Why are you so determined to find a way to make an obvious exaggeration partially true?
Your local example failed, so you hand-waved at expensive areas. Someone points out that it's also false in an expensive area, and you say "no not that expensive area it doesn't count".
Why do you feel the need to defend the honor of the "Costs $68 to feed 3 at Popeye's" exaggeration?
Additionally, there are loads of comments of people all over the country price checking this $68 claim in their area. Bizarre to just keep hammering how it must be true under some yet-to-be-revealed circumstances.
I checked on the Popeyes website in my area - $50 with tax for three three-piece combos.
$68 is entirely believable for expensive areas; I'm in the rust belt.
$48.96 for me, with tax. And I live in Manhattan.
Manhattan's an outlier in many things. I'd expect, for example, foot traffic to be much larger at such a location.
(See, for example, the famous $1 pizza slice that lasted a lot longer there than elsewhere.)
Why are you so determined to find a way to make an obvious exaggeration partially true?
Your local example failed, so you hand-waved at expensive areas. Someone points out that it's also false in an expensive area, and you say "no not that expensive area it doesn't count".
Why do you feel the need to defend the honor of the "Costs $68 to feed 3 at Popeye's" exaggeration?
Additionally, there are loads of comments of people all over the country price checking this $68 claim in their area. Bizarre to just keep hammering how it must be true under some yet-to-be-revealed circumstances.
It’s obviously just bullshit.