Re:Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For
by yetanotherphd on Sunday October 20, 2013 @12:31PM
(#6580397)
Actually he did refer to how Chick-fil-a "stepped in deep shit".
Re:Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For
by gonnakillme on Sunday October 20, 2013 @12:45PM
(#6580447)
I took that as a statement of fact (akin to "Chick-fil-a faced a public relations disaster ...") rather than a value judgement.
It's a fact? I heard Chick-fil-a stores had record sales after your so-called "deep shit PR disaster."
Re:Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For
by yetanotherphd on Sunday October 20, 2013 @12:56PM
(#6580484)
Agreed, but I think it's indicative of a liberal bias, or at least living in a liberal bubble, to place so much weight on something that most people have long forgotten about (especially the kind of person who eats there).
And the post I was responding to claimed that these things weren't even mentioned by the top poster, which they clearly were.
You mention "chick fil-a PR", and that's going to be the first thing that comes to mind. Total self-inflicted wound on their part, whatever your personal politics.
Re:Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For
by yetanotherphd on Sunday October 20, 2013 @01:55PM
(#6580733)
I specifically address this point when I say that it's only a minority of people who would even remember that controversy. Would you care to address this line of argument?
I just did. You remembered it, and with passion. You knew exactly what the parenthetical (they stepped in it) was talking about. So did everyone else on the thread.
You disprove your own argument.
The article mentions chick-fil-a by name 3 times in the text and at the bottom, it's one of 3 terms that you can sign up for email alerts about. This is right after they had a run of bad publicity (yes, caused by politics, but that's irrelevant). Seems to fit in the PR-created article category to me.