Said Kosher Food Establishment's main supplier, SYSCO, bills itself as 'classic.'
We went to SYSCO's website to see if they had an explanation for this claim. What we found reminded us of some of the worst articles ever written for the News of the Roundtable.
(The News of the Roundtable has two types of really awful articles: The first type are those in which the random nerdy guy blabbers on about science and math without any regard to keeping the discussion classy. Hi! The second type of article is awfully edited, awfully written, seems to be the ravings of a deranged and/or high pterodactyl, and would probably get an F if graded by even the classiest of English teachers. SYSCO's explanation falls into the latter category.)
Let's take a look:
Did you understand any of that?
I think not.
(I could demonstrate the errors in this all day. But I won't; someone might die of boredom. I'll just give one example: if 'Imperial SYSCO' is 'Simply Excellent,' shouldn't it be called 'Excellent SYSCO?')
But we don't care about the differences between Imperial SYSCO and Supreme SYSCO. We care if Classic SYSCO is really classic.
Well, as you may remember, it is nearly universally agreed upon that something classic must be both classy and old. Let's tackle the easy one first. Is classic SYSCO old?
Well, according to 'The SYSCO Story' (parents, this is quite an amazing story. You should read this to your kids for bedtime) SYSCO had its 'initial public offering in 1970.' So it's not amazingly old, but it's older than me. We'll let it slide.
But is SYSCO classy?
I'll simplify things right now: it is not. Because of interference by the Three-thousandth Master of Shatz, proof of SYSCO's unclassiness is left as an exercise in logic for the reader.
So, apparently SYSCO is old, but not classy.
Therefore, SYSCO is guilty of false advertising. They are most certainly not classic. The ICC has reported them to the Better Business Bureau.
But if SYSCO keeps up this dastardly policy, they could soon find themselves plotting the Rise and Fall of the Nazi Dinosaurs.
I think not.
(I could demonstrate the errors in this all day. But I won't; someone might die of boredom. I'll just give one example: if 'Imperial SYSCO' is 'Simply Excellent,' shouldn't it be called 'Excellent SYSCO?')
But we don't care about the differences between Imperial SYSCO and Supreme SYSCO. We care if Classic SYSCO is really classic.
Well, as you may remember, it is nearly universally agreed upon that something classic must be both classy and old. Let's tackle the easy one first. Is classic SYSCO old?
Well, according to 'The SYSCO Story' (parents, this is quite an amazing story. You should read this to your kids for bedtime) SYSCO had its 'initial public offering in 1970.' So it's not amazingly old, but it's older than me. We'll let it slide.
But is SYSCO classy?
I'll simplify things right now: it is not. Because of interference by the Three-thousandth Master of Shatz, proof of SYSCO's unclassiness is left as an exercise in logic for the reader.
So, apparently SYSCO is old, but not classy.
Therefore, SYSCO is guilty of false advertising. They are most certainly not classic. The ICC has reported them to the Better Business Bureau.
But if SYSCO keeps up this dastardly policy, they could soon find themselves plotting the Rise and Fall of the Nazi Dinosaurs.
No comments:
Post a Comment