McDonald's wouldn't fire you if a client asked you "why is the quarter pounder tastier", and you said "it's because it has a different sauce". Especially if the

McDonald's wouldn't fire you if a client asked you "why is the quarter pounder tastier", and you said "it's because it has a different sauce". Especially if the client was a professional chef, and you were fired because you may have given them potentially misleading advice. The rant isn't about why he was fired. He got a "final warning" for giving useful information to a savvy client. He got fired because he restarted his blogging, taunting them to fire him. His rant isn't about why he was unjustly fired - he obviously didn't give a shit at that stage. The rant is about how restrictive the compliance is, and how it hurts everybody. The compliance rules are there for a reason, but the author clearly doesn't think it's worth the cost. I like eating at McDonalds, but I'd also like the option of going somewhere that's a bit sloppier, and a bit more creative. Yes, I might get food poisoning, but as they say - Caveat Emptor.