Talk:Double Down (KFC)

Not A Sandwich
Regardless of what KFC or the media would like to call this product, it is not a sandwich. --TimSPC (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Base on...?129.139.1.68 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On the definition of the word "sandwich". 75.76.213.106 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sandwich, 1a. two or more slices of bread or a split roll having a filling in between. 1b. one slice of bread covered with food. 2. something resembling a sandwich; especially : composite structural material consisting of layers often of high-strength facings bonded to a low strength central core. White 720 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That second definition, as you can clearly see, refers to non-food items that resemble a sandwich in structure. Now, if you want to say that the Double Down doesn't qualify as food... 75.76.213.106 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The definition says "something resembling a sandwich." Objects not containing breads are sandwiches as well. For example, many companies make "ice cream sandwiches" in which cookies (not bread) surround ice cream. Also, a coupling of two persons around a third person is colloquially known as a "sandwich" even if none of the persons involved is a bread. White 720 (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
Are we sure this should be redirected? I give you the McRib and the Whopper. I'm not against it, just asking. --TimSPC (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure. The McRib and Whopper both have a well established history, whereas the DD has been offered as of...well, today.  Granted, this sandwich is more infamous than anything for the simple health...um, non-benefits, shall we say? =^_^= -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Expected controversy
As reported today, the day of the non-sandwich's national introduction, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine objects (see for example "Doctors group attacks KFC's newest product") Don't know whether it's worth a mention in the article. Mapsax (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

SF Reviewer comment
Yeah, the reviewer (not that he is referred to as such in the linked article, rather he is a columnist responsible for 'Notes and Errata') doesn't actually call the Double Down 'truly disgusting'. That line appears in a conversation or internal monologue he imagines a KFC exec having. Based off the article, Mr. Morford has no idea what it tastes like, as he never mentions eating one, and virtually every sentence is filled with invectives directed against the Double Down, people who eat the Double Down, KFC, the fast food industry, and the agriculture industry. Given these facts, in the spirit of honesty and full disclosure, it seems like his quote should go. SpudHawg948 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)