Ban Ronald McDonald?

[stripes4]

glad you got that "sorted"

[Ronja]

Perhaps if you reread Coito's and my posts with that in mind, you'll see what I'm paraphrasing. I think we explained it as well as we could.

I have read the whole thread now thrice, as I was searching for a statement of TMH that would match what you wrote. I could see you and Coito interpreting what TMH wrote as arrogance along the lines of I know what people at McDonald's should be eating. I do not, however, agree with that interpretation, as I see little evidence of arrogance or that paraphrased message in what TMH wrote. What I see in TMH's text is acknowledgement of that some people exist who have considerable difficulties in choosing wisely when it comes to junk food, due to marketing = psychological conditioning and the hyper-palatability of the combination sugar+fat+salt = physical conditioning bordering to addiction. Furthermore, I accept TMH's claim that such people exist, as there is scientific evidence of that (to which I have linked earlier in this thread).

But if it is important for you to convince me of that your interpretation of what TMH wrote is correct, you can of course list all those comments made by TMH that you interpreted as saying I know what people at McDonald's should be eating and/or as arrogance. I may well have missed a nuance - this is a long thread.

I know you are from Finland; out of curiousity, are you not a native English speaker? In English, quotations marks are used for more than just direct quotes; they are also used to present attitudes or ideas of other that one doesn't agree with oneself. The quotation marks prevent the reader from thinking that the writer holds those ideas himself.

On bulletin boards in particular, direct quotes usually have a specialized quoting system, such as the one I use above to quote you.

For the curious, I keep a summary of my language background here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronja ... deciphered

Regarding the use of quotation marks (be they double or single quotes) - I have taught scientific and technical writing in English at college and university level since 2002, and continue to do so. A part of my work is personally coaching PhD thesis writers. In these tasks I have always followed the principle that if quotation marks are used, they indicate a direct and verbatim quote - that's why I scanned and searched the thread back and forth to find where TMH would have written that.

The principle that text withing quotation marks is a word-for-word exact quote is presented, for example, in these US universities' scientific/scholarly writers' guides - I have not invented this principle myself:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/563/01/
http://web.mit.edu/academicintegrity/pl ... oting.html
http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_quoting.html

IMO, if you want to express an interpretation of what someone else wrote, stating clearly that this is your interpretation/impression and then, if needed, using bold (and possibly also italics) on your paraphrasing of the other person's text would be much clearer (less ambiguous) than using quotation marks. I have not been able to find any source that recommends the use of quotes when paraphrasing, though interestingly, the following is found in Wikipedia without any given source: "However, another convention when quoting text in the body of a paragraph or sentence—for example, in an essay—is to recognize double quotation marks as marking an exact quotation, and single quotation marks as marking a paraphrased quotation or a quotation where grammar, pronouns, or plurality have been changed in order to fit the sentence containing the quotation (see reported speech).[citation needed]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =395194378

[Coito ergo sum]

Agree to disagree
Meaning: Set aside an irreconcilable difference in order to maintain a civil dialogue.

Source: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/agre ... agree.html

Take the hint, Coito. You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you, so the polite thing is to cease trying.

I took the hint. I was kidding about the "agree to disagree" thing. When I said "there's no need for me to "agree" that we disagree" - there was a little emoticon after it - I was just kidding.

But - this conversation is not just about you. It's a message board, and other folks are involved in the conversation. Just because you won't ever be convinced doesn't mean the discussion ends.

The dialogue is nothing but civil here - I haven't attacked you personally (or otherwise). I've merely discussed the issue. You asked many detailed questions and I tried to answer them. In your last post you expanded upon them. I'm sorry if I don't think it impolite that I post something in relationship to a discussion that you openly invited and expanded upon. No hard feelings.

[Coito ergo sum]

Believe it or not, some don't "have a choice" because McD's has put a lot in to advertising and conditioning.

How very condescending.

Do you have a choice? Why are you immune from this all-powerful advertising?

Part of the reason they included toys with happy meals wasn't just to encourage children to eat there, but when those children grew up they would 'remember' the
fond times and the toys and continue to eat there, and then take their own children.

Oh....my....GOD!!! That is...I mean.... wow....McDonald's really does that? The unmitigated GALL! The pure in sense evil!

They put out a food product....and couple that with an enjoyable, memorable experience?

Jesus! What's next? Do you think they actually try to make their food taste good so that people want to buy it? If that's true, I'm getting out the picket sign...

It's the same reason they invested so much in to the 'sight' and 'smell' of McD's being universal, so you would always feel 'at home' no matter which store you went to. (Store, not restaurant).

God almighty....I wasn't aware that restauranteurs thought about making their restaurants pleasant, memorable and consistent from place to place. I mean - whenever I go to Chilis, they're totally different. I wouldn't even know I was in a Chilis.....That McDonalds, man, they are SLY! They make their restaurants generally consistent so that when you go to a McDonalds the experience is the same, you order what you want, and get it AND you feel at home? BASTARDS!

And it works. People are conditioned to go, conditioned to associate it with 'enjoyment' and 'good times'.

You know what.... it just dawned on me.... Disney does that... right here - just an hour away....Walt Disney World...home of Mickey Mouse for the love of anything that is holy! They associate that place with "enjoyment" and "good times!" That makes them want to come back again!

I see what you're getting at here...I see it now...if a company puts out a good product that people want to buy, and then they create a nice, attractive atmosphere that makes people feel at home, and they manage to get their customers to associate their product with enjoyment and good times, they are removing the freedom of choice from us! We are in their power!

They changed the menu colours to give the illusion of being healthier (Use of Green etc.)

I've not seen the "green menu" at McDonalds. Maybe the section that has salads? Not sure... How dare they use green though. That is just horrible.

There is a lot of subtle effects they trot out. (Not subliminal ffs, if it was subliminal you wouldn't notice it and therefore it wouldn't have an effect)

A Government doesn't have the duty to 'influence the health' but to manage it. In other words, to act where appropriate. In this case there is an increasing epidemic of obese children, the population is clearly not capable of taking the matter in to their own hands so the Govt. has to intervene. If the population was capable then there would be no need to.
People are stupid, they are easily manipulated and easily herded.

There is an increasing epidemic of obese children. However, there is no evidence that removing happy meal toys will have any effect. Is there?

You do indeed piss excellence

Shake 'n Bake, baby! Shake 'n Bake!

That just happened....

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito - I don't get the impression that TMH would be condescending. Please don't read so much into another person's text, none of us are mind-readers here.

He's not reading anything in' it's right there in black and white. "I know what people at McDonald's should be eating", with the assumption that they don't, assumes superiority, which is condescending, intentional or not.

Could you link to the post from which this quote is (the one that I bolded)? I would like to see the context. Thanks!

He suggested that he is immune from the effect of McDonald's advertising, but the great unwashed masses are not.

The whole idea that folks need to be protected from happy meal toys because they are unable to resist the power of a Finding Nemo toy offered in connection with a hamburger, and are too stupid to know that daily McDonalds is not good for you, is by its very nature condescending.

Then I add to that the fact that there is zero evidence that limiting the placement of Finding Nemo or Shrek toys in Happy Meal bags will have one iota of an effect on obesity renders the measure purely symbolic. It is a symbolic measure designed to further the condescending notion that "we" will protect "them" from themselves.

[Coito ergo sum]

Regarding the use of quotation marks (be they double or single quotes) - I have taught scientific and technical writing in English at college and university level since 2002, and continue to do so.

[

They are used primarily for direct quotations, as opposed to paraphrasing. However, they are commonly used to denote irony as well, and in that sense are called scare or sneer quotes, or horror quotes. When someone is speaking, this usage is often mimicked by using air quotes (a person makes quote symbols with their fingers while saying a word or phrase). They are also used in instances of "unusual usage," and in instances of "use-mention" (where someone is referring to the word itself, like if someone says that the word "book" has many different definitions (or whatever).

But, on a message board conversation the important thing is that we get on the same page as each other. He wasn't referring to the exact quote, but to the import of what was said.

Needless to say, Ronja, you have a superior command of the English language. That's something I find off-putting about many of my fellow native English speakers. We are outdone by non-natives at our own language.

[Warren Dew]

Regarding the use of quotation marks (be they double or single quotes) - I have taught scientific and technical writing in English at college and university level since 2002, and continue to do so....

The principle that text withing quotation marks is a word-for-word exact quote is presented, for example, in these US universities' scientific/scholarly writers' guides - I have not invented this principle myself:

What's appropriate for scientific papers is different from what's appropriate from conversational postings on a bulletin board. This isn't a peer reviewed journal, and peer reviewed journals don't have quote boxes for direct quotes. You may know a lot about scientific writing, but there may still be things you could learn about idiomatic language usage.

The whole idea that folks need to be protected from happy meal toys because they are unable to resist the power of a Finding Nemo toy offered in connection with a hamburger, and are too stupid to know that daily McDonalds is not good for you, is by its very nature condescending.

Exactly.

[maiforpeace]

Warren, You might want to check your spelling before commenting on someone else's English.

[Warren Dew]

Point out the spelling error, please?

[maiforpeace]

Point out the spelling error, please?

It's in the same post where you first question whether Ronja is a native speaker.

[eXcommunicate]

The whole idea that folks need to be protected from happy meal toys because they are unable to resist the power of a Finding Nemo toy offered in connection with a hamburger, and are too stupid to know that daily McDonalds is not good for you, is by its very nature condescending.

We're not just talking about "folks" here like you and me (adults). We're talking about the direct marketing to children. Again, nothing about this ordinance prevents parents from buying Happy Meals.

[Ronja]

Agree to disagree
Meaning: Set aside an irreconcilable difference in order to maintain a civil dialogue.

Source: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/agre ... agree.html

Take the hint, Coito. You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you, so the polite thing is to cease trying.

I took the hint. I was kidding about the "agree to disagree" thing. When I said "there's no need for me to "agree" that we disagree" - there was a little emoticon after it - I was just kidding.

But - this conversation is not just about you. It's a message board, and other folks are involved in the conversation. Just because you won't ever be convinced doesn't mean the discussion ends.

The dialogue is nothing but civil here - I haven't attacked you personally (or otherwise). I've merely discussed the issue. You asked many detailed questions and I tried to answer them. In your last post you expanded upon them. I'm sorry if I don't think it impolite that I post something in relationship to a discussion that you openly invited and expanded upon. No hard feelings.

Sorry, I only saw this post now.

Absolutely no hard feelings. Quite the contrary. My "agree to disagree" was definitely addressing only your convictions and mine, and in no way meant to limit the discussion - just that I thought we two were through for the part that relates to a whole heap of beliefs and values about how government should relate to these types of issues (which would be a massive topic and worth its own thread, only I can't take the time for *that* right now). Also, I really appreciated the short break that you took after my "take a hint". And I'm sorry that I somewhat misinterpreted your smiley in connection with the "why..." that followed it, and got a bit peeved, unnecessarily.

Also, thank you for you kind words in that other post about my English. Credit for that is partly due to Dr. Seuss and some really fantastic teachers at Cedarcroft Kindergarten (Baltimore, MD, USA), partly a strong family tradition of reading (aloud), and partly Jane Austen, Laura Ingalls Wilder, P.G. Wodehouse, J. R. R. Tolkien, John Steinbeck, Robert A. Heinlein, Ursula K. Le Guin, and countless other lively, richly inspiring and/or just plain masterful wielders of the English language. Also, scrambling to keep ahead of both my students and my kids when it comes to this language that I share with them, does keep the whip on my back. I hope I still can manage to laugh at myself when I do slip, though. I have a reading-and-writing difficulty due to a small brain damage I acquired at birth, so sometimes when the spell checker does not catch the mistake I can seem to be saying the oddest things.

Thank you for your response - without it some needless irritation might have lingered.

To dialogue!

[Coito ergo sum]

The whole idea that folks need to be protected from happy meal toys because they are unable to resist the power of a Finding Nemo toy offered in connection with a hamburger, and are too stupid to know that daily McDonalds is not good for you, is by its very nature condescending.

We're not just talking about "folks" here like you and me (adults). We're talking about the direct marketing to children.

Children don't buy happy meals. Parents do.

Again, nothing about this ordinance prevents parents from buying Happy Meals.

Of course it does. A Happy Meal comes with a toy. The ordinance prohibits the toys from being in there.

[Clinton Huxley]

McDonalds, you say? Mmmm....I love a bacon double-cheeseburger as much as the next man but I don't allow the Mini-Huxley's in there. Do as I say, not as I do, that's the rule of parenting.

[Coito ergo sum]

And.....here is some support for my proposition that the reason our kids are fat is because parents shove too much food down their gullets...

For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/tw ... index.html

Calories in - calories out, folks.

Your kids are fat because they eat too much. Happy Meals shmappy meals! If they only ate happy meals, but at the appropriate number of calories, they'd not be fat.

Period.

[health is another issue - but, the impetus for the ordinance is the obesity epidemic]