VeggieBoards banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
<a href="http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/mcdonalds_intervention.htm" target="_blank">http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/m...tervention.htm</a><br><br><br><br>
I know that many people here seem to have a personal axe to grind over VegSource, but you have to admit, this is a very big win for the vegetarian community and a huge injustice has been prevented!<br><br><br><br>
P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Yes. Vegsource has stated that the money should go *ONLY* to vegetarian organizations. And only to vegetarian organizations that meet the criteria outlined by the court: National in scope (Nationally recognized) and not for profit.<br><br><br><br>
McDonalds was allowed to veto any group they wanted. That is why you don't see some very well recognized organizations. What McDonalds did was veto all of the top organizations and then work with the plaintiff's attorneys to give money to mostly obscure groups that are no threat to McDonalds. They also were successful is getting the plaintiff's attorneys to agree to non vegetarian organizations and tried to argue to the judge that they should be allowed to give money to groups that "help" vegetarians by providing vegetarians with "information" such as the money they want to give to a vivisector that wants to prove that pregnant vegans should eat eggs. It's a joke.<br><br><br><br>
P
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,873 Posts
As I'm sure you're probably aware, the reason I'm asking is because I think VegSource is doing this for themselves as much as they're doing it for vegetarians in general. It's a lot of money, if that is in fact the case I don't blame them.<br><br><br><br>
I was just curious if they had announced a proposal on how they would like to see the money split up. I'm not sure if you'd know, I haven't seen it posted anywhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I personally don't know, but as someone that has been watching this very closely, I can confirm that VegSource does not qualify for any of these funds. They are FOR profit.<br><br><br><br>
If I were to guess why they are so vocal and focused on this, I would say that they feel the same way that I do. This is a railroad job and a slap in the face of vegetarians. It's bad enough that McDonalds has intentionally lied about the ingredients in their fries and their hash browns, but to then insult us in this settlement is shameful.<br><br><br><br>
Aren't you fired up? How could you not be?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,873 Posts
The only information I've seen on it is what's been posted on VS. If that information is true, and they have no hidden agenda, then I would agree that the settlement should be adjusted.<br><br><br><br>
However, I won't really get involved until I see a plan on how they'd like to have the money divided. They don't have specific individuals or organizations in mind? I find that hard to believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Michael</i><br><br><b>However, I won't really get involved until I see a plan on how they'd like to have the money divided. They don't have specific individuals or organizations in mind? I find that hard to believe.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I'm sorry, but you really don't know what is going on, do you? The plan on how they (McDonalds and the attorneys) would like to see the money be divided has already been submitted to the court and the judge will rule on it this Tuesday. That is what John Robbins, John MacDougall, Michael Klapper, Joanne Stepaniak, Neal Pinckney, and so many others are so upset about. It's a sham.<br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.cdfe.org/mcd_settlement.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdfe.org/mcd_settlement.htm</a><br><br><br><br>
P
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,873 Posts
Where does it say how the VS gang would like to have the money divided up? I didn't see it in the link you provided. Yes, there are organizations listed there but I believe those organizations requested money from the original settlement. That's not necessarily where VS would like to see the money go.<br><br><br><br>
I admitted I didn't know what was going on by asking you a question. If I had known, I wouldn't have asked.<br><br><br><br>
You seem to think VS is acting in a selfless manner and their sole intention is to help vegetarians everywhere. Try posting a link to our site, like you've done here with their site, and see what happens. See how willing they are to spread the good word. I'm sorry but I do not trust anything these people say or do and will not follow along blindly. I want to know what their intentions are.<br><br><br><br>
I'm not saying I'm right or that people shouldn't support this. I'm just stating my personal opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I can't speak for the VS gang. I assume that your are referring to the Nelsons. I can't say whether they are selfless. What I can say is that their position is back by virtually every top speaker/author/doctor/expert in the vegetarian community. John Robbins has put his name and reputation on this. John McDougall has also. T. Colin Campbell, Joanne Stepaniak, Stanley Sapon, and Matt Ball all have put their names behind VS' position and yet you are stating that you don't trust them.<br><br><br><br>
Are you sure that your opinion isn't influenced by some other reason?<br><br><br><br>
P
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,873 Posts
By the 'VS gang' I'm referring to everyone you mentioned above, with the possible exception of Matt Ball. As far as I know they all have ties to VegSource.<br><br><br><br>
Yeah, the initial settlement is questionable but I'm not going to back a plan from these people without knowing where they want the money to go. Is that too much to ask?<br><br><br><br>
And I've already stated what my opinion is based on. I'm just one person, I doubt it really matters if I lend my support or not. It's not worth getting worked up over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Michael</i><br><br><b>Yeah, the initial settlement is questionable but I'm not going to back a plan from these people without knowing where they want the money to go. Is that too much to ask?</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
In a word: YES<br><br><br><br>
The court is not going to sit around and wait for YOU to give your approval for the final list of vegetarian organizations. If you have an opinion and you have a suggestion, speak up. The last I read, there have been over 2000 objector petitions filed.<br><br><br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Michael</i><br><br><b>I'm just one person, I doubt it really matters if I lend my support or not.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
HAHA! I guess you sit home on election day, right?<br><br><br><br>
Never mind. You seem to be way too jaded.<br><br><br><br>
P
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,873 Posts
For your information I do vote. Just because I won't support your cause doesn't mean I just sit at home and do nothing. My point was, I have the right to decide what is and is not important to me. Until they publicize a list of where they want the money to go this doesn't rank real high on that scale.<br><br><br><br>
So consider my "vote" a vote against VS and their "follow like sheep" mentality. I won't just follow along and I won't apologize for wanting to know what it is I'm supporting.<br><br><br><br>
I can see this isn't going anywhere so I'm going to excuse myself from this conversation. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":)">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Michael</i><br><br><b>Until they publicize a list of where they want the money to go this doesn't rank real high on that scale. So consider my "vote" a vote against VS and their "follow like sheep" mentality. I won't just follow along and I won't apologize for wanting to know what it is I'm supporting.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
You are totally letting your bitterness towards VS get the best of you on this one. Do you know what a class action law suit is? As vegetarians, we are all part of the class. Do you need to see what VS and all of the other people you don't trust (Robbins, McDougall, Campbell, etc.) propose before you have an opinion on which vegetarian orgs should get this money? You're ok with this money going to a vivisector? Your silence is a yes vote.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Michael</i><br><br><b>I can see this isn't going anywhere so I'm going to excuse myself from this conversation. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":)"></b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
We agree.<br><br><br><br>
P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Michael</i><br><br><b><br><br>
Yeah, the initial settlement is questionable but I'm not going to back a plan from these people without knowing where they want the money to go. Is that too much to ask?</b></div>
</div>
<br>
Michael- they don't have a plan other than to stop the initial settlement from going through and creating one, anyone, which follows the initial guidelines and the spirit of the initial guidelines. That's all there is to it. Maybe VS does have a preference btwen say PETA and Farm Sanctuary, but that is not what they are arguing about in court, just to reject the initial settlement. If it is rejected, I am sure the original plaintiff (not VS) and McD's will negotiate a new one. VS is not an original plaintiff, and probably don't have any influence over the minute particulars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Thalia</i><br><br><b>If it is rejected, I am sure the original plaintiff (not VS) and McD's will negotiate a new one. VS is not an original plaintiff, and probably don't have any influence over the minute particulars.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Well, sort of. With this new development, there are going to be new people involved in the settlement. There are no secular vegetarians involved in the suit. They all objected to this settlement and their attorneys decided to move on without them. That's what is so alarming! The plaintiffs complained that they did not agree to the terms and conditions of the settlement so the plaintiff's attorneys basically fired their clients and went on without them! Now, because of this new twist, there will be a group of vegetarians involved in the naming of this list: John Robbins, Alex Hershaft PhD, John McDougall MD, Joanne Stepaniak, Matt Ball, Jack Norris, T. Colin Campbell PhD, Michael Klaper MD, Mark Epstein, Jeff Nelson, Stanley & Rhoda Sapon, Gene and Lorri Bauston, Lynn Grudnik, Mary Liro and James Glackin.<br><br><br><br>
It appears to be a "Who's Who" of who Michael doesn't trust. The problem is that without all of these people that Michael doesn't approve of, the settlement money, which is supposed to be distributed to the benefit of the class (all vegetarians - us) would be going to vivisectors and anti-vegetarian organizations.<br><br><br><br>
The above named people will have a place at the table deciding which orgs will be on the list.<br><br><br><br>
P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Pichula</i><br><br><b>It appears to be a "Who's Who" of who Michael doesn't trust.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
What something "appears" to be, and what something actually IS are two different things entirely. We all know what assuming does don't we? <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/wink3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=";)">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Michael</i><br><br><b>I do not trust anything these people (VS) say or do....By the 'VS gang' I'm referring to everyone you mentioned above, with the possible exception of Matt Ball. As far as I know they all have ties to VegSource.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I didn't assume anything. This is what Michael has plainly stated.<br><br><br><br>
P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
For the record, in addition to Matt Ball and Jack Norris, the Baustons aren't associated with VegSource, not sure about all of the others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I'm not saying that he doesn't trust Veg Source, I'm saying that it's not his only reason for not subscribing to the idea of what they're doing. There are many factors at play, not just one...and he was being very decent to you about it. You could at least do the same. And now I am going to back out of this one gracefully as well. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":)">
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top