On 5/11/23 7:44 PM, RichA wrote:
> Furious back-peddling on view. Make America Great Again, Bud...

They're obviously just acknowledging the Pavlov's dogs behavior of the
MAGAs. Emphasis on *obviously.*

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 5:37:41 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/11/23 7:44 PM, RichA wrote:
> > Furious back-peddling on view. Make America Great Again, Bud...

> They're obviously just acknowledging the Pavlov's dogs behavior of the
> MAGAs. Emphasis on *obviously.*

"Manly Firmness" it's in the US Constitution

On 5/13/23 9:11 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Friday, 12 May 2023 at 05:37:41 UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>> On 5/11/23 7:44 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> Furious back-peddling on view. Make America Great Again, Bud...
>> They're obviously just acknowledging the Pavlov's dogs behavior of the
>> MAGAs. Emphasis on *obviously.*
>
> Better than pandering to freaks who represent at most, 0.5% of the population.
>

Wait, what? Are you talking about right wing fucking assholes talking
about "drag queens" and "drag shows being shown to children" and
shooting at 12 packs of Bud Light? That kind of fucking horseshit? As
the blues song goes, before you accuse me take a look at yourself.
Fucking idiot.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 5:37:41 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/11/23 7:44 PM, RichA wrote:
> > Furious back-peddling on view. Make America Great Again, Bud...
> They're obviously just acknowledging the Pavlov's dogs behavior of the
> MAGAs. Emphasis on *obviously.*

No, what Bud is acknowledging is that they made an incredibily
stupid marketing blunder that alienated a large percentage
of their customer base. So far that blunder has cost Bud more than
five $billion in sales and the losses do not appear to be slowing down.

Bud fired their marketing staff that came up with the idea
and have hired outside consultants to advise they on how to solve
this self-inflicted mess.

Go woke, go broke.

Irish Mike

On 5/14/23 7:57 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 5:37:41 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>> On 5/11/23 7:44 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> Furious back-peddling on view. Make America Great Again, Bud...
>> They're obviously just acknowledging the Pavlov's dogs behavior of the
>> MAGAs. Emphasis on *obviously.*
>
> No, what Bud is acknowledging is that they made an incredibily
> stupid marketing blunder that alienated a large percentage
> of their customer base. So far that blunder has cost Bud more than
> five $billion in sales and the losses do not appear to be slowing down.
>
> Bud fired their marketing staff that came up with the idea
> and have hired outside consultants to advise they on how to solve
> this self-inflicted mess.
>
> Go woke, go broke.
>
> Irish Mike
>

Whatever you say Oath Keeper Twat.

Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 5:37:41 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>> On 5/11/23 7:44 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> Furious back-peddling on view. Make America Great Again, Bud...
>> They're obviously just acknowledging the Pavlov's dogs behavior of the
>> MAGAs. Emphasis on *obviously.*
>
> No, what Bud is acknowledging is that they made an incredibily
> stupid marketing blunder that alienated a large percentage
> of their customer base. So far that blunder has cost Bud more than
> five $billion in sales and the losses do not appear to be slowing down.
>
> Bud fired their marketing staff that came up with the idea
> and have hired outside consultants to advise they on how to solve
> this self-inflicted mess.
>
> Go woke, go broke.
>
> Irish Mike
>
>

Now, now, nobody’s being fired. Two people have been placed on involuntary
leaves of absence to spend time with family. It’s not even clear if this is
with or without pay.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>. . .

>>No, what Bud is acknowledging is that they made an incredibily
>>stupid marketing blunder that alienated a large percentage
>>of their customer base. So far that blunder has cost Bud more than
>>five $billion in sales and the losses do not appear to be slowing down.

>>Bud fired their marketing staff that came up with the idea
>>and have hired outside consultants to advise they on how to solve
>>this self-inflicted mess.

>>Go woke, go broke.

>Now, now, nobody's being fired. Two people have been placed on involuntary
>leaves of absence to spend time with family. It's not even clear if this is
>with or without pay.

Alissa Heinerscheid was allowed to take home an unlimited supply of Bud
Light as compensation.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>No, what Bud is acknowledging is that they made an incredibily
>>>stupid marketing blunder that alienated a large percentage
>>>of their customer base. So far that blunder has cost Bud more than
>>>five $billion in sales and the losses do not appear to be slowing down.

>>>Bud fired their marketing staff that came up with the idea
>>>and have hired outside consultants to advise they on how to solve
>>>this self-inflicted mess.

>>>Go woke, go broke.

>>Now, now, nobody's being fired. Two people have been placed on involuntary
>>leaves of absence to spend time with family. It's not even clear if this is
>>with or without pay.

>Alissa Heinerscheid was allowed to take home an unlimited supply of Bud
>Light as compensation.

Here's criticism from the man who ran marketing for two decades and
turned the brand into number one seller, who said InBev's ownership and
complete lack of corporate oversight has been disastrous. He left when
they took over.

He did the croaking frogs and the Clydesdales playing football.
Amazingly, in two decades, not one ad was socially relevant. It just sold
lots of beer.

Marketing guru behind iconic Bud Light ads blasts 'self-inflicted'
Dylan Mulvaney fiasco
By Lisa Fickenscher
May 10, 2023
https://nypost.com/2023/05/10/marketing-guru-behind-iconic-bud-light-ads-blasts-self-inflicted-mulvaney-fiasco/

On 2023-05-14 16:46:57 +0000, anim8rfsk said:

> Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 5:37:41 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 5/11/23 7:44 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>> Furious back-peddling on view. Make America Great Again, Bud...
>>> They're obviously just acknowledging the Pavlov's dogs behavior of the
>>> MAGAs. Emphasis on *obviously.*
>>
>> No, what Bud is acknowledging is that they made an incredibily
>> stupid marketing blunder that alienated a large percentage
>> of their customer base. So far that blunder has cost Bud more than
>> five $billion in sales and the losses do not appear to be slowing down.
>>
>> Bud fired their marketing staff that came up with the idea
>> and have hired outside consultants to advise they on how to solve
>> this self-inflicted mess.
>>
>> Go woke, go broke.
>>
>> Irish Mike
>>
>>
>
> Now, now, nobody’s being fired. Two people have been placed on involuntary
> leaves of absence to spend time with family. It’s not even clear if this is
> with or without pay.

Who knew the rightwing would lose their minds over some obscure social
media influencer.

Actually they wouldn't have unless some culture war sniper had made it
a cause celebre in the rightwing echo chamber.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> . . .
>
>>> No, what Bud is acknowledging is that they made an incredibily
>>> stupid marketing blunder that alienated a large percentage
>>> of their customer base. So far that blunder has cost Bud more than
>>> five $billion in sales and the losses do not appear to be slowing down.
>
>>> Bud fired their marketing staff that came up with the idea
>>> and have hired outside consultants to advise they on how to solve
>>> this self-inflicted mess.
>
>>> Go woke, go broke.
>
>> Now, now, nobody's being fired. Two people have been placed on involuntary
>> leaves of absence to spend time with family. It's not even clear if this is
>> with or without pay.
>
> Alissa Heinerscheid was allowed to take home an unlimited supply of Bud
> Light as compensation.
>

Second prize was two unlimited supplies of Bud light.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> . . .
>
>>>> No, what Bud is acknowledging is that they made an incredibily
>>>> stupid marketing blunder that alienated a large percentage
>>>> of their customer base. So far that blunder has cost Bud more than
>>>> five $billion in sales and the losses do not appear to be slowing down.
>
>>>> Bud fired their marketing staff that came up with the idea
>>>> and have hired outside consultants to advise they on how to solve
>>>> this self-inflicted mess.
>
>>>> Go woke, go broke.
>
>>> Now, now, nobody's being fired. Two people have been placed on involuntary
>>> leaves of absence to spend time with family. It's not even clear if this is
>>> with or without pay.
>
>> Alissa Heinerscheid was allowed to take home an unlimited supply of Bud
>> Light as compensation.
>
> Here's criticism from the man who ran marketing for two decades and
> turned the brand into number one seller, who said InBev's ownership and
> complete lack of corporate oversight has been disastrous. He left when
> they took over.
>
> He did the croaking frogs and the Clydesdales playing football.
> Amazingly, in two decades, not one ad was socially relevant. It just sold
> lots of beer.
>
> Marketing guru behind iconic Bud Light ads blasts 'self-inflicted'
> Dylan Mulvaney fiasco
> By Lisa Fickenscher
> May 10, 2023
> https://nypost.com/2023/05/10/marketing-guru-behind-iconic-bud-light-ads-blasts-self-inflicted-mulvaney-fiasco/
>

Even if you liked that freak, the image on the can makes them look insane.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>. . .

>>>>No, what Bud is acknowledging is that they made an incredibily
>>>>stupid marketing blunder that alienated a large percentage
>>>>of their customer base. So far that blunder has cost Bud more than
>>>>five $billion in sales and the losses do not appear to be slowing down.

>>>>Bud fired their marketing staff that came up with the idea
>>>>and have hired outside consultants to advise they on how to solve
>>>>this self-inflicted mess.

>>>>Go woke, go broke.

>>>Now, now, nobody's being fired. Two people have been placed on involuntary
>>>leaves of absence to spend time with family. It's not even clear if this is
>>>with or without pay.

>>Alissa Heinerscheid was allowed to take home an unlimited supply of Bud
>>Light as compensation.

>Second prize was two unlimited supplies of Bud light.

I blew the gag.

.. . . an unlimited supply of Bud Light with Dylan Mulvaney's face on the
can as compensation.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> . . .
>
>>>>> No, what Bud is acknowledging is that they made an incredibily
>>>>> stupid marketing blunder that alienated a large percentage
>>>>> of their customer base. So far that blunder has cost Bud more than
>>>>> five $billion in sales and the losses do not appear to be slowing down.
>
>>>>> Bud fired their marketing staff that came up with the idea
>>>>> and have hired outside consultants to advise they on how to solve
>>>>> this self-inflicted mess.
>
>>>>> Go woke, go broke.
>
>>>> Now, now, nobody's being fired. Two people have been placed on involuntary
>>>> leaves of absence to spend time with family. It's not even clear if this is
>>>> with or without pay.
>
>>> Alissa Heinerscheid was allowed to take home an unlimited supply of Bud
>>> Light as compensation.
>
>> Second prize was two unlimited supplies of Bud light.
>
> I blew the gag.
>
> . . . an unlimited supply of Bud Light with Dylan Mulvaney's face on the
> can as compensation.
>

Second prize is just a painting of its face.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>>No, what Bud is acknowledging is that they made an incredibily
>>>>>>stupid marketing blunder that alienated a large percentage
>>>>>>of their customer base. So far that blunder has cost Bud more than
>>>>>>five $billion in sales and the losses do not appear to be slowing down.

>>>>>>Bud fired their marketing staff that came up with the idea
>>>>>>and have hired outside consultants to advise they on how to solve
>>>>>>this self-inflicted mess.

>>>>>>Go woke, go broke.

>>>>>Now, now, nobody's being fired. Two people have been placed on
>>>>>involuntary leaves of absence to spend time with family. It's not
>>>>>even clear if this is with or without pay.

>>>>Alissa Heinerscheid was allowed to take home an unlimited supply of Bud
>>>>Light as compensation.

>>>Second prize was two unlimited supplies of Bud light.

>>I blew the gag.

>>. . . an unlimited supply of Bud Light with Dylan Mulvaney's face on the
>>can as compensation.

>Second prize is just a painting of its face.

Third prize is Mulvaney moves in and never goes away as no one pays
she/he/it to be an influencer any longer.

On Sun, 14 May 2023 12:31:12 -0500, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

>> Now, now, nobody’s being fired. Two people have been placed on involuntary
>> leaves of absence to spend time with family. It’s not even clear if this is
>> with or without pay.
>
>Who knew the rightwing would lose their minds over some obscure social
>media influencer.

On what grounds do you say this?

I've switched my loyalty on quite a few products over far less than
this and it doesn't take much in the way of poor customer service to
get people to switch.

On Sun, 14 May 2023 13:44:51 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 May 2023 12:31:12 -0500, super70s
><super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Now, now, nobody’s being fired. Two people have been placed on involuntary
>>> leaves of absence to spend time with family. It’s not even clear if this is
>>> with or without pay.
>>
>>Who knew the rightwing would lose their minds over some obscure social
>>media influencer.
>
>On what grounds do you say this?
>
>I've switched my loyalty on quite a few products over far less than
>this and it doesn't take much in the way of poor customer service to
>get people to switch.

It's one thing when a company is actively hostile to you (which is
what I would consider really poor customer service to be) but, at
least for me, it's not of much concern who they get to help advertise
their products. They want to appeal to many different groups so they
will naturally pick multiple groups. For the most part I don't care
about advertisements because I go out of my way to avoid them and pick
products based on other criteria such as price, quality and
reliability.

Hell, the biggest thing they push in advertisements is consumables and
other than cases where I've found that I dislike a certain brand due
to past issues I don't have any brand loyalty. For groceries I'm
looking at price and taste (oh and expiration dates as I noticed today
a number of the items they had on sale/clearance where past their best
by date. Still usable but the taste likely won't be the same.)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2023 12:31:12 -0500, super70s
> <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Now, now, nobody’s being fired. Two people have been placed on involuntary
>>> leaves of absence to spend time with family. It’s not even clear if this is
>>> with or without pay.
>>
>> Who knew the rightwing would lose their minds over some obscure social
>> media influencer.
>
> On what grounds do you say this?
>
> I've switched my loyalty on quite a few products over far less than
> this and it doesn't take much in the way of poor customer service to
> get people to switch.
>

Hell, I’d stop going to Burger King given the choice just because of their
current stupid commercials with people singing off key.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Sun, 14 May 2023 16:52:39 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>It's one thing when a company is actively hostile to you (which is
>what I would consider really poor customer service to be) but, at
>least for me, it's not of much concern who they get to help advertise
>their products. They want to appeal to many different groups so they
>will naturally pick multiple groups. For the most part I don't care
>about advertisements because I go out of my way to avoid them and pick
>products based on other criteria such as price, quality and
>reliability.
>
>Hell, the biggest thing they push in advertisements is consumables and
>other than cases where I've found that I dislike a certain brand due
>to past issues I don't have any brand loyalty. For groceries I'm
>looking at price and taste (oh and expiration dates as I noticed today
>a number of the items they had on sale/clearance where past their best
>by date. Still usable but the taste likely won't be the same.)

I've had Bud Light a few times, I avoid it now even before this as
it's a low-alcohol beer that tastes like crap.

Since I tend to go for IPAs you can see why I might not like it much
thus while I think this whole campaign is for the birds I'm probably
not somebody who would touch their product with a barge pole even if
their spokesperson wasn't somebody I loathed.

On Sun, 14 May 2023 15:35:34 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>Hell, I’d stop going to Burger King given the choice just because of their
>current stupid commercials with people singing off key.

Pre-pandemic I was in there regularly as I liked their onion rings.
Went back recently, decided I'd give it a miss as with the pandemic
they had raised their prices impressively and that's NOT a compliment!

On Mon, 15 May 2023 11:06:07 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 May 2023 15:35:34 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Hell, I’d stop going to Burger King given the choice just because of their
>>current stupid commercials with people singing off key.
>
>Pre-pandemic I was in there regularly as I liked their onion rings.
>Went back recently, decided I'd give it a miss as with the pandemic
>they had raised their prices impressively and that's NOT a compliment!

I haven't been in a Burger King since the early 1990s. Due to my
experience eating at Burger King twice over the course of months and
getting sick to my stomach within a half hour of eating there. I don't
know what they were putting in their meals but it definitely didn't
agree with me so I avoid the place now.

On Mon, 15 May 2023 14:38:19 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>Pre-pandemic I was in there regularly as I liked their onion rings.
>>Went back recently, decided I'd give it a miss as with the pandemic
>>they had raised their prices impressively and that's NOT a compliment!
>
>I haven't been in a Burger King since the early 1990s. Due to my
>experience eating at Burger King twice over the course of months and
>getting sick to my stomach within a half hour of eating there. I don't
>know what they were putting in their meals but it definitely didn't
>agree with me so I avoid the place now.

Hmmm. Never had that experience there but for sure if I had that
experience I wouldn't be keen to return.

On Tue, 16 May 2023 11:43:12 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Mon, 15 May 2023 14:38:19 -0400, shawn
><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>>>Pre-pandemic I was in there regularly as I liked their onion rings.
>>>Went back recently, decided I'd give it a miss as with the pandemic
>>>they had raised their prices impressively and that's NOT a compliment!
>>
>>I haven't been in a Burger King since the early 1990s. Due to my
>>experience eating at Burger King twice over the course of months and
>>getting sick to my stomach within a half hour of eating there. I don't
>>know what they were putting in their meals but it definitely didn't
>>agree with me so I avoid the place now.
>
>Hmmm. Never had that experience there but for sure if I had that
>experience I wouldn't be keen to return.

It may have been some sort of reaction to my particular order as each
time I ordered a burger, fries and a strawberry shake. I had the
thought that maybe it was something in the shake that caused my quick
negative reaction to the meal (within about 30 minutes of eating it)
but I was never keen enough on Burger King food to try and order a
meal without the shake to see if I still had the reaction or to try
eating at a second location to see if it was just something they did
to the food that made me sick.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2023 11:43:12 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 May 2023 14:38:19 -0400, shawn
>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Pre-pandemic I was in there regularly as I liked their onion rings.
>>>> Went back recently, decided I'd give it a miss as with the pandemic
>>>> they had raised their prices impressively and that's NOT a compliment!
>>>
>>> I haven't been in a Burger King since the early 1990s. Due to my
>>> experience eating at Burger King twice over the course of months and
>>> getting sick to my stomach within a half hour of eating there. I don't
>>> know what they were putting in their meals but it definitely didn't
>>> agree with me so I avoid the place now.
>>
>> Hmmm. Never had that experience there but for sure if I had that
>> experience I wouldn't be keen to return.
>
> It may have been some sort of reaction to my particular order as each
> time I ordered a burger, fries and a strawberry shake. I had the
> thought that maybe it was something in the shake that caused my quick
> negative reaction to the meal (within about 30 minutes of eating it)
> but I was never keen enough on Burger King food to try and order a
> meal without the shake to see if I still had the reaction or to try
> eating at a second location to see if it was just something they did
> to the food that made me sick.
>

Burger King chocolate shakes (the only kind I ever got) always had some
sort of weird petrochemical aftertaste.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On May 16, 2023 at 3:14:48 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 May 2023 11:43:12 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 May 2023 14:38:19 -0400, shawn
>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Pre-pandemic I was in there regularly as I liked their onion rings.
>>>>> Went back recently, decided I'd give it a miss as with the pandemic
>>>>> they had raised their prices impressively and that's NOT a compliment!
>>>>
>>>> I haven't been in a Burger King since the early 1990s. Due to my
>>>> experience eating at Burger King twice over the course of months and
>>>> getting sick to my stomach within a half hour of eating there. I don't
>>>> know what they were putting in their meals but it definitely didn't
>>>> agree with me so I avoid the place now.
>>>
>>> Hmmm. Never had that experience there but for sure if I had that
>>> experience I wouldn't be keen to return.
>>
>> It may have been some sort of reaction to my particular order as each
>> time I ordered a burger, fries and a strawberry shake. I had the
>> thought that maybe it was something in the shake that caused my quick
>> negative reaction to the meal (within about 30 minutes of eating it)
>> but I was never keen enough on Burger King food to try and order a
>> meal without the shake to see if I still had the reaction or to try
>> eating at a second location to see if it was just something they did
>> to the food that made me sick.
>>
>
> Burger King chocolate shakes (the only kind I ever got) always had some
> sort of weird petrochemical aftertaste.

It's just the vinyl tetrachloride. Nothing to worry about.

BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 16, 2023 at 3:14:48 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 May 2023 11:43:12 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 15 May 2023 14:38:19 -0400, shawn
>>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Pre-pandemic I was in there regularly as I liked their onion rings.
>>>>>> Went back recently, decided I'd give it a miss as with the pandemic
>>>>>> they had raised their prices impressively and that's NOT a compliment!
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't been in a Burger King since the early 1990s. Due to my
>>>>> experience eating at Burger King twice over the course of months and
>>>>> getting sick to my stomach within a half hour of eating there. I don't
>>>>> know what they were putting in their meals but it definitely didn't
>>>>> agree with me so I avoid the place now.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. Never had that experience there but for sure if I had that
>>>> experience I wouldn't be keen to return.
>>>
>>> It may have been some sort of reaction to my particular order as each
>>> time I ordered a burger, fries and a strawberry shake. I had the
>>> thought that maybe it was something in the shake that caused my quick
>>> negative reaction to the meal (within about 30 minutes of eating it)
>>> but I was never keen enough on Burger King food to try and order a
>>> meal without the shake to see if I still had the reaction or to try
>>> eating at a second location to see if it was just something they did
>>> to the food that made me sick.
>>>
>>
>> Burger King chocolate shakes (the only kind I ever got) always had some
>> sort of weird petrochemical aftertaste.
>
> It's just the vinyl tetrachloride. Nothing to worry about.

lol