> None of us knows the real details about this situation. We are
> discussing what has been reported, true or false, and speculating about
> what might have really happened or not happened is just mental
> masturbation. The report is that a person ordered a certain item, with
> many repetitions of the order, and got something else that made him
> sick. Yet you and many others think that it is his fault and not the
> restaurant's.

It is true that we have only the media report and I know that most
reporters can screw up the Lord's prayer trying to make an article look
more interesting. The report did say that the room was dark because they
were watching a movie. In order to get as movie going in a VCR or DVD they
would have to use the remote controls, and if there was enough light to
find the remotes and to find the right buttons then there was enough light
to see if there was cheese on the burger.



> I suspect all you treacle-brains listen to Rush. What an easy substitute
> for thinking.


Actually, I have listen to Rush a few times, just enough to realize what an
idiot he is.