Uncle John’s Slightly Irregular Bathroom Reader by Bathroom Readers’ Institute Page B

gun.”
    “If you’re patient and you wait long enough, something will usually happen. And it’ll usually be something you don’t like.”
    “On the whole, I prefer cats to women because cats seldom if ever use the word ‘relationship.’”
    “I’m not afraid to die. I’m not afraid to live. I’m not afraid to fail. I’m not afraid to succeed. I’m not afraid to fall in love. I’m not afraid to be alone. I’m just afraid I might have to stop talking about myself for 5 minutes.”
    “I knew I wasn’t as stupid as I looked. No one was.”
    Actor Mark Wahlberg has three nipples.

McLIBEL
    You might have heard about it on the news: In 1991 McDonald’s sued two unemployed vegetarians for distributing leaflets disparaging the mega-chain’s practices. McDonald’s won the case—or did they? Here’s the story .
    T HE MCMURDER PAMPHLETS
    In 1990 environmental activists David Morris and Helen Steel distributed copies of a controversial pamphlet outside a McDonald’s restaurant in London, England. It had been written by a small environmental group called London Greenpeace (not linked to Greenpeace International) and was entitled “What’s Wrong With McDonald’s? Everything They Don’t Want You To Know.” The cover showed the famous “golden arches,” along with the words “McDollars,” “McGreedy,” “McCancer,” and “McMurder.” The six-page pamphlet made some strong accusations: that McDonald’s knowingly promoted unhealthy diets; that cattle raised for their burgers caused destruction of rainforests; that they caused starvation in developing countries, were hostile to trade unions, exploited children, and abused animals. McDonald’s was not amused.
    The Illinois-based corporation sued Morris and Steel for libel (they sued in England, because English law makes it easier to win a libel case than U.S. law) and Morris and Steel, surprisingly, decided to fight. They counter-sued, accusing McDonald’s of libeling them by calling their accusations “lies.” Because Morris was unemployed and Steel was a part-time bartender, the two had to act as their own lawyers against the McDonald’s legal army.
    OUTCOME: McDonald’s won. The award: the penniless defendants had to pay McDonald’s $94,000 in damages. Justice Rodger Bell also ruled against the activists in their countersuit, saying that the restaurant chain had a right to defend itself against the accusations.
    THE OTHER OUTCOME: McDonald’s lost—big time. The trial dragged on for years. Amazingly, when it ended, “McLibel” was the longest trial in English history. It didn’t get officially started until 1994 and wasn’t decided until 1997. Justice Bell’s opinion was more than 800 pages long and took two hours just to summarize orally.
    MTV aired video #1,000,000 in March 2000.
    For the duration of the trial McDonald’s was regularly grilled in the international press as the big bully beating up on the little guy at best, and as the above-the-law mega-corporation suppressing the right of free speech at worst. The $94,000 turned out to be hardly an award since they never received it anyway, and since McDonald’s spent an estimated $16 million on the case!
    Another blow to the company: It was revealed during the trial that they had hired people to infiltrate London Greenpeace. These spies actually became members of the group—they even handed out some of the leaflets.
    McCULPABILITY
    While the judge found in favor of the chain, he also made it clear that some of the accusations were accurate. The McSpotlight Web site, created by the defendants so supporters could follow the trial (it’s still active today) happily reported the rulings:
    •Justice Bell found that Morris and Steel had not sufficiently proven the allegations against McDonald’s on rainforest destruction, heart disease and cancer, food poisoning, starvation in the Third World, and bad working conditions.
    •But they had proven, he said, that McDonald’s “exploits