>Hi Doug.
>
>>I will take the responsibility to decide this issue for myself. I am not a victim.
>
>Sometimes you don't have a choice. For example, smoking was allowed at the Hyatt in Milwaukee where GLGDW was held. As someone who's allergic to smoke, I often suffer a fair bit after being exposed to it. However, I couldn't decide to go to a different hotel. I could've decided to skip GLGDW altogether, but that seems somewhat drastic. Isn't there a compromise? Isn't it possible that people can smoke in places where I won't go or where the smoke will quickly dissipate so I'm not forced to breathe their waste products?
>
>>What ever happened to personal responsibility?
>
>I agree completely. If I want to engage in an activity that could harm other people, I should be responsible enough to ensure that that won't happen. To expect that everyone else should have to change their plans and go somewhere else because I want to behave in that way seems very irresponsible.
>
>>And tolerance seems awfully one-sided these days.
>
>Not necessarily. All I'm asking as a non-smoker is to *not* be exposed to someone else's waste products when I'm in public places. Is that being intolerant?
>
>>I also do not favor lawsuits against companies like MacDonalds, blaming them for the fat kid. Sheeshh..
>
>Neither do I -- those lawsuits are just a sign that there are too many lawyers around with not enough to do. OTOH, if McDonald's disputed the fact that Big Macs eaten in large quantities are unhealthy while at the same time adding addictive chemicals to their food to ensure a constant supply of consumers, the public outcry would be enormous and they would deserve to be sued out of existence.
>
>Doug

Doug;

As a matter of interest they just released the standings for fast food establishments in California. McDonald’s was number 60 on a list of 60. They were rated for taste, quality and service. Although I do not eat fast food, McDonald’s does some great work helping kids who are very ill.

Tom