Why do McDonalds make ordering so frustrating!

System

soothyerboots wrote: »

Nope. It is not a restaurant. End of argument. :cool:

Well argued. I doff my cap to you as you are quite the scholar......

spike7451

qetu1357 wrote: »

And his girlfriend was a vegan who had to take vitamin supplements.........

And my G/F's a veggie that has to eat fish on her doctors orders as well,makes meal times in my gaff...interesting..

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

Well argued. I doff my cap to you as you are quite the scholar......

Glad you are at last appreciating your error.

You need to realise that there are subtleties in the use of words that are often not reflected in their dictionary entries.

Even the most stupid can see the distinction between a dive like McD and what is commonly accepted as a 'restaurant'.

Unfortunately, there are always a few idiots who would despoil the language by attempting to remove the nuances inherent in English on the say so of some foreign food company who use a word quite incorrectly with regard to the way it its normally understood.

dibuzz

Honeydog wrote: »

The 12' Californian pizza is the least offensive item on the menu. But I agree it is a terrible place. Sometimes it is just where people want to meet up though because it is central to everyone. Just have to lump it under those circumstances.

I'd love to see you eat a 12 foot pizza :eek:

I usually ask for a chicken sandwich meal with a black coffee and they always ask what drink I want, when I repeat that I want a black coffee they ask do I want milk with it, I say no thank you (why would I ask for black if i wanted milk?) and what do I invariably end up with? Yup a white coffee :mad:

stephen77

Azari wrote: »

Glad you are at last appreciating your error.

You need to realise that there are subtleties in the use of words that are often not reflected in their dictionary entries.

Even the most stupid can see the distinction between a dive like McD and what is commonly accepted as a 'restaurant'.

Unfortunately, there are always a few idiots who would despoil the language by attempting to remove the nuances inherent in English on the say so of some foreign food company who use a word quite incorrectly with regard to the way it its normally understood.

Thats just the way you understand the word to be used.

Wether its a dive or not is subjective. I have been to a few indian restaurants that would be considerd a dive, However they normally have the tastiest food, just food safety is not the top of their agenda.

The american company has been calling itself a restaurant for well over 60 years. Other places like burger king, wimpy etc call themselves restaurants as well.
So if all these places use the word, its not really used incorrectly.


I guess the first place to call its self a restuarant in France in the 1760's would probably bear very little resemblance of what you would call a restaurant today. However that does not mean its a restaurant

Azari

stephen77 wrote: »

Thats just the way you understand the word to be used.

Quite.

And that's how most educated people understand the word to be used.

I can quite accept that to people for whom McD is the epitome of sophisticated dining, the places might be considered 'restaurants'. I'm sure Homer Simpson would be taken in. But to those with wider culinary experience they are cheap and nasty fast food shops.

What McD and others of their ilk who, Hyacinth Bucket like, call themselves 'restaurants' are trying to do is to equate two words that are not equatable - at least by educated people, and thus impoverish the language.

For many decades there has been a clear distinction between a restaurant and a cafe, McD and similar are trying to remove that distinction for commercial ends - i.e. to persuade idiots of the laughable notion that their offerings have the quality associated with a restaurant.

If someone set up a row of tents and decided to call it a 'hotel', would anyone of any intelligence go along with that description? That is all that is happening here but on a larger scale. McD is attempting to use a grandiose title for something that in no way warrants that title.

stephen77

Azari wrote: »

Quite.

If someone set up a row of tents and decided to call it a 'hotel', would anyone of any intelligence go along with that description? That is all that is happening here but on a larger scale. McD is attempting to use a grandiose title for something that in no way warrants that title.

Thats why you look online at the hotel before booking:)

Though there is a website called along the lines. Worlds weirdiest hotels and I am pretty sure they charged a lot of money for it. Possibly may have been advertised as wig wam!

stephen77

Azari wrote: »

Quite.

And that's how most educated people understand the word to be used.

I can quite accept that to people for whom McD is the epitome of sophisticated dining, the places might be considered 'restaurants'. I'm sure Homer Simpson would be taken in. But to those with wider culinary experience they are cheap and nasty fast food shops.

What McD and others of their ilk who, Hyacinth Bucket like, call themselves 'restaurants' are trying to do is to equate two words that are not equatable - at least by educated people, and thus impoverish the language.

For many decades there has been a clear distinction between a restaurant and a cafe, McD and similar are trying to remove that distinction for commercial ends - i.e. to persuade idiots of the laughable notion that their offerings have the quality associated with a restaurant.

.

While i am not a fan of most the macdonalds menu and it is cheap. I and many other people would not call it nasty.
It useful for a bite to eat with out breaking the bank while out. It allows me to have a bit of food and a restore myself. Hence it serves its function as a restaurant.

If I was going on a fancy date. Would I go to macdonalds - hell no. But I would not go to the likes of Nando eithers as that is just exspenive KFC with cold chips. I would think most people would agree Nandos is a restaurant.

I really do not think macdonalds use the term Restaurant in its title for commercial ends these days. As most people are aware of the brands values already. These so called idiots they what they are getting. They are not trying to use the word restaurant to compete with the Fat Duck

This is their mission statement.

"McDonald's vision is to be the world's best quick service restaurant experience. Being the best means providing outstanding quality, service, cleanliness, and value, so that we make every customer in every restaurant smile."

blossomhill_2

"If you really wanted us to be neater, you'd serve us out of one long bowl"
"You're talking about a trough. We're not going to eat from a trough"

System

Azari wrote: »

Quite.

And that's how most educated people understand the word to be used.

I can quite accept that to people for whom McD is the epitome of sophisticated dining, the places might be considered 'restaurants'. I'm sure Homer Simpson would be taken in. But to those with wider culinary experience they are cheap and nasty fast food shops.

What McD and others of their ilk who, Hyacinth Bucket like, call themselves 'restaurants' are trying to do is to equate two words that are not equatable - at least by educated people, and thus impoverish the language.

For many decades there has been a clear distinction between a restaurant and a cafe, McD and similar are trying to remove that distinction for commercial ends - i.e. to persuade idiots of the laughable notion that their offerings have the quality associated with a restaurant.

If someone set up a row of tents and decided to call it a 'hotel', would anyone of any intelligence go along with that description? That is all that is happening here but on a larger scale. McD is attempting to use a grandiose title for something that in no way warrants that title.

I enjoy the fact that a man who claims he is educated references homer Simpson and hyacythn bucket to defend a weak position. Could you get more low brow?

Macdonalds is a restaurant, accept you're wrong and move on