I don't like Starbucks
The Magnificent Bastard
But a lady I work with gave me some Starbucks candy as an Xmas present
and I will have to say that it is the bizzomb, with a capitol "izzom".
It's called Starbucks® Three Nut Spice Toffee. If you are one of the
sheep that frequents your local Starbucks, pick up some of this candy
and try it.
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004 ©
Chris
"The Magnificent Bastard" <magnif_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3504b5...@news.alt.net...
> Probably because I don't drink coffee.
>
> But a lady I work with gave me some Starbucks candy as an Xmas present
> and I will have to say that it is the bizzomb, with a capitol "izzom".
>
> It's called Starbucks® Three Nut Spice Toffee. If you are one of the
> sheep that frequents your local Starbucks, pick up some of this candy
> and try it.
Bhaaaaa, love their Eggnog Latte.
>
>
> --
>
Christopher Green
that they are the only chain coffee house that makes cappucino right.
Cappucino is espresso, steamed milk with foam, and none of the junk
that Diedrich's and others jazz it up with.
--
Chris Green
Dave Smith
I have mixed feelings about Starbucks. They are outrageously expensive.
What they do offer is a comfortable ambiance. The problem is that most of
the Starbucks are are attached to a Chapters book store. There is limited
seating, and most of it is taken up my people reading books and doing
homework. They buy a coffee and then take up space for hours, leaving no
room for people like me who like to sit down and have a coffee and read
the newspaper, do a crossword and move on in about 25 minutes.
I used to stop at Starbucks once in a while on my coffee breaks, but the
service was soooooo slow.
Scott
Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I have mixed feelings about Starbucks. They are outrageously expensive.
> What they do offer is a comfortable ambiance. The problem is that most of
> the Starbucks are are attached to a Chapters book store. There is limited
> seating, and most of it is taken up my people reading books and doing
> homework. They buy a coffee and then take up space for hours, leaving no
> room for people like me who like to sit down and have a coffee and read
> the newspaper, do a crossword and move on in about 25 minutes.
Are they actual Starbucks, or Chapters bookstore cafes that serve
Starbucks coffee? At Barnes and Noble, for example, they serve Starbucks
coffee, but the operation is not run by Starbucks.
--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"
Greg Henry
> Probably because I don't drink coffee.
>
> But a lady I work with gave me some Starbucks candy as an Xmas present
> and I will have to say that it is the bizzomb, with a capitol "izzom".
>
> It's called Starbucks® Three Nut Spice Toffee. If you are one of the
> sheep that frequents your local Starbucks, pick up some of this candy
> and try it.
>
>
Oh well then perhaps you should try that new coffee that's been run
through the digestive system of a South American rodent. Sounds like
it's right up your alley.
WardNA
>through the digestive system of a South American rodent
Southeast Asian, actually.
Nancree
>and I will have to say that it is the bizzomb, with a capitol "izzom".
>
A bizzom ??
Is that bad or good?
Nancree
Dave Smith
> Are they actual Starbucks, or Chapters bookstore cafes that serve
> Starbucks coffee? At Barnes and Noble, for example, they serve Starbucks
> coffee, but the operation is not run by Starbucks.
The signs on the front says Starbucks. They seem to have the same general
ambiance as Starbucks. They are definitely not a cafeteria type operation, just
a an area set off to one side of the Chapters' store which seem to be run by
Star bucks.
DaveD|||
"The Magnificent Bastard" <magnif_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3504b5...@news.alt.net...
>
> But a lady I work with gave me some Starbucks candy as an Xmas present
> and I will have to say that it is the bizzomb, with a capitol "izzom".
>
> It's called Starbucks® Three Nut Spice Toffee. If you are one of the
> sheep that frequents your local Starbucks, pick up some of this candy
> and try it.
I've only had their basic black coffee. It tastes like road tar and has
enough caffeine in it to wake up a medium sized city. As for there're
overpriced candy - funk dat! Get a Payday instead.
Scott
Greg Henry <bigd...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Oh well then perhaps you should try that new coffee that's been run
> through the digestive system of a South American rodent. Sounds like
> it's right up your alley.
Uh, South American rodent? If it's Kopi Luwak you're talking about, it's
a civet, family Viverridae (closely related to mongooses). There's also
a weasel-digested coffee from Vietnam.
JimLane
In most of these stores, the employees are store employees and not paid
by *$. Simple test: who pays you? Here they are in Barnes & Noble and
Von's markets.
jim
dwacon
"The Magnificent Bastard" <magnif_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3504b5...@news.alt.net...
I enjoy paying $5.00 for a cup of coffee of equal or lesser quality than
what I get for free in my office.
--
I made magic once. Now the sofa is gone.
http://www.dwacon.com
sf
<heim...@spamless.invalid> wrote:
> In article <41CB570A...@sympatico.ca>,
> Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > I have mixed feelings about Starbucks. They are outrageously expensive.
> > What they do offer is a comfortable ambiance. The problem is that most of
> > the Starbucks are are attached to a Chapters book store. There is limited
> > seating, and most of it is taken up my people reading books and doing
> > homework. They buy a coffee and then take up space for hours, leaving no
> > room for people like me who like to sit down and have a coffee and read
> > the newspaper, do a crossword and move on in about 25 minutes.
>
> Are they actual Starbucks, or Chapters bookstore cafes that serve
> Starbucks coffee? At Barnes and Noble, for example, they serve Starbucks
> coffee, but the operation is not run by Starbucks.
In some areas, there are actual (stand alone) Starbucks
coffee shops.
sf
Practice safe eating - always use condiments
-L.
didn't know it had become a meat market. Silly me, I just wanted some
coffee...
It was the worst coffee I've ever had, BTW.
-L.
Scott
Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> The signs on the front says Starbucks. They seem to have the same general
> ambiance as Starbucks. They are definitely not a cafeteria type operation,
> just
> a an area set off to one side of the Chapters' store which seem to be run by
> Star bucks.
Oh, no... didn't mean to imply it was a cafeteria-type place. Ever been
to a Barnes and Noble cafe? Very Starbucksy, but it's not run by
Starbucks. They even have big "Starbucks" signs--in smaller print
they're prefaced by "we serve..." and ends "coffee."
Michel Boucher
news:41CB570A...@sympatico.ca:
> Christopher Green wrote:
>
>> Most of what Starbucks sells is bad and overpriced, but I will
>> concede that they are the only chain coffee house that makes
>> cappucino right. Cappucino is espresso, steamed milk with foam,
>> and none of the junk that Diedrich's and others jazz it up with.
>
> I have mixed feelings about Starbucks. They are outrageously
> expensive. What they do offer is a comfortable ambiance. The
> problem is that most of the Starbucks are are attached to a
> Chapters book store.
Just off the top of my head, excluding the ones in Chapters
bookstores, I can count three Starbucks within walking distance.
Also, two Second Cup and two Bridgehead. I prefer Bridgehead, who
sell fair trade coffee and tea, although they all have the same
format and are usually found within a block of each other.
http://www.bridgehead.ca/en/default.asp?LangID=1
I preselected English but those of you who are not linguistically
handicapped have the option of choosing the French-language page from
this one anyway.
The only thing we get from such places are ground coffee beans and
although we used to favour Verona from Starbucks, I've been able to
shift the household tastes to Mexican by Bridgehead.
At work, in the new CBC building (Bill O'Really?, take note), we have
a Presse-Café which implies that you can read the newspaper when
drinking your morning Big-Bang large black, but no...they actually
have no room for newspapers (or maybe CBC doesn't like the print
competition :-) ). However, their coffee is decently strong as
opposed to dishwater weak, which is what you usually get in malls.
When I was in Boston last, that would be July 1998, I found the price
of a coffee at the Starbucks around the corner from our digs in the
Harvard-Radcliffe student apartments was almost double what it is in
Canada, for essentially the same product. Perhaps this one Starbucks
was an exception, but somehow, I don't think so. In fact, as I said
at the time, I found that everything in the US was, for comparable
value, much more expensive than in Canada, except gasoline and sheet
music. Of course some lupine posters will interpret this as a US
subsidy to third-world nations, but that is not the case. In my
opinion, US consumers pay far too much to middle-men corporations and
not enough to producers.
--
[...] remember when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down 'ere on Earth!
Monty Python's Universe Song
Dave Smith
>
> In most of these stores, the employees are store employees and not paid
> by *$. Simple test: who pays you? Here they are in Barnes & Noble and
> Von's markets.
Truth of the matter is that I don't really care about their employment conditions,
what company they actually work for, or who pays them. Starbucks has not hit this
area in a big way.... yet<?>. I don't know if they ever will. I live in Tim Horton's
country. Hortons does not have nice comfy leather chairs or the warm atmosphere of
Starbucks, but I can get a decent cup of coffee there for a heck of a lot less. And I
won't go broke buying the snack that has been priced far beyond its quality.
I am delighted to see so many different coffee shops when I travel outside of this
area. Most of those coffee houses franchises have failed to crack the market here.
Like many of the small coffee shops,, they just can't seem to compete with Hortons.
A.C.
Scott wrote:
> Uh, South American rodent? If it's Kopi Luwak you're talking about, it's
> a civet, family Viverridae (closely related to mongooses). There's also
> a weasel-digested coffee from Vietnam.
>
no, it's a capybara! now that's one big ass rat! :-P
http://www.rebsig.com/capybara/
A.C.
Nancree wrote:
"the bizzom" whacky hip youngster slang for the less hip term "the bomb"
which means excellent or awesome. fo shizzle ;-)
JimLane
> Scott wrote:
>
>
>
>>Uh, South American rodent? If it's Kopi Luwak you're talking about, it's
>>a civet, family Viverridae (closely related to mongooses). There's also
>>a weasel-digested coffee from Vietnam.
>>
>
>
> no, it's a capybara! now that's one big ass rat! :-P
Not a word about coffee on the page.
If it is coffee that is the premise, then Kopi Luwak was the one that
made all the articles. It was the civet. After that, came information on
the weasel in Vietnam.
Plenty on this in alt.coffee if you care to google the group.
jim
Gene
> Just off the top of my head, excluding the ones in Chapters
> bookstores, I can count three Starbucks within walking distance.
> Also, two Second Cup and two Bridgehead. I prefer Bridgehead, who
> sell fair trade coffee and tea, although they all have the same
> format and are usually found within a block of each other.
Was not familiar with Bridgehead, so looked at their site, where I find
their French Roast offered at the (to me) outrageously high price of
just under $15 a pound. I thought Peet's pricing (at about $13 a pound
for my favorite Blend 101) was bad. Why such high prices? Maybe not
"just as good", but certainly very close, is the French Roast from San
Francisco Bay <www.sfbaycoffee.com>, "produced in a
socially/environmentally responsible manner", available from their site
for about $16 for a THREE pound bag (and for a lot less at some CostCos
and BJs).
A.C.
JimLane wrote:
> Not a word about coffee on the page.
>
> If it is coffee that is the premise, then Kopi Luwak was the one that
> made all the articles. It was the civet. After that, came information on
> the weasel in Vietnam.
>
> Plenty on this in alt.coffee if you care to google the group.
>
>
> jim
i was joking jim.
BetsyB
"The Magnificent Bastard" <magnif_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3504b5...@news.alt.net...
Try the chocolate covered roasted coffee beans.
The Magnificent Bastard
lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this
whenever it's told -
No thanks.
Dave Smith
>
>
> Uh, South American rodent? If it's Kopi Luwak you're talking about, it's
> a civet, family Viverridae (closely related to mongooses). There's also
> a weasel-digested coffee from Vietnam.
It it had been a rodent, the beans most likely would have been digested. A
cat or fox-like animal would pass the berries undigested.
Scott
Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Truth of the matter is that I don't really care about their
> employment conditions, what company they actually work for, or who
> pays them. Starbucks has not hit this area in a big way.... yet<?>.
> I don't know if they ever will. I live in Tim Horton's country.
> Hortons does not have nice comfy leather chairs or the warm
> atmosphere of Starbucks, but I can get a decent cup of coffee there
> for a heck of a lot less. And I won't go broke buying the snack that
> has been priced far beyond its quality.
The issue hadn't been raised to address their employment conditions, but
only to look at your statement that "The problem is that most of the
Starbucks are are attached to a Chapters book store. There is limited
seating, and most of it is taken up my people reading books and doing
homework. They buy a coffee and then take up space for hours, leaving no
room for people like me who like to sit down and have a coffee and read
the newspaper, do a crossword and move on in about 25 minutes."
I don't have a Chapters bookstore around me--they're a Canadian chain,
right?--but Borders and B&N have similar things. But in neither case
does the cafe--and the question of sufficient accommodations--relate to
Starbucks. I was just looking to see if the limited seating was a
Starbucks thing, or a Chapters thing.
Michel Boucher
news:heimdall-7B34B7...@individual.net:
> I don't have a Chapters bookstore around me--they're a Canadian
> chain, right?--but Borders and B&N have similar things. But in
> neither case does the cafe--and the question of sufficient
> accommodations--relate to Starbucks. I was just looking to see if
> the limited seating was a Starbucks thing, or a Chapters thing.
The Starbucks cafés, including the ones at Chapters (yes, it is a
chain of bookstores in Canada), tend to have limited seating anyway.
Their idea is to keep the merchandise rolling. Bridgehead always has
some space when I go in (and I patronize three of them in the city
centre) even though they have permanent seat fixtures with their
wireless laptops...except for the Starbucks in the Glebe (you have to
know the Glebe...think snooty residential neighbourhood with lots of
younger versions of yuppies) which is usually full at any time of the
day.
Dave Smith
> I don't have a Chapters bookstore around me--they're a Canadian chain,
> right?--but Borders and B&N have similar things. But in neither case
> does the cafe--and the question of sufficient accommodations--relate to
> Starbucks. I was just looking to see if the limited seating was a
> Starbucks thing, or a Chapters thing.
>
From the four outlets around here, it's hard to say. I don't think there is
any more seating in the free standing Starbucks than there is in the outlets
attached to the bookstores. The free standing SB stores never seem to be as
busy as those attached to the bookstores. The main problem seems to be with
the freeloaders who buy a measly cup of coffee and then sit there for hours
while they read a book or to their school assignments.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Probably because I don't drink coffee.
If you drank coffee, then you might like them even less.
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower
Blair P. Houghton
>In rec.food.cooking The Magnificent Bastard <magnif_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Probably because I don't drink coffee.
>
>
>If you drank coffee, then you might like them even less.
No "might" about it.
--Blair
"Makes a great bicycle-chain solvent, though."
TOM KAN PA
THERE'S A TWENTYISH-YEAR-OLD GIRL WITH A SHAVED HEAD, THREE EARRINGS IN HER
LEFT EAR, TWO IN HER RIGHT AND A SILVER BALL PIERCED THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF HER
TONGUE STANDING BEHIND THE COUNTER:
TONGUE GIRL: Next in line, please.
ME: Hi.
TONGUE GIRL: Welcome to Starbucks. How may I help you?
ME: I'd like a cup of coffee, please.
TONGUE GIRL: What size, sir?
ME: I'll take a large, I guess.
TONGUE GIRL: We don't have a large, sir.
ME: Whatever. A medium is fine.
TONGUE GIRL: We don't have a medium, sir.
ME: Does your coffee come in a cup?
TONGUE GIRL: Yes sir. Would you like a tall, a grande or a venti?
ME: Vini, vidi, vici?
TONGUE GIRL: Tall, grande or venti?
ME: You're looking at me like I'm supposed to know what you're saying.
TONGUE GIRL: Here at Starbucks, a tall is a small.
ME: I do not want green eggs and ham.
TONGUE: The grande is our medium-sized drink. And the venti is our large,
20-ounce drink.
ME: So the tall -- which sounds big -- is actually small. The grande -- which
sounds grand -- is bigger than the tall but not quite the biggest. And the
venti, which doesn't sound tall or grand, is actually the tallest and grandest
of them all. Do I have that right?
TONGUE GIRL: That's correct. Venti is our largest cup of coffee, sir.
ME: You have to admit this is a little confusing.
TONGUE GIRL: Not at all, sir. Tall, grande, venti.
ME: If I walked into McDonald's and asked for a grande cup of coffee, would
they know what I was talking about?
TONGUE GIRL: No sir.
ME: Burger King?
TONGUE GIRL: No sir.
ME: Denny's?
TONGUE GIRL: No sir.
ME: Boston Market?
TONGUE GIRL: Do they serve coffee at Boston Market?
ME: I have no idea.
TONGUE GIRL: Tall, grande, venti. It's not that hard, sir.
ME: For a zillion years, a large cup of coffee has been called "a large cup of
coffee." Why does it have to change now? Why is this the only place on earth
where a large cup of coffee isn't called a large cup of coffee, but instead
it's called a venti cup of coffee?
TONGUE GIRL: Because here at Starbucks, it's called a venti cup of coffee.
ME: I see. Well then, I'll have a venti cup of coffee.
MEANWHILE…
A GUY WITH A PURPLE MOWHAWK AND A NOSE RING IS ALSO STANDING BEHIND THE COUNTER
NEXT TO THE GIRL WITH THE SHAVED HEAD, THREE EARRINGS IN HER LEFT EAR, TWO IN
HER RIGHT AND A SILVER BALL PIERCED THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF HER TONGUE. HE'S
HELPING PEOPLE IN THE LINE NEXT TO ME.
MOWHAWK GUY: May I help the next person in line?
THE GIRL IN THE LINE NEXT TO ME STEPS UP.
GIRL: Yes, I'd like a nonfat decaf tall Macchiato, double shot of espresso,
extra whip in a venti cup, please.
THE MOWHAWK GUY TURNS AND SHOUTS TO THE ASIAN GIRL WITH THE PIERCED EYELID
WHO'S RUNNING ALL THE MACHINERY.
MOWHAWK GUY: I need a non-D Mach, espresso squared, twin whip in a venti!
PIERCED-EYELID ASIAN GIRL: Coming up!
I TURN TO THE GIRL IN THE LINE NEXT TO ME.
ME: What did you order?
GIRL: A nonfat decaf tall Macchiato, double shot of espresso, extra whip in a
venti cup.
ME: I know. I mean, what is that?
GIRL: It's a nonfat decaf tall Macchiato, double shot of espresso, extra whip
in a venti cup.
I GET THE "YOU ARE SO RETARDED" LOOK.
ME: E pluribus unum?
GIRL: What?
MEANWHILE…
TONGUE GIRL: So what kind of coffee would you like, sir?
ME: Oh, just a regular coffee is fine.
THE TONGUE GIRL STARES AT ME.
ME: There's no such thing as regular coffee at Starbucks, is there?
TONGUE GIRL: Well, what kind of coffee do you like?
ME: Hot.
TONGUE GIRL: Mild, smooth or bold?
ME: Yes.
TONGUE GIRL: Sir, here at Starbucks, we strive to offer an eclectic taste of
coffees to our guests.
ME: I'm a guest?
TONGUE GIRL: Yes, sir.
ME: I know you don't want to hear this, but I just want a large cup of coffee.
TONGUE GIRL: Sir, all of our coffees are listed on the menu board behind me.
ME: I've never seen a coffee menu before. Is it like, appetizers: coffee. Main
course: coffee. Dessert: coffee. Hey, try our special of the day:
coffee.
TONGUE GIRL: Our menu features all of the coffee and specialty drink options we
offer our guests.
ME: Guests like me.
TONGUE GIRL: Exactly. For example, we have a mild Colombia Narino Supreme, A
Lightnote Blend, our Organic Shade Grown Mexico or Kona. Or, you could
try one of our smooth flavors such as Arabian Mocha Java, Espresso Roast
and Yukon Blend.
ME: I had no idea yukon make coffee in Alaska.
TONGUE GIRL: Excuse me?
ME: Nothing. I'm just amusing myself.
TONGUE GIRL: And our bold flavors are Gulf Coast Blend, Komodo Dragon Blend,
Sumatra, Sulawesi and Ethiopia Sidamo.
ME: Do they make a decaf Ethiopian Skinny?
TONGUE GIRL: Excuse me?
ME: Nothing. I'm just amusing myself.
TONGUE GIRL: Also, our flavor of the day is Pumpkin Spice.
ME: No seeds?
TONGUE GIRL: No seeds.
ME: Is there a face carved out of the side of the cup?
TONGUE GIRL: No.
MEANWHILE….
THE ASIAN GIRL WITH THE PIERCED EYELID HOLDS UP A DRINK SHE JUST MADE.
PIERCED-EYELID ASIAN GIRL: I have a nonfat decaf tall Macchiato, double shot of
espresso, extra whip in a venti cup.
THE GIRL WHO WAS IN LINE NEXT TO ME: That's mine.
I TURN TO THE GIRL.
ME: Enjoy your drink. And writ of habeus corpus.
SHE LEAVES WITHOUT SAYING GOODBYE.
MEANWHILE…
I TURN TO THE OLD, NORMAL LOOKING GUY IN THE LINE NEXT TO ME.
ME: Is it me, or are the people in this place a little crazy?
OLD GUY: Uh huh.
THE MOWHAWK GUY BEHIND THE COUNTER SPEAKS.
MOWHAWK GUY:
May I help the next person in line, please?
THE OLD, NORMAL LOOKING GUY IN THE LINE NEXT TO ME STEPS UP.
OLD GUY: Yes, I'll take a short non-fat Caffe Latte with no foam and a shot
of Hazelnut.
THE MOWHAWK GUY SHOUTS TO THE ASIAN GIRL WITH THE PIERCED EYELID.
MOWHAWK GUY: I need a short no fat/foam latte with a nut!
PIERCED-EYELID ASIAN GIRL: Coming up.
I TURN TO THE OLD GUY.
ME: You're one of them, aren't you?
THE OLD GUY LOOKS STRAIGHT AHEAD.
Bob
> My wife tells me how good Starbuck's Coffee is. I decided to try a cup.
Amazing. I found exactly the same conversation at
http://jokesarchive.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=39347
Bob
notbob
Hey, if Shelly can do it, why not Tom? Besides it WAS funny. :)
nb
sf
wrote:
> Sulawesi
Aha! They have it! WooHoo! I just found out over xmas
that I have not one, but 2 Starbucks connections to a free
pound of coffee. I've gone into Sulawesi withdrawal since
DD's BF stopped working for Peets.
T
of salt in the brewing basket.
T
moring:).
Marge
Berkeley, which is a heavy coffee drinking place. I know Peets is
owned by *$s now. I'm just not sure what purpose all the lingo serves
(other than to make you feel silly about ordering a cup of coffee). It
seems to me my like or dislike of the coffee itself gets mixed up with
my reaction to the atmosphere they create.
Dave Smith
I was in Starbucks yesterday. It wasn't my idea, but was the place my wife
wanted to meet me. I am too stubborn to ask for a "tall" coffee, but it's
been a while since they tried to correct me when I ask for a small. Then I
tried to find a place to sit. There were two tables that had open notebooks
and texts and a jacket on the chair. There was one empty table with no
chairs, and three adjacent table occupied, each with two empty chairs and
another with one. I asked politely at each table if I could take one of
their chairs and was told at all three tables that they were occupied, each
of them pointing and saying their friends were in the line for coffee.
Luckily someone five tables away signaled to me that I could take their
extra chair. So I sat down and had my overpriced coffee and cinnamon roll.
About a minute before my wife arrived, the two people at one table got up
and left. Those two extra chairs at their table were still empty. The
bastards had lied to me, and only one person came to sit in one of the two
empty seats at the one next to that. The guy on the other side never did
have any human in it. It's occupant used it for a coat rack, pulled out his
laptop and cell phone and started making long, loud phone calls. I was
having a hard time hearing my wife because he was speaking so loud.
sf
wrote:
> I don't know why this coffee taste like mud,it was 'ground' this
> moring:).
>
You probably made it too strong for your taste and it could
be a darker roast than you're used to also.
I would probably LOVE what you're rejecting. I can't stand
drinking what we used to refer to as "dirty dish water"
coffee. I usually forgo coffee when traveling because most
of what I find is too weak and tasteless for me.
sf
<adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I was
> having a hard time hearing my wife because he was speaking so loud.
Men who shout into their cell phones when they want people
around them to notice how important they are is a pet peeve
of mine.
Michel Boucher
news:8bt5t01q3h76eu4h9...@4ax.com:
> I would probably LOVE what you're rejecting. I can't stand
> drinking what we used to refer to as "dirty dish water"
> coffee. I usually forgo coffee when traveling because most
> of what I find is too weak and tasteless for me.
I agree. I got used to drinking a strong café con leche in Spain and
have never looked back. Strong is the only way to go where coffee is
concerned.
In restaurants that serve "reg'lar" coffee, I will usually add some
cream (not milk). I find that improves the taste somewhat. Otherwise,
I drink it black, no sugar or sweetener.
Michel Boucher
news:4jt5t01nqunbfpbgl...@4ax.com:
> Men who shout into their cell phones when they want people
> around them to notice how important they are is a pet peeve
> of mine.
And women who shout into their cell phones to get their
husbands/boyfriends to follow orders are a pet peeve of mine ;-)
notbob
> I don't know why this coffee taste like mud,it was 'ground' this
> moring:).
LOL!.... cute.
nb
Christopher Green
negro" for breakfast. The bartender said no, you want it "con leche".
After a few rounds of this, I got my cafe negro. It didn't take long to
figure out why I really should have ordered it con leche.
--
Chris Green
Michel Boucher
@attbi_s54:
My mother once asked for coffee with dessert at supper in a Bordeaux
restaurant. When she asked if it was fresh, she was told, by an
indignant waiter that of course it was fresh...it was made that
morning!
Dave Smith
>
> And women who shout into their cell phones to get their
> husbands/boyfriends to follow orders are a pet peeve of mine ;-)
I consider any cell phone conversations I am forced to listen to
offensive.
Marge
up
and left. Those two extra chairs at their table were still empty. The
bastards had lied to me, and only one person came to sit in one of the
two
empty seats at the one next to that.
Well, that's nicer than my BIL, who just says grumpily, no, you can't
sit with me! It amazes him that anyone would ask ;-). He's 57, btw.
Dave Smith
> Well, that's nicer than my BIL, who just says grumpily, no, you can't
> sit with me! It amazes him that anyone would ask ;-). He's 57, btw.
I didn't want to sit with them. U hd already put my things down on the
empty table near them. I just wanted to take one of their unoccupied
chairs. People at three tables claimed the chairs were occupied, that
their friends were up getting coffee. Of the 5 empty chairs, only one of
them ended up with someone sitting at them. Maybe I should have just taken
on. What could they do ? :-)
Julian9EHP
> I don't know why this coffee taste like mud,it was 'ground' this
>moring:).
Don't sneer at our coffee: you too may be old and weak someday. :)
E. P.
Michel Boucher
news:Xns95CECAA5D9795di...@216.168.3.30:
> Michel Boucher <alsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> sf <nob...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:4jt5t01nqunbfpbgl...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Men who shout into their cell phones when they want people
>>> around them to notice how important they are is a pet peeve
>>> of mine.
>>
>> And women who shout into their cell phones to get their
>> husbands/boyfriends to follow orders are a pet peeve of mine ;-)
>
> Anyone with a cell phone is a pet peeve of mine.
Well, personally, I don't mind people with cell phones. I just don't
particularly care for some of the conversations, especially the ones
about vaginal discharges. Mostly I just tune them out. The only
annoying part are some of the newfangled rings that sound like the
1812 Overture, or worse...that sound like my cell phone and I have to
check to see if it's mine.
However, in all fairness, one person talking on a cell phone in a
restaurant or on a bus is not much different than two people talking
at the table or seat next to you. If one is loud, it will be just as
annoying to any conversation you might be having.
Marge
>empty table near them. I just wanted to take one of their unoccupied
>chairs. People at three tables claimed the chairs were occupied, that
>their friends were up getting coffee. Of the 5 empty chairs, only one
of
>them ended up with someone sitting at them. Maybe I should have just
taken
>on. What could they do ? :-)
Wow, now that's bad. It despresses me to think of that chain spreading
around the world.
Marge
>particularly care for some of the conversations, especially the ones
>about vaginal discharges. Mostly I just tune them out. The only
>annoying part are some of the newfangled rings that sound like the
>1812 Overture, or worse...that sound like my cell phone and I have to
>check to see if it's mine.
I know I sound like a curmudgeon but walking down the street seeing so
many people with phones pasted to their ears, I don't see the draw of
it. It's like it disconnects you from what you're experiencing in the
moment and the people around you. For emergencies, or for business, I
can see it. For everyday life to me it seems like communication
overkill. And it is intrusive a lot of the times, and can be
dangerous. I know people who drive and talk on their phones despite
the new laws against it.
SandraBinNEB
Meeting Place that makes the absolute best coffee I've ever tasted, and about
half the price of starbucks. Plus the atmosphere is very relaxed. Lots of open
space and couches to sit back and relax in. Starbucks pales in comparisson.
Sandra
Halvdan
DC. At any rate, we had our coffee custom roasted. My boss and I use
to go into Starbucks to time them. It took them 3 people to prepare
one drink which took them roughly 2 minutes to produce. We had 1 man
carts, lines around the block because our coffee was good and in two
minutes, we could easily push out about 20 customers with smiles on
their faces.
Starbucks has great literature but their coffee sucks. Why? 2
reasons, they over roast, burning the bean a little and they over brew,
scalding the coffee as it comes out of the cappucino machine.
Michel Boucher
news:1104421669.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>Well, personally, I don't mind people with cell phones. I just
>>don't particularly care for some of the conversations, especially
>>the ones about vaginal discharges. Mostly I just tune them out.
>>The only annoying part are some of the newfangled rings that sound
>>like the 1812 Overture, or worse...that sound like my cell phone
>>and I have to check to see if it's mine.
>
> I know I sound like a curmudgeon but walking down the street
> seeing so many people with phones pasted to their ears, I don't
> see the draw of it. It's like it disconnects you from what you're
> experiencing in the moment and the people around you.
They said the same thing about computer chats and newsgroups ten-
twelve years ago, that what we're doing now would disconnect us from
human contact and cause mass psychoses among teenagers (as if that
were new :-) ) and that is now proven to be a load of crap.
People who are talking on cell phones are in contact with others and
no less aware of their surroundings than two people having a
conversation while walking down the street. Are you advocating that
two persons walking down the street should not converse if the urge
strikes them?
As for driving and cell phones, some people can handle it, others
can't. You can get a hands-free setup with a voice operated cell
phone and a mike/earpiece so you don't actually need to touch the
phone. Then it would be like talking to someone sitting in the
passenger seat.
Honestly, people go out of their way to find reasons to dislike
technology.
notbob
> I was a barista for many years.....
> scalding the coffee as it comes out of the cappucino machine.
You were a barista, huh? What the Hell is a cappucino machine?
nb
Halvdan
notbob
> I take you aren't or weren't.
I take you are not going to answer the question.
nb
Halvdan
my terminology is not up to snuff with whatever you think it should be
called well then, I guess I'm not as pertentious.
notbob
Not for money, but I have my own espresso machine. BTW,
machines make espresso, baristas make cappuccino.
sf
<not...@nothome.com> wrote:
> BTW,
> machines make espresso,
and heat the milk.
>baristas make cappuccino.
and lattes.
sf
Dieter Zakas
FARM...@webtv.net wrote on 12/29/04 8:02:
> Never been there,like making our Folgers at home with a few pinches
> of salt in the brewing basket.
What does adding a pinch of salt to the coffee in the basket do for the
product?
Dieter Zakas
sf
It was salt in Folgers, not Starbucks. I still don't get
it.
sf
Halvdan
saying, hey I'm a coffee bar tender.
Marge
no less aware of their surroundings than two people having a
conversation while walking down the street. Are you advocating that
two persons walking down the street should not converse if the urge
strikes them?
As for driving and cell phones, some people can handle it, others
can't. You can get a hands-free setup with a voice operated cell
phone and a mike/earpiece so you don't actually need to touch the
phone. Then it would be like talking to someone sitting in the
passenger seat.
Honestly, people go out of their way to find reasons to dislike
technology.
I don't dislike technology at all. I have lots of toys that I
thoroughly enjoy. It seems logical to me that anyone driving and
talking on the phone is going to be distracted. Some more than others.
How do you test which people can handle it easily? There's a reason
why laws have been passed against it.
Imho, two people walking down the street talking creates a different
social interaction and has a different social impact than a single
person walking down the street on the phone. There was a news story
recently about restaurants in New York planning on banning cell phones
(I'm not sure if that has happened or if it will; I didn't follow up on
the story). I don't think I'm the only one that finds cell phones
verses two people chatting in person a different interaction. How
about two people walking down the street, one talking on the phone
while the other walks along silently. I've also seen, more than once,
two people walking down the street, each person talking on the cell
phone to someone else.
I'm not saying all cell phones should be thrown out the window (though
some should), just that they should be used more judiciously (and with
better manners).
Michel Boucher
news:1104512790....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> I don't dislike technology at all. I have lots of toys that I
> thoroughly enjoy. It seems logical to me that anyone driving and
> talking on the phone is going to be distracted. Some more than
> others. How do you test which people can handle it easily?
> There's a reason why laws have been passed against it.
I can see dialing and trying to find the tiny numbers while driving
being a risk, but talking...give me a freaking break....
> Imho, two people walking down the street talking creates a
> different social interaction and has a different social impact
> than a single person walking down the street on the phone.
There's that old style prejudice again. How, pray tell, is the
interaction between two people talking different than one person
talking to another on the phone? If that were the case, we should
outlaw phones altogether, in offices and in homes, and insist that
people meet face to face at all times and under all circumstances.
Dave Smith
> I can see dialing and trying to find the tiny numbers while driving
> being a risk, but talking...give me a freaking break....
Sorry Michel, but I have seen too many people wander on the road, blow
stop signs, fail to yield etc. because they are distracted by a
telephone conversation. I have had calls or had to make calls while
driving and I usually end up pulling over to finish the conversation
because I find it too distracting. It is not the same has having a
person there. At least a person in the car can warn you if your driving
becomes erratic. A cell phone conversation is not necessarily more
distracting that other conversations in restaurants and coffee shops,
but most of them are. Only in truck stops are there pay phones at the
tables. In most other places the phones are located in a place where the
conversations can be fairly private, and those are the same places where
cell calls should be made.
>
>
> > Imho, two people walking down the street talking creates a
> > different social interaction and has a different social impact
> > than a single person walking down the street on the phone.
>
> There's that old style prejudice again. How, pray tell, is the
> interaction between two people talking different than one person
> talking to another on the phone?
Have you ever had a three way conversation, you on telephone with
someone and a third person present? It is not the same as having a
three way direct conversation. Talking on the telephone general requires
more concentration than a direct personal conversation.
> If that were the case, we should
> outlaw phones altogether, in offices and in homes, and insist that
> people meet face to face at all times and under all circumstances.
That is simply not practical. Telephones are a necessity for some types
of personal and business communication. Cell phones are perfectly
acceptable as a means of conversation. The problem is the people who
drive around paying more attention to their telephone conversation than
to the road and traffic, and those who insist on sharing their side of
cell phone conversations with everyone around them.
sf
<p_rin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> See, that's where you're wrong, a Barista is just a pretentious way of
> saying, hey I'm a coffee bar tender.
HUH???? I know what they are. Why did you assume I didn't?
sf
Halvdan
Edwin Pawlowski
"sf" <nob...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> a Barista is just a pretentious way of
>> saying, hey I'm a coffee bar tender.
>
Being unpretentious, I prefer a place that just has clerks behind the
counter and sells small, medium, large.
JimLane
Hmm, missed the OP, but isn't "barista," a traditional term in Italy for
the maker of espressos?
*$ abortion of the language is another matter entirely. "Tall" would
have to be in relationship to the size of an espresso. Or perhaps in
terms of a more traditional eight-ounce cup?
However, what they call a "ristretto" has nothing to do at all with an
actual ristretto.
jim
notbob
> However, what they call a "ristretto" has nothing to do at all with an
> actual ristretto.
OK, I'll bite. What is it that they call a ristretto vs what do you define
a ristretto as? Don't get me wrong. I'm probably on your side, but I'd
still like to know what exactly you're accusing *$ of, i.e. what in your
definition is a ristretto?
nb
Edwin Pawlowski
"JimLane" <ensen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Hmm, missed the OP, but isn't "barista," a traditional term in Italy for
> the maker of espressos?
>
> *$ abortion of the language is another matter entirely. "Tall" would have
> to be in relationship to the size of an espresso. Or perhaps in terms of a
> more traditional eight-ounce cup?
>
> However, what they call a "ristretto" has nothing to do at all with an
> actual ristretto.
>
>
> jim
If you go to the Google translator, Barista = bartender Ristretto = narrow
My guess is that Starbucks is using the term rather loosely. They do call
their appliances for making coffee Barista also.
Taking the thread to another turn, I don't like the paper cups they give
you. Instead of a foam cup that insulates well, they give you a paper cup
plus a second paper cup or a sleeve to give some insulation. They want to be
"earth friendly" so instead of using a recyclable foam cup the load you up
with lots of coated paper that is not recyclable.
Michel Boucher
news:41D5A9B6...@sympatico.ca:
> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> I can see dialing and trying to find the tiny numbers while
>> driving being a risk, but talking...give me a freaking break....
>
> Sorry Michel, but I have seen too many people wander on the road,
> blow stop signs, fail to yield etc. because they are distracted by
> a telephone conversation.
And strangely enough, I have not had the same experience. Odd, isn't
it. It used to be more common, I admit, but I've only actually heard
of one case recently, where a person who shall remain nameless was
talking on a cell phone AND trying to put on makeup while negotiating
the corner of Bank and Wellington. No, it wasn't Stephen Harper,
darn it all.
> I have had calls or had to make calls
> while driving and I usually end up pulling over to finish the
> conversation because I find it too distracting.
Perhaps you're easily distracted anyway :-)
> It is not the same
> has having a person there.
Well, of course not, but is it a significant difference?
> At least a person in the car can warn
> you if your driving becomes erratic.
Not if they're distracted by the conversation. Come on...you're
obviously making this up.
> A cell phone conversation is
> not necessarily more distracting that other conversations in
> restaurants and coffee shops, but most of them are.
Ok, how so? You are not listening to the whole thing, there are long
periods of silence when your gan regain your composure...how it is
MORE distracting? Perhaps you mean that you are more annoyed by
that. Why does it annoy you, exactly?
> Only in truck
> stops are there pay phones at the tables. In most other places the
> phones are located in a place where the conversations can be
> fairly private, and those are the same places where cell calls
> should be made.
Should? Should people at the same table also retreat to the
"talking" area to speak privately so they wouldn't disturb the near
state of supreme asceticism you prefer while in public? Should they
actually speak at all? Perhaps, once the cell phone using gene has
been identified, place a mark on their forehead or have their vocal
chords should be removed at birth? How far are you willing to go with
this?
>> > Imho, two people walking down the street talking creates a
>> > different social interaction and has a different social impact
>> > than a single person walking down the street on the phone.
>>
>> There's that old style prejudice again. How, pray tell, is the
>> interaction between two people talking different than one person
>> talking to another on the phone?
>
> Have you ever had a three way conversation, you on telephone with
> someone and a third person present? It is not the same as having
> a three way direct conversation. Talking on the telephone general
> requires more concentration than a direct personal conversation.
I've been doing the phone/ftf thing for nearly sixty years. If you
have two persons talking at you at the same time in the room, or one
on the phone and one in the room, how different is that in terms of
your concentration? Perhaps your concentration does not allow you to
do this. Then you should in fact forego the use of a cell phone (or
any phone) in a public place.
>> If that were the case, we should
>> outlaw phones altogether, in offices and in homes, and insist
>> that people meet face to face at all times and under all
>> circumstances.
>
> That is simply not practical.
But it seems to be the natural offshoot of your (and others')
argument. Conversations are distracting, phone conversations which
include periods of silence for you as the other person speaks are
more distracting than constant yammering. This is what you're
saying. Ok, I get it...or actually, you better explain that one to
me. And please, none of this dehumanizing influence, disembodied
voice crap...
Living in society is putting up with inconveniences. Try taking the
bus sometimes.
Nancy Young
"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41D5A9B6...@sympatico.ca...
> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> I can see dialing and trying to find the tiny numbers while driving
>> being a risk, but talking...give me a freaking break....
>
> Sorry Michel, but I have seen too many people wander on the road, blow
> stop signs, fail to yield etc. because they are distracted by a
> telephone conversation. I have had calls or had to make calls while
> driving and I usually end up pulling over to finish the conversation
> because I find it too distracting.
It's been proven that people become distracted when on the phone
and that their field of vision narrows significantly ... yes, even with
a hands free phone.
It's become an epidemic, people swerving all over the place
completely oblivious to the fact that they just cut someone off.
One could contact the insurance industry if they wanted to
know the facts and figures concerning driving while on the
phone and accidents.
nancy
Scott
"Halvdan" <p_rin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Your post said it all
Whose post? You didn't quote anything, so it's impossible to tell who
you're agreeing with.
--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"
Edwin Pawlowski
"Michel Boucher" <alsa...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>
> And strangely enough, I have not had the same experience. Odd, isn't
> it.
Lucky you.Most of us have seen an instance or two. Maybe you don't drive
all that much?
>> It is not the same
>> has having a person there.
>
> Well, of course not, but is it a significant difference?
I think so. It somewhat depends on the conversation. Yakking with a buddy
or trying to negotiate a business deal will make a difference in the
intensity and focus of the driver/talker.
>
>> A cell phone conversation is
>> not necessarily more distracting that other conversations in
>> restaurants and coffee shops, but most of them are.
>
> Ok, how so?
> Why does it annoy you, exactly?
Some people tend to raise their voice when talking on a phone, expecially a
cell phone. That becomes anoying.
Scott
Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> The guy on the other side never did have any human in it. It's
> occupant used it for a coat rack, pulled out his laptop and cell
> phone and started making long, loud phone calls. I was having a hard
> time hearing my wife because he was speaking so loud.
When people talk very loudly on their cellphones, I sometimes take part
in their conversation: "Oh, no, tell her to go with the blue," "I hope
his tennis elbow improves," etc.
When they glare, I innocently protest that they were speaking so loudly,
I thought they were including everyone in their conversation.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
One could, though, read some hard facts. AAA has released data that
says cell phones are just one on a list of distractions that can
contribute to accidents. People like to blame it all on cell phones
because their use is so readily visible. You just can't easily tell
when someone swerves because he is scratching his balls or she's
putting a cd into the changer.
Cell phone use leaves an electronic record for accident investigators.
Nothing else on the list does. so it is quite easy to peg their use
accurately during an investigation.
Boron
http://www.drive.subaru.com/Win03_DrivenToDistraction.htm
In descending order:
Outside person, object or event
Adjusting radio/cassette/CD
Other occupant
Moving object in vehicle(dog, insect, spilled drink, etc.)
Other device/object (water bottles, purses, etc.)
Adjusting vehicle/climate controls
Eating and/or drinking
Using/dialing cellular phone
Smoking related
Other distractions
Dave Smith
>
> When people talk very loudly on their cellphones, I sometimes take part
> in their conversation: "Oh, no, tell her to go with the blue," "I hope
> his tennis elbow improves," etc.
>
> When they glare, I innocently protest that they were speaking so loudly,
> I thought they were including everyone in their conversation.
>
LMAO That is a good one. Mind if I try your approach?
Nancy Young
news:2vhdt0tb547d1i3fo...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:26:04 -0500, "Nancy Young" <qwe...@monmouth.com>
> wrote:
>>"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>> Sorry Michel, but I have seen too many people wander on the road, blow
>>> stop signs, fail to yield etc. because they are distracted by a
>>> telephone conversation. I have had calls or had to make calls while
>>> driving and I usually end up pulling over to finish the conversation
>>> because I find it too distracting.
>>
>>It's been proven that people become distracted when on the phone
>>and that their field of vision narrows significantly ... yes, even with
>>a hands free phone.
>>
>>It's become an epidemic, people swerving all over the place
>>completely oblivious to the fact that they just cut someone off.
>>One could contact the insurance industry if they wanted to
>>know the facts and figures concerning driving while on the
>>phone and accidents.
> One could, though, read some hard facts. AAA has released data that
> says cell phones are just one on a list of distractions that can
> contribute to accidents. People like to blame it all on cell phones
> because their use is so readily visible. You just can't easily tell
> when someone swerves because he is scratching his balls or she's
> putting a cd into the changer.
>
> Cell phone use leaves an electronic record for accident investigators.
> Nothing else on the list does. so it is quite easy to peg their use
> accurately during an investigation.
Of course people are distracted by other things. Heaven forbid I see
someone in my rear view mirror messing with their kid in the back
seat. Watch the road! Geez.
However, I commuted for years, and drove around on the weekends,
and I don't mean on country roads. I live in NJ and I'm talking about
major highways, bumper to bumper, 70 to 85 mph. Hundreds of
thousands of miles. All that time, I almost never saw what I see today.
Why all the hands free laws being enacted? Is it because legislators
are wary of technology? No. It's because it's become a major
problem.
As I said, it's been scientifically proven that people lose most of their
peripheral vision when talking on the phone. I think that many cell
phone users are in denial, and besides, what the hell is so important
you have to be on the phone 24/7. Man, I loved my alone time in
the car as I hurtled down the highway.
nancy
notbob
> Why all the hands free laws being enacted? Is it because legislators
> are wary of technology? No. It's because it's become a major
> problem.
No, it's because they're oportunistic simps that'll jump on any bandwagon,
no matter how small, to suck a vote. Why is it cops, firemen, truckers, ie
anyone with a 2-way radio, can carry on a conversation, but cell-phone users
can't? Don't give me that bull about "special training". The only special
training they get is to unkey the mike after talking. It's all bulls*.
Cellphone use has gotten a bum rap. It's not cellphones that cause
accidents, it's lousy drivers who just happen to be using cellphones who
cause accidents.
> As I said, it's been scientifically proven....
By who? Cite?
> ....and besides, what the hell is so important
> you have to be on the phone 24/7.
Well, I'm with you there, Nancy. I refuse to use a cellphone. Hell, the
phone at home is annoying enough. ;)
nb
Scott
"Marge" <lawru...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I know I sound like a curmudgeon but walking down the street seeing so
> many people with phones pasted to their ears, I don't see the draw of
> it. It's like it disconnects you from what you're experiencing in the
> moment and the people around you.
In call them "cellbots."
--
to respond (off-topic *only*), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"
please post on-topic replies only to the newsgroup.
Scott
Michel Boucher <alsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I can see dialing and trying to find the tiny numbers while driving
> being a risk, but talking...give me a freaking break....
Study after study has shown that it is *talking* on the cell phone while
driving that's the problem, not holding it (meaning that hands-free laws
are useless).
> There's that old style prejudice again. How, pray tell, is the
> interaction between two people talking different than one person
> talking to another on the phone? If that were the case, we should
> outlaw phones altogether, in offices and in homes, and insist that
> people meet face to face at all times and under all circumstances.
Again, the studies I've seen say that talking on the phone *while
driving* is different than talking to a passenger (non-driving
situations is a different issue).
The University of Toronto published a study titled "Association Between
Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions", in the New
England Journal of Medicine in February of 1997. It found that the risk
of collision when using a cell phone is 4 times higher regardless of the
age or the driving experience of the driver, with hands-free units being
no safer.
Multiple studies following have backed it up, and expanded on this
study. Regarding comparisons with conversations with a passenger,
studies have shown that the accident rate is far lower for
with-passenger conversations. The passenger is in tune with driving
conditions, and is far more likely to pause or stop talking altogether
should a dangerous situation seem to be developing, and to point out
that situation to the driver. Further, Lee Gugerty, a professor of
psychology at Clemson University, studied the issue and found that "It
seems to be more difficult to have a cell phone conversation than when
someone is right beside you."
Charlotte L. Blackmer
Marge <lawru...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>People who are talking on cell phones are in contact with others and
>no less aware of their surroundings than two people having a
>conversation while walking down the street. Are you advocating that
>two persons walking down the street should not converse if the urge
>strikes them?
The difference is two tons plus of moving metal.
In other words ... someone behind a wheel can kill me.
>As for driving and cell phones, some people can handle it, others
>can't. You can get a hands-free setup with a voice operated cell
>phone and a mike/earpiece so you don't actually need to touch the
>phone. Then it would be like talking to someone sitting in the
>passenger seat.
Which can be distracting as well, especially with those prone to hand
gestures!
>Honestly, people go out of their way to find reasons to dislike
>technology.
That's not it.
They dislike rudeness, and inattentiveness when safety is an issue.
>
>I don't dislike technology at all. I have lots of toys that I
>thoroughly enjoy. It seems logical to me that anyone driving and
>talking on the phone is going to be distracted. Some more than others.
>How do you test which people can handle it easily? There's a reason
>why laws have been passed against it.
yep.
>Imho, two people walking down the street talking creates a different
>social interaction and has a different social impact than a single
>person walking down the street on the phone. There was a news story
>recently about restaurants in New York planning on banning cell phones
>(I'm not sure if that has happened or if it will; I didn't follow up on
>the story). I don't think I'm the only one that finds cell phones
>verses two people chatting in person a different interaction. How
>about two people walking down the street, one talking on the phone
>while the other walks along silently. I've also seen, more than once,
>two people walking down the street, each person talking on the cell
>phone to someone else.
Yeah, that's bizarre.
>I'm not saying all cell phones should be thrown out the window (though
>some should), just that they should be used more judiciously (and with
>better manners).
As Miss Manners notes, the law steps in where manners fail.
Charlotte
--
Dave Smith
> Why all the hands free laws being enacted? Is it because legislators
> are wary of technology? No. It's because it's become a major
> problem.
The problem is that there is not a big difference in loss of attention between
hands on and hands free cell phone use. They both lead to inattentiveness and
slower reactions.
> As I said, it's been scientifically proven that people lose most of their
> peripheral vision when talking on the phone. I think that many cell
> phone users are in denial, and besides, what the hell is so important
> you have to be on the phone 24/7. Man, I loved my alone time in
> the car as I hurtled down the highway.
It does indeed seem like denial. I know from my own experience having to deal
with phone calls while driving that I could not pay attention to the road, and
that is the reason that I used to pull over when I had a call and why I
refrain from making calls while driving. And just about every time I go
somewhere by car I see inattentive drivers yakking on their cell phones. Some
of them are even writing notes as they drive and talk.
Dave Smith
> No, it's because they're oportunistic simps that'll jump on any bandwagon,
> no matter how small, to suck a vote. Why is it cops, firemen, truckers, ie
> anyone with a 2-way radio, can carry on a conversation, but cell-phone users
> can't? Don't give me that bull about "special training". The only special
> training they get is to unkey the mike after talking. It's all bulls*.
> Cellphone use has gotten a bum rap. It's not cellphones that cause
> accidents, it's lousy drivers who just happen to be using cellphones who
> cause accidents.
The "special training" includes instruction not to use cell phones while
driving. Two way radio conversations are usually very short, and calls that
require special attention are usually done while stationary. There is a lot of
radio traffic that you tune out. It's more like listening to the car radio than
2 way communication.
I don't think anyone has given cell phones a bum rap. As you point out the blame
has been placed on the lousy drivers who get into accidents because they were
too buys talking on the phone to pay attention. The accident statistics are
quite damning.
FWIW there was an incident just down the road from where I worked where a pickup
truck ran into the back of a tractor trailer in a traffic backup. The driver of
the pickup was killed, but the guy who he had been talking to was still on the
other end of the phone when the first motorist arrived to offer assistance, and
he asked what that noise was.
sf
<e...@snet.net> wrote:
> They want to be
> "earth friendly" so instead of using a recyclable foam cup the load you up
> with lots of coated paper that is not recyclable.
I prefer paper over styrofoam, but 99% of the time I use my
travel mug - which is even more earth friendly.
sf
sf
<alsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
> It used to be more common, I admit, but I've only actually heard
> of one case recently, where a person who shall remain nameless was
> talking on a cell phone AND trying to put on makeup while negotiating
> the corner of Bank and Wellington.
Heck, I've seen plenty of that stuff w/o cell phone:
putting on make up, brushing teeth, face shaving...
sf
notbob
> FWIW.....
Not much. I've had 3 cars rear-end me over the years. None of them were
using a cell phone.
nb
notbob
> Study after study......
Poster after poster has made the same claim. I've yet to see a single one.
nb
Edwin Pawlowski
"notbob" <not...@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:TiEBd.601382$wV.548415@attbi_s54...
http://www.nsc.org/public/issues/sphones.doc
Michel Boucher
news:gm3et0121d0k8taem...@4ax.com:
Or checking out the chick with the big tatas. How many of those have
caused accidents? I dare say significantly more than cell phones.
Edwin Pawlowski
> caused accidents? I dare say significantly more than cell phones.
>
> --
>
You mean the one in the pink dress? Many years ago I was rear ended and
pushed into the car ahead. We knew the reason for the accident, but the
police report had "sun glare" as the cause.
JimLane
>
> As I said, it's been scientifically proven that people lose most of their
> peripheral vision when talking on the phone. I think that many cell
> phone users are in denial, and besides, what the hell is so important
> you have to be on the phone 24/7. Man, I loved my alone time in
> the car as I hurtled down the highway.
>
> nancy
This morning, while waiting for some friends to pick me up alongside the
local *$, a Volvo comes around the corner, blowing a red with both
driver and passenger talking on cells.
Glad I wasn't in the crosswalk.
jim