"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
> Oh, another thing: people who don't take their money out until all of
> the items pass through the scanner. It's almost like they're startled:
> "oh, I have to *pay*?" This tends to be worse with women--simply because
> they tend to have to take more steps to get to their money (wallet
> inside a purse and all) then do men.

I recently watched a man put the same dollar bill into the self check-out
machine over and over for about 10 minutes. I finally couldn't take it
anymore and suggested that he talk to the attendant who could exchange it
for a good bill. A few months ago I got into a short line at the self
check-out lane. A provocatively dressed young woman was ringing-up a few
item. When it came time to pay, she hauled out a big bag with lots of small
change. She paid for about $70 worth of stuff with nickels, dimes, and
pennies with the occasional quarter thrown in. Of course some of the money
was rejected and was fed into the machine several times. Then there are the
check writers who can't even think far enough ahead to get out the check
book before the cashier scans the last item let alone fill in the basic
information while the order is being processed. Another thing that
irritates me is when people have to ring-up several different orders from a
single cart full of items.

Scott > wrote in
:


> Well, as far as removing the produce parts... I don't do that, but
> it's an ethical question. Does that mean that the supermarket can
> permissibly sell you unusable items? How is that different than a deli
> or bakery including the packaging when they weigh your purchase and
> including it as part of the per-pound charge? If you *personally*
> aren't going to use the produce part, but other people would, then
> yes, it's wrong (it's not the supermarket's concern which parts you
> plan to use). But if it's something that *no one* would or could use,
> it it then wrong? Why should the supermarket be allowed to charge you
> for something that isn't a usable food item? If an otherwise good head
> of lettuce has a rotted leaf on the outside, how can the supermarket
> legitimately sell you the rotted leaf?

I've never removed parts of produce which is charged by weight. However,
lettuce here is not charged for on a weight basis, but a price per head
of lettuce so there's no issue there. Can't recall if I've seen it
recently, but I know that at least at some stage the supermarket I use
kept a bin near the iceberg lettuce to throw rubbishy outside leaves into
and people were welcome to take these for free if they wanted them -
people with chooks in the backyard etc.

Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

Nancy Young wrote:
> The supermarket was a zoo yesterday, so we got in the best line.
> Last person only had a handful of stuff. Cool. Well, guess what,
> she was holding the place in line for her husband who had a huge
> cart of stuff. I think this was discussed here relatively recently,
> what was the consensus? Is that acceptable?
>
> Then, they still needed more stuff and left to get them.
>
> I nominate them for the rude people of the day.
>
> nancy
>
>
>
Person with car in line while partner grabs one last item or two? Ok.

Other way around? Not.

In article > ,
jem > wrote:

> Person with car in line while partner grabs one last item or two? Ok.
>
> Other way around? Not.

It's not OK if partner grabs one last item or two while the person with
car is in line?

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

"jem" > wrote in message
. com...
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> The supermarket was a zoo yesterday, so we got in the best line.
>> Last person only had a handful of stuff. Cool. Well, guess what,
>> she was holding the place in line for her husband who had a huge
>> cart of stuff. I think this was discussed here relatively recently,
>> what was the consensus? Is that acceptable?

> Person with car in line while partner grabs one last item or two? Ok.
>
> Other way around? Not.

My sentiments exactly. Thank you.

nancy