Post here if you want to be a brat

[Kellach Woods]

how dare a product in beta does not have perfect functionality? damn you sfv beta.

 

(granted i can't really help them test the goal of their beta because it crashes before i get a match so it is a genuine problem in a way, but still)

[Teadrinker]

Dear Starbucks employee,

 

How do you clothe yourself in the morning? How do you put on your oh-so expensive makeup without poking out your eyeballs? Do you even know how to breathe properly?

 

I ask these questions because you managed the incredible feat of serving my brother an ice cold Hot Chocolate.

 

It's not like it's in the name or anything.

 

Your life must be difficukt, indeed, if you're unable to grasp the concept that people who are overworked and underpaid will occasionally make mistakes. 

 

I'm sure you've been perfect your whole life, so this is probably a tough concept to grasp.

 

This is why I detest working retail.

I almost beat a 16 year old brat to death once with her Coach handbag working in a coffee shop. Ugh. You have to have the disposition of a saint.

[Dravus]

Dear Starbucks employee,

 

How do you clothe yourself in the morning? How do you put on your oh-so expensive makeup without poking out your eyeballs? Do you even know how to breathe properly?

 

I ask these questions because you managed the incredible feat of serving my brother an ice cold Hot Chocolate.

 

It's not like it's in the name or anything.

 

Did you politely point out the mistake that was made, or did you remain silent? Customer service roles are pretty awful - mistakes are made not because people want to make them but because the line of work can often be miserable, thankless, involve terrible hours, awkward overtime and to top it all off it isn't even a well paid line of work.

 

It's also possible that they misheard your brother, especially if he spoke quietly or the store was busy. In my experience, whenever I've had someone mess up an order and I've brought it to their attention they've quite happily done their best to remedy the situation.

[Sinjo]

Dear Starbucks employee,

 

How do you clothe yourself in the morning? How do you put on your oh-so expensive makeup without poking out your eyeballs? Do you even know how to breathe properly?

 

I ask these questions because you managed the incredible feat of serving my brother an ice cold Hot Chocolate.

 

It's not like it's in the name or anything.

 

Your life must be difficukt, indeed, if you're unable to grasp the concept that people who are overworked and underpaid will occasionally make mistakes. 

 

I'm sure you've been perfect your whole life, so this is probably a tough concept to grasp.

 

This is why I detest working retail.

 

Er. I don't mean to start an argument but. His brother worked for the money to buy a hot chocolate, that the person at starbucks is getting paid to make. But you really have to be doing something wrong, even if you're over worked and underpaid, to serve a hot drink cold.

 

Secondly. Just about 90% of the population is overworked and underpaid. You can't justify saying some one is justifiably overworked and underpaid if they're unable to perform a basic part their job. I guarantee you that the job at starbucks could easily be taken by some one who will work harder and appreciate the opportunity far more than some one who doesn't care enough about the product they're giving to costumers, to give them a warm drink.

 

And lastly. Starbucks is one of the best employers in America right now. Benifits for fulltime and part time employees as well as A college tuition reimbursement program. To say that the job is unfair is, to starbucks, Unfair.

 

Just my five cents as some one who has worked over a dozen different types of jobs .

[Hyakki]

Er. I don't mean to start an argument but. His brother worked for the money to buy a hot chocolate, that the person at starbucks is getting paid to make. But you really have to be doing something wrong, even if you're over worked and underpaid, to serve a hot drink cold.

 

What was considered "cold", though? It may have been the standard temperature but he preferred it hotter or an error on the barista's side as you said. We don't know.

 

Either way, there's no need for Edgar to be such a condescending prick about it.

[Sinjo]

Er. I don't mean to start an argument but. His brother worked for the money to buy a hot chocolate, that the person at starbucks is getting paid to make. But you really have to be doing something wrong, even if you're over worked and underpaid, to serve a hot drink cold.

 

What was considered "cold", though? It may have been the standard temperature but he preferred it hotter or an error on the barista's side as you said. We don't know.

 

Either way, there's no need for Edgar to be such a condescending prick about it.

 

Er, between 70c - 90c is the best temperature to serve any hot drink. And lets be real here. It's a hot Chocolate. Not a lukewarm Chocolate, or a blood warm Chocolate. If it's lower than 50c, you're not serving it properly.

 

Prick or not. Edgar's brother and He have a right to complain, no matter how harshly. Money was involved and the drink was obviously nowhere near warm enough to be called a Hot Chocolate. So the employee was doing something very obviously wrong.

[Dravus]

Er. I don't mean to start an argument but. His brother worked for the money to buy a hot chocolate, that the person at starbucks is getting paid to make. But you really have to be doing something wrong, even if you're over worked and underpaid, to serve a hot drink cold.

 

What was considered "cold", though? It may have been the standard temperature but he preferred it hotter or an error on the barista's side as you said. We don't know.

 

Either way, there's no need for Edgar to be such a condescending prick about it.

 

Er, between 70c - 90c is the best temperature to serve any hot drink. And lets be real here. It's a hot Chocolate. Not a lukewarm Chocolate, or a blood warm Chocolate. If it's lower than 50c, you're not serving it properly.

 

Prick or not. Edgar's brother and He have a right to complain, no matter how harshly. Money was involved and the drink was obviously nowhere near warm enough to be called a Hot Chocolate. So the employee was doing something very obviously wrong.

 

Customer entitlement is a major issue. Yes, people have a 'right' to complain - but that doesn't mean that the customer has a right to be arrogant. I have my doubts that the employee in question went out of her way to make Edgar's brother's life a misery - so the personal attacks aimed at the employee in question are both irrelevant and obnoxious.

 

Paying money for a service doesn't give people the right to be nasty either - especially if the mistake is an innocent and understandable one as well as something that is almost certainly going to be fixed if attention is drawn to it.

[Sinjo]

Er. I don't mean to start an argument but. His brother worked for the money to buy a hot chocolate, that the person at starbucks is getting paid to make. But you really have to be doing something wrong, even if you're over worked and underpaid, to serve a hot drink cold.

 

What was considered "cold", though? It may have been the standard temperature but he preferred it hotter or an error on the barista's side as you said. We don't know.

 

Either way, there's no need for Edgar to be such a condescending prick about it.

 

Er, between 70c - 90c is the best temperature to serve any hot drink. And lets be real here. It's a hot Chocolate. Not a lukewarm Chocolate, or a blood warm Chocolate. If it's lower than 50c, you're not serving it properly.

 

Prick or not. Edgar's brother and He have a right to complain, no matter how harshly. Money was involved and the drink was obviously nowhere near warm enough to be called a Hot Chocolate. So the employee was doing something very obviously wrong.

 

Customer entitlement is a major issue. Yes, people have a 'right' to complain - but that doesn't mean that the customer has a right to be an arrogant wanker. I have my doubts that the employee in question went out of her way to make Edgar's brother's life a misery - so the personal attacks aimed at the employee in question are both irrelevant and obnoxious.

 

 

Paying money for a service doesn't give people the right to be nasty either - especially if the mistake is an innocent and understandable one as well as something that is almost certainly going to be fixed if attention is drawn to it.

 

 

 

I've worked plenty in the service industry. ( Starbucks is not retail.) I've had to deal plenty with customer entitlement. But there is a vast difference between being served something wrong, and a customer being entitled. A customer being entitled is asking for free food because they didn't enjoy their meal. A customer being served cold food and complaining, Is not entitlement.

 

And I don't see how serving some one a cold drink is understandable? I'm no barista, but one can assume that there is a few basic steps to making a Hot chocolate. The main one being, is the drink hot?

 

Understandable is getting the drinks mixed up, or forgetting they didn't want whip. Those are understandable situations.

 

I'm not picking sides here. I'm just saying that the complaints are justifiable.

[Dat Oni]

Er. I don't mean to start an argument but. His brother worked for the money to buy a hot chocolate, that the person at starbucks is getting paid to make. But you really have to be doing something wrong, even if you're over worked and underpaid, to serve a hot drink cold.

 

What was considered "cold", though? It may have been the standard temperature but he preferred it hotter or an error on the barista's side as you said. We don't know.

 

Either way, there's no need for Edgar to be such a condescending prick about it.

 

Er, between 70c - 90c is the best temperature to serve any hot drink. And lets be real here. It's a hot Chocolate. Not a lukewarm Chocolate, or a blood warm Chocolate. If it's lower than 50c, you're not serving it properly.

 

Prick or not. Edgar's brother and He have a right to complain, no matter how harshly. Money was involved and the drink was obviously nowhere near warm enough to be called a Hot Chocolate. So the employee was doing something very obviously wrong.

 

Customer entitlement is a major issue. Yes, people have a 'right' to complain - but that doesn't mean that the customer has a right to be an arrogant wanker. I have my doubts that the employee in question went out of her way to make Edgar's brother's life a misery - so the personal attacks aimed at the employee in question are both irrelevant and obnoxious.

 

 

Paying money for a service doesn't give people the right to be nasty either - especially if the mistake is an innocent and understandable one as well as something that is almost certainly going to be fixed if attention is drawn to it.

 

 

 

I've worked plenty in the service industry. ( Starbucks is not retail.) I've had to deal plenty with customer entitlement. But there is a vast difference between being served something wrong, and a customer being entitled. A customer being entitled is asking for free food because they didn't enjoy their meal. A customer being served cold food and complaining, Is not entitlement.

 

And I don't see how serving some one a cold drink is understandable? I'm no barista, but one can assume that there is a few basic steps to making a Hot chocolate. The main one being, is the drink hot?

 

Understandable is getting the drinks mixed up, or forgetting they didn't want whip. Those are understandable situations.

 

I'm not picking sides here. I'm just saying that the complaints are justifiable.

 

The woman was a teenager whose work ethic consisted of frequent errors like these, as well as putting on makeup during customer lineups. She rolled her eyes at our orders.

 

This was hardly one of those "poor, overworked person makes an honest mistake under duress" situations. My bad for not being more specific, but I like to think the responses pointed out all the problems with white-knighting for someone you barely bloody know. It's not black and white, people; not every employee working for Starbucks is downtrodden and barely scraping by. I acknowledge that as a thing that happens, I'd be stupid not to, but this was not the situation you thought it was.

[Kellach Woods]

hm let's see

 

"RAR FUCKING EMPLOYEE IS TRASH I'LL GO BITCH ABOUT IT IN THE WHY HUMANITY WHY THREAD"

 

"hey guys turns out i intentionally removed the context because i wanted you to hate this person post defending them once i expose how much of an actually bad worker they are."

 

she's about as bad a worker as you are at written communication i'd say.

[Dat Oni]

hm let's see

 

"RAR FUCKING EMPLOYEE IS TRASH I'LL GO BITCH ABOUT IT IN THE WHY HUMANITY WHY THREAD"

 

"hey guys turns out i intentionally removed the context because i wanted you to hate this person post defending them once i expose how much of an actually bad worker they are."

 

she's about as bad a worker as you are at written communication i'd say.

 

Because apologizing for my lack of context totally implies that I did it entirely on purpose.

 

Try again.

[Sinjo]

hm let's see

 

"RAR FUCKING EMPLOYEE IS TRASH I'LL GO BITCH ABOUT IT IN THE WHY HUMANITY WHY THREAD"

 

"hey guys turns out i intentionally removed the context because i wanted you to hate this person post defending them once i expose how much of an actually bad worker they are."

 

she's about as bad a worker as you are at written communication i'd say.

 

Er, I believe the thread is called " RANT ABOUT IRL THINGS AKA HUMANITY WHY. " Note that the Humanity why part is not the actual title of the thread.

 

And what sort of attitude is this to have? You can't claim clairvoyance over something you had no actual part in. Your belief that Edgar is manipulating the information has about as much ground as the information you're claiming he's manipulating.

 

Right now, you are complaining about someone's complaint in a complaining thread.

 

[Unnamed Mercenary]

[[steps in as a mod]]

 

Stop with the personal jabs or that's the end of this thread.

 

You want to call each other out and act like [revised thread title], you can do that in No Mod's Land. (Opt-in for a zone with no moderation).

 

This thread was created for one-shot instances of IRL vents (after the original discussion ended).

 

If the intention is to effectively complain and whine about a PERSON, this is not the thread for that.

 

[[/only warning to all users and future posts]]

[Mae]

I'm not posting because I'm a brat. I'm posting because I am annoyed by an incident and that annoyance has been further irritated by what seems to be an influx of certain commercials

 

So.

 

 

Dear Everyone Who Is Not a Licensed Professional Driver:

 

You may not realize it, but your comfy little lives depend on those big 18-wheeler trucks that so many see as a nuisance on the highway and brand as "dangerous". Unless you have literally gathered, built, grown, forged, and crafted every single thing in your life by hand, there is not a single material aspect that has not been affected by the trucking industry. 

 

If you are among the mis-informed who sit around whining about the trucks on the highway and how dangerous they are, you would probably be shocked to learn that over 80% of the highway accidents that involve 18-wheeler trucks are caused by four-wheeler drivers. Even if the four-wheeler in question was not in the accident itself, it was initiated -by- a four-wheeler. About 12% is acts of weather, the gods, animals, and situations that could not be predicted and/or anticipated. That leaves less than 8% that is actual the error of the 18-wheeler driver.

 

8% versus 80%. And you (if you are among the mis-informed) say that the 18-wheelers are the danger.

 

In case you weren't aware, it takes a an 18-wheeler three to six times longer than a four-wheeler to slow down and/or stop. When a four-wheeler fails to merge properly onto the highway (either by not yielding and merging onto the highway before reaching highway speeds OR coming to the end of the merge far ahead of the 18-wheeler, panicking, and then slamming on the brakes), the accident caused is the fault of the four-wheeler regardless if the four-wheeler is the one that was hit. "Brake-checking" (getting in front of another vehicle and braking for no reason) an 18-wheeler to "make sure the driver is awake and aware" is an act of stupidity that has caused countless accidents. Lurking not only in the truck's blind spots but anywhere alongside the truck causes the drivers anxiety because you're blocking their escape routes if there IS a problem ahead (and they will see this problem well before you do), and turning on your headlights as you pass them to "make sure they know you're there" blinds them from seeing the road. The distance between cutting off a truck versus cutting off a car is vastly different. Similar with tailgating a truck -- if you cannot see both mirrors of the truck in front of you, you are tailgating REGARDLESS of how many feet you are away from the ICC bumper.

 

If even half the trucks get shut down (or strike), fuel shortages will begin to crop up within three hours. Within five hours, manufacturing will be affected. Twenty-four hours, hospitals will begin to run out of critical-care items, food shortages would begin, and manufacturing would grind to a halt. Within three days, fuel would be almost impossible to find, banking would be suspended because money could not be transferred and ATM's would be empty, infectious diseases in cities would become a problem because garbage/sanitation services would not be able to operate because of fuel shortages, and emergency services would be crippled. Within a week, hospitals would be out of oxygen and most emergency/critical-care supplies. Two weeks, potable drinking water would become short in supply.

 

Lawyers and... I don't know what to call them, advocates against the trucking industry? often compare 18-wheeler trucks to "unstoppable freight trains". Well, let's go with that and say it's accurate. Freight trains are quite safe to be around.... if you don't be an idiot and fuck around them. Same with the big trucks. And unless you live 100% off-the-grid with 100% hand-manufactured tools, shelter, clothes and 100% hand-gathered and hand-grown food, your life depends on the big trucks.

 

Sincerely, 

A friend of a trucker who's being sued by the family of a drunk that rammed himself up under the ICC of the truck and killed himself

[LiadansWhisper]

I'm not posting because I'm a brat. I'm posting because I am annoyed by an incident and that annoyance has been further irritated by what seems to be an influx of certain commercials

 

So.

 

 

Dear Everyone Who Is Not a Licensed Professional Driver:

 

You may not realize it, but your comfy little lives depend on those big 18-wheeler trucks that so many see as a nuisance on the highway and brand as "dangerous". Unless you have literally gathered, built, grown, forged, and crafted every single thing in your life by hand, there is not a single material aspect that has not been affected by the trucking industry. 

 

If you are among the mis-informed who sit around whining about the trucks on the highway and how dangerous they are, you would probably be shocked to learn that over 80% of the highway accidents that involve 18-wheeler trucks are caused by four-wheeler drivers. Even if the four-wheeler in question was not in the accident itself, it was initiated -by- a four-wheeler. About 12% is acts of weather, the gods, animals, and situations that could not be predicted and/or anticipated. That leaves less than 8% that is actual the error of the 18-wheeler driver.

 

8% versus 80%. And you (if you are among the mis-informed) say that the 18-wheelers are the danger.

 

In case you weren't aware, it takes a an 18-wheeler three to six times longer than a four-wheeler to slow down and/or stop. When a four-wheeler fails to merge properly onto the highway (either by not yielding and merging onto the highway before reaching highway speeds OR coming to the end of the merge far ahead of the 18-wheeler, panicking, and then slamming on the brakes), the accident caused is the fault of the four-wheeler regardless if the four-wheeler is the one that was hit. "Brake-checking" (getting in front of another vehicle and braking for no reason) an 18-wheeler to "make sure the driver is awake and aware" is an act of stupidity that has caused countless accidents. Lurking not only in the truck's blind spots but anywhere alongside the truck causes the drivers anxiety because you're blocking their escape routes if there IS a problem ahead (and they will see this problem well before you do), and turning on your headlights as you pass them to "make sure they know you're there" blinds them from seeing the road. The distance between cutting off a truck versus cutting off a car is vastly different. Similar with tailgating a truck -- if you cannot see both mirrors of the truck in front of you, you are tailgating REGARDLESS of how many feet you are away from the ICC bumper.

 

If even half the trucks get shut down (or strike), fuel shortages will begin to crop up within three hours. Within five hours, manufacturing will be affected. Twenty-four hours, hospitals will begin to run out of critical-care items, food shortages would begin, and manufacturing would grind to a halt. Within three days, fuel would be almost impossible to find, banking would be suspended because money could not be transferred and ATM's would be empty, infectious diseases in cities would become a problem because garbage/sanitation services would not be able to operate because of fuel shortages, and emergency services would be crippled. Within a week, hospitals would be out of oxygen and most emergency/critical-care supplies. Two weeks, potable drinking water would become short in supply.

 

Lawyers and... I don't know what to call them, advocates against the trucking industry? often compare 18-wheeler trucks to "unstoppable freight trains". Well, let's go with that and say it's accurate. Freight trains are quite safe to be around.... if you don't be an idiot and fuck around them. Same with the big trucks. And unless you live 100% off-the-grid with 100% hand-manufactured tools, shelter, clothes and 100% hand-gathered and hand-grown food, your life depends on the big trucks.

 

Sincerely, 

A friend of a trucker who's being sued by the family of a drunk that rammed himself up under the ICC of the truck and killed himself

 

Usually the driver is only included in the lawsuit because they're trying to get at the commercial insurance policy on the truck.  In many states (including my own), you have to sue every party involved in the accident in order to sue the commercial insurance policy covering the truck (I have seen this literally include other victims in the accident!).  I hope that your friend isn't in my state (though it's possible that this is something in other states, too, I just don't know) because we have a concept called "comparative fault."  What this means is, even if the other driver completely caused the accident, the judge/jury can still assign blame to the driver not at fault because they didn't take enough "mitigating" steps (in the eyes of the judge/jury) to avoid the accident.  It is, quite frankly, bullshit and one of the reasons our insurance rates are so high.  So I really hope that your friend gets it worked out.

 

*Source: I actually used to be an assistant underwriter for a commercial insurance company, and worked in civil litigation for several years as an assistant.

 

That said - I nearly was run off the road by a semi two weeks ago because he didn't look to see who was in his lane.  He was trying to change lanes to the right in a very crowded two lane highway with traffic merging from the right up ahead (it's hard to describe, but basically it's two lanes with a wall on either side, but there is a merge where it becomes 4 lanes about a quarter mile ahead).  I nearly got slammed into the wall and no, I wasn't in his blind spot - I could see him in his mirror.  I laid on the horn and thankfully he went back into his lane.

 

I've also witnessed semi trucks driving 15-20 miles above the speed limit during high traffic parts of the day. Now, my uncle is also a commercial truck driver, and his company limits them to a max of 50 on an interstate within city limits.  I don't know if that's industry wide, but I am pretty sure that going 80 in a 60 is probably not "okay" by any company.  Yet, it happens constantly in my city.

[Sylentmana]

When I was little, my aunt was killed in a car accident due to a negligent truck driver. Her vehicle was completely destroyed and she was damaged that they had to rely on her dental records to identify the remains. The irony about all of this: the driver was her fiance.

 

Edit: Can we please change the name of the thread back to its original title? Changing it to prove a point to some people arguing was just as immature and stupid.

[Unnamed Mercenary]

Can we please change the name of the thread back to its original title? Changing it to prove a point to some people arguing was just as immature and stupid.

 

You'll need to relay that to the OP.

[Coatleque]

I wear white after labor day. Socks with sandals. Sunglasses indoors.

Fite me.

[Martiallais]

I wear white after labor day.  Socks with sandals.  Sunglasses indoors.

Fite me.

 

But do you wear your sunglasses at night?

[Sylentmana]

Can we please change the name of the thread back to its original title? Changing it to prove a point to some people arguing was just as immature and stupid.

 

You'll need to relay that to the OP.

 

My edit was addressed to whoever changed it in the first place. The OP should be notified at this point, unless they are no longer reading this thread.