Google+ Followers

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Mackers

Dear Sally,
Thank you for your reply, I was not concerned about the weight or the diameter or height of the big Mack. I was concerned with the way the big Mack in the photos did not match the actual size that was served to me . I did not mention the nutritional value or the amount of salt or sugar. I never once said the big Mack was smaller in any way. I am glad of the information especially that the size has not changed since 1971. I feel that to make sure that you know what I was talking about I would take some photos of one of your outlets menu board. For this I was threatened with eviction from the store and was told it was illegal after I took the photos. I feel disheartened for trying to bring a potential law suit to your attention. On the Hume highway there is a bill board on the left going into Gundagai which shows the real size in relation to the drinks. This looks good and even I know I couldn't eat a twenty foot high Big Mack. When you go into the store I see the photo is different to the billboard. Some how the Big Mack gets bigger compared to the drinks. I took some photos of my empty cartons and I couldn't get them as high as the drinks so I put the Big Mack carton on half of a Grand Angus pack and this gets near the height if it was put on a plate.

I have worked it out the store Photo was taken with a telephoto lens and the distance between the Big Mack and the drinks is probably about two to three feet. Then it could be you decreased the size of the drinks, that's it. This then makes the meal more healthy due to the less sugar used, thanks for looking after my health..











No comments:

Post a Comment