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

Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05 10:39 AM:

>
> 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
>
>
>

Oh, I dunno.
I'm beginning to think stuff like this seems fair to those doing it, and
seems unfair to those who didn't think to do it themselves. (or didn't have
the means).

Yeah, it's rude. Self-centered, inconsiderate. But is it really wrong?

Now, cutting the line outright, not waiting your turn, that's wrong.

But having a place holder while you shop??? I think it's borderline.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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

I'll second that. I'll also vocalize my disapproval openly in the store to
the people. Going back to get the can of tuna that you forgot is not a big
deal, but bringing a full cart is just plain not fair.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> I'll second that. I'll also vocalize my disapproval openly in the store
to
> the people. Going back to get the can of tuna that you forgot is not a
big
> deal, but bringing a full cart is just plain not fair.

I'm with you.

I routinely let people with only a few items go ahead of me in line. Mind
you, I ask them explicitly if that is all they are buying and I can tell you
that steam would jet from my ears and I wouldn't be able to hold my tongue
if the person I allowed in line before me was joined by another with a
gravid cart, or by someone who kept running back and forth for more items.

<let 'em eat cake... knowdamean?>

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> 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'll second that. I'll also vocalize my disapproval openly in the store
> to the people. Going back to get the can of tuna that you forgot is not a
> big deal, but bringing a full cart is just plain not fair.

I confess that I've been known to say, get into line with the cart, I just
need
this one thing. But, don't hold up the line waiting for me. But to take a
few
items, then suddenly show up with a gazzilion items and you're still not
done
shopping?

Like you, I don't have a problem with the person who suddenly remembers
they need something and it's only like 15 feet away ... hey. It happens.
But geez. Finish your shopping before getting on line like the rest of us.

nancy

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> Nancy Young > wrote in message
> ...

>> Then, they still needed more stuff and left to get them.
>
> Daughter-unit Alpha would have immediately voice her shock at 'cutting
> the line' -- and would not have stopped voicing her shock until they
> looped back to the end of the queue. <G> When it's happened, I let her
> go until the targets get the idea. I've only had to verbally back her
> once. A college kid jumped in front of a family (in front of us) because
> "he only had a couple things." That was his second mistake. He didn't
> get a chance at a third.
>
> Me? I'd've voice my displeasure -- loudly and in a very nasty way -- the
> first time. The second time I'd've asked for a manager.

You know, sometimes I am so astonished and amazed, I watch what's
happening like ... this can't be happening! By the time I have let them
in, that's when I think, WTF were you thinking. Too late then.

>> I nominate them for the rude people of the day.
>
> Seconded. Do we have a quorum to vote?

I don't think so. Too bad.

nancy

Nancy Young > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Daughter-unit Alpha would have immediately voice her shock at 'cutting
the line' -- and would not have stopped voicing her shock until they
looped back to the end of the queue. <G> When it's happened, I let her
go until the targets get the idea. I've only had to verbally back her
once. A college kid jumped in front of a family (in front of us) because
"he only had a couple things." That was his second mistake. He didn't
get a chance at a third.

Me? I'd've voice my displeasure -- loudly and in a very nasty way -- the
first time. The second time I'd've asked for a manager.

> I nominate them for the rude people of the day.

Seconded. Do we have a quorum to vote?

The Ranger

In article >,
Sheryl Rosen > wrote:

> Oh, I dunno.
> I'm beginning to think stuff like this seems fair to those doing it, and
> seems unfair to those who didn't think to do it themselves. (or didn't have
> the means).

> Yeah, it's rude. Self-centered, inconsiderate. But is it really wrong?

If it's rude, self-centered, and inconsiderate, doesn't that mean it's
wrong?


> But having a place holder while you shop??? I think it's borderline.

No. Get on line when you're done. Let the people who've completed their
shopping get out.

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

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

In article > ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> I'll second that. I'll also vocalize my disapproval openly in the store to
> the people. Going back to get the can of tuna that you forgot is not a big
> deal, but bringing a full cart is just plain not fair.

Related to, I think, those people who get onto the express line with
about double the maximum items. I won't get on if I have even one above.
I think the similarity is an attitude that they have an absolute right
to get out quickly, regardless of everyone else.

And if you point out that it's an express checkout, they'll usually get
annoyed with you, as if YOU'RE the one doing something wrong.

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

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

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,

> Related to, I think, those people who get onto the express line with
> about double the maximum items. I won't get on if I have even one above.

(laugh) I have. I feel as if I'm following the spirit of the rule. I
know,
12 items or fewer, I'm supposed to stand in line behind huge carts of
food because I have 13? Don't worry, that happens so rarely it's
not a big deal. Like I'm a serial line invader.

If it's any consolation, I have my money right at hand and I bag like
a speed demon. I usually take up less of people's time than the 3 item
person.

nancy

"Sheryl Rosen" > wrote in message
...
> Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05 10:39 AM:

>> 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.

> Oh, I dunno.
> I'm beginning to think stuff like this seems fair to those doing it, and
> seems unfair to those who didn't think to do it themselves. (or didn't
> have
> the means).
>
> Yeah, it's rude. Self-centered, inconsiderate. But is it really wrong?
>
> Now, cutting the line outright, not waiting your turn, that's wrong.

Well, in the spirit of fairness, why didn't they put the full cart in line
instead of the person holding only a few items? Then you'd know
what you were getting into. No problems here with them adding
a few things to a full cart. Adding a full cart to a few items seems
to be what was annoying.

nancy

The switching trick is certainly irritating, possibly rude, but I've
let that one pass.
If they leave the cart in front of me to go get more groceries, I
simply remove their cart from the line and move mine forward. I've
gotten dirty looks, but no one's ever said anything. Maybe it helps
that I'm 6'2", 205, and look like I've been around the block a few
times...

Nancy Young wrote:
> "Sheryl Rosen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05
>> 10:39 AM:
>
>>> 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.
>
>> Oh, I dunno.
>> I'm beginning to think stuff like this seems fair to
>> those doing it, and seems unfair to those who didn't
>> think to do it themselves. (or didn't have
>> the means).
>>
>> Yeah, it's rude. Self-centered, inconsiderate. But is it
>> really wrong? Now, cutting the line outright, not waiting your turn,
>> that's wrong.
>
> Well, in the spirit of fairness, why didn't they put the
> full cart in line instead of the person holding only a
> few items? Then you'd know what you were getting into. No problems
> here with them
> adding a few things to a full cart. Adding a full cart to a few
> items seems to be what was annoying.
>
> nancy

Where's that kid with the splinter in his hand when you need him?

BOB

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> 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
>
> I'll second that. I'll also vocalize my disapproval openly in the
> store to the people. Going back to get the can of tuna that you
> forgot is not a big deal, but bringing a full cart is just plain not
> fair.

And Ed, you can always yell out, "I'm the Mayor!" (no one needs to know the
Mayor of what).

Jill

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:39:54 -0500, "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.

I'd say you're being kind and generous when you say that.

Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05 11:56 AM:

>
> "Sheryl Rosen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05 10:39 AM:
>
>>> 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.
>
>> Oh, I dunno.
>> I'm beginning to think stuff like this seems fair to those doing it, and
>> seems unfair to those who didn't think to do it themselves. (or didn't
>> have
>> the means).
>>
>> Yeah, it's rude. Self-centered, inconsiderate. But is it really wrong?
>>
>> Now, cutting the line outright, not waiting your turn, that's wrong.
>
> Well, in the spirit of fairness, why didn't they put the full cart in line
> instead of the person holding only a few items? Then you'd know
> what you were getting into. No problems here with them adding
> a few things to a full cart. Adding a full cart to a few items seems
> to be what was annoying.
>
> nancy
>
>

I don't know.
I'm sure I'd have been just as annoyed as you were, had I been behind them.
But I've also done stuff like that. Not on such a busy day when everyone is
trying to get in and out of the store, like a pre "the end of the world is
coming in the form of snow!" day.

I'm just saying....this is the sort of thing that one might do themselves,
and might not see anything wrong with it, but when you are behind the one
doing it, are very annoyed by it. Just to consider both sides.

In article >, says...
>
> 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

I tend to disagree with the practice. I mean, what would prevent me from
paying a proxy to stand in line for me while I grabbed the last 20 items
in the store? Not a damned thing. But it's irritating.

Sheryl Rosen wrote:
> Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05 11:56 AM:
>
>
>>"Sheryl Rosen" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05 10:39 AM:
>>
>>>>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?


Personally I think that sucks, big time. If you'd have seen a full cart
you probably would have gone to a different line. But were you given
that option? Nnnnooooooooooooooooooooooo. Inconsiderate assholes as far
as I'm concerned, and I would have told them so in no uncertain terms.
Not that they would have cared. So many people are all about "me, me, me
and the hell with everyone else" that it's really sad.

--
Steve

Ever wonder about those people who spend $2.00 apiece on those little
bottles of Evian water? Try spelling Evian backwards...

"Sheryl Rosen" > wrote in message
...
> Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05 11:56 AM:

>> Well, in the spirit of fairness, why didn't they put the full cart in
>> line
>> instead of the person holding only a few items? Then you'd know
>> what you were getting into. No problems here with them adding
>> a few things to a full cart. Adding a full cart to a few items seems
>> to be what was annoying.

> I don't know.
> I'm sure I'd have been just as annoyed as you were, had I been behind
> them.
> But I've also done stuff like that. Not on such a busy day when everyone
> is
> trying to get in and out of the store, like a pre "the end of the world is
> coming in the form of snow!" day.

> I'm just saying....this is the sort of thing that one might do themselves,
> and might not see anything wrong with it, but when you are behind the one
> doing it, are very annoyed by it. Just to consider both sides.

Nope, I would never do that.

nancy

Steve Calvin wrote:

> Sheryl Rosen wrote:
> > Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05 11:56 AM:
> >
> >
> >>"Sheryl Rosen" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05 10:39 AM:
> >>
> >>>>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?
>
>
> Personally I think that sucks, big time. If you'd have seen a full cart
> you probably would have gone to a different line. But were you given
> that option? Nnnnooooooooooooooooooooooo. Inconsiderate assholes as far
> as I'm concerned, and I would have told them so in no uncertain terms.
> Not that they would have cared. So many people are all about "me, me, me
> and the hell with everyone else" that it's really sad.


Yep...they are inconsiderate jerks. I put them in the same category as the
pigs who will go through produce, say broccoli or portabellas, and take off
the stems, then go get their items weighed (and in this case the pigs are
not wasting our time, but they are driving prices up for everybody, it's the
same as stealing)...

--
Best
Greg

Nancy Young wrote:

> "Sheryl Rosen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05 11:56 AM:
>
> >> Well, in the spirit of fairness, why didn't they put the full cart in
> >> line
> >> instead of the person holding only a few items? Then you'd know
> >> what you were getting into. No problems here with them adding
> >> a few things to a full cart. Adding a full cart to a few items seems
> >> to be what was annoying.
>
> > I don't know.
> > I'm sure I'd have been just as annoyed as you were, had I been behind
> > them.
> > But I've also done stuff like that. Not on such a busy day when everyone
> > is
> > trying to get in and out of the store, like a pre "the end of the world
is
> > coming in the form of snow!" day.
>
> > I'm just saying....this is the sort of thing that one might do
themselves,
> > and might not see anything wrong with it, but when you are behind the
one
> > doing it, are very annoyed by it. Just to consider both sides.
>
> Nope, I would never do that.


Me neither. Can you spell g- a - u - c - h - e...???

--
Best
Greg

"Nancy Young" > wrote in news:ct0ggf$6ng$1
@news.monmouth.com:

>
> 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


That's so CHEESY!

If I came in line behind the handful of stuff gal, then a person with a
full cart tried to cut in front of me, I'd have no problem telling the
handful of stuff gal to join her cart at the end of the line!

Andy

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, The Beatles!"
- Ed Sullivan (1964)

"Nancy Young" > wrote in
:

>
> "Sheryl Rosen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05 10:39 AM:
>
>>> 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.
>
>> Oh, I dunno.
>> I'm beginning to think stuff like this seems fair to those doing it,
>> and seems unfair to those who didn't think to do it themselves. (or
>> didn't have
>> the means).
>>
>> Yeah, it's rude. Self-centered, inconsiderate. But is it really
>> wrong?
>>
>> Now, cutting the line outright, not waiting your turn, that's wrong.
>
> Well, in the spirit of fairness, why didn't they put the full cart in
> line instead of the person holding only a few items? Then you'd know
> what you were getting into. No problems here with them adding
> a few things to a full cart. Adding a full cart to a few items seems
> to be what was annoying.
>

I agree. I've thought I was finished, and stood in line with the trolley
only to realise that I've forgotten one item. I've asked Rob to run off
and get it, and he would be back either before I've been served, or while
I'm loading the goods onto the belt. It would never occur to me to have
one of us hold a place in the queue with a couple of items while the
other one finished filling the trolley. I'd find that annoying.

Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

In article . net>,
says...
>
> Steve Calvin wrote:
>
> > Sheryl Rosen wrote:
> > > Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05 11:56 AM:
> > >
> > >
> > >>"Sheryl Rosen" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >>>Nancy Young at wrote on 1/23/05 10:39 AM:
> > >>
> > >>>>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?
> >
> >
> > Personally I think that sucks, big time. If you'd have seen a full cart
> > you probably would have gone to a different line. But were you given
> > that option? Nnnnooooooooooooooooooooooo. Inconsiderate assholes as far
> > as I'm concerned, and I would have told them so in no uncertain terms.
> > Not that they would have cared. So many people are all about "me, me, me
> > and the hell with everyone else" that it's really sad.
>
>
> Yep...they are inconsiderate jerks. I put them in the same category as the
> pigs who will go through produce, say broccoli or portabellas, and take off
> the stems, then go get their items weighed (and in this case the pigs are
> not wasting our time, but they are driving prices up for everybody, it's the
> same as stealing)...

For the longest time the Shaw's would sell whole broccoli and crowns for
the same price per pound. Now there's a twenty cent difference.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.
>

I think there are two issues here. First, there is a question of morality
and then a question of "law." It is possible for things to be legal and
immoral, and moral but not legal. As I see it, a line is a way to fairly
allocate resources. It allows the grocery store to check people out on a
first-come, first serve basis. Line are the great equalizers, making all
people equal. There is a basic understanding that no reservations are
accepted for the service. The fact that the store makes no attempt to
enforce the contract means that there is no "law." In other words, the fact
that people violate the understanding without consequence, means that it is
technically acceptable.

That said, I think it is immoral to hold a place. Place holding assumes
that the holder is more important and more entitled than others. Line
holding uses resources that rightfully belong to others. Line holding steals
time from others. I think the morality is clearer if you change the context
a bit. Instead of the line at the grocery, let's say it is the restroom.
If you go to the store with a friend and mention that you eventfully want to
visit the restroom, would it be OK for the friend to sit in a stall so it
would be ready at your convenience? I think not. If you mention that you
would like to read a particular book, would it be OK for a friend to
immediately go to the library and check-out the book so you could read it in
the future?

Vox Humana wrote:

> I think there are two issues here. First, there is a question of morality
> and then a question of "law." It is possible for things to be legal and
> immoral, and moral but not legal. As I see it, a line is a way to fairly
> allocate resources. It allows the grocery store to check people out on a
> first-come, first serve basis. Line are the great equalizers, making all
> people equal. There is a basic understanding that no reservations are
> accepted for the service. The fact that the store makes no attempt to
> enforce the contract means that there is no "law." In other words, the fact
> that people violate the understanding without consequence, means that it is
> technically acceptable.

I have no problem with people waiting in line with their stuff while someone
goes back to get something they forgot. I sure wouldn't appreciate them holding
a place. I know what it's like to be in a busy coffee shop and wait in line for
service, and then have people come in behind me and one of them goes and grabs
the last table.

> That said, I think it is immoral to hold a place. Place holding assumes
> that the holder is more important and more entitled than others. Line
> holding uses resources that rightfully belong to others. Line holding steals
> time from others. I think the morality is clearer if you change the context
> a bit. Instead of the line at the grocery, let's say it is the restroom.
> If you go to the store with a friend and mention that you eventfully want to
> visit the restroom, would it be OK for the friend to sit in a stall so it
> would be ready at your convenience? I think not. If you mention that you
> would like to read a particular book, would it be OK for a friend to
> immediately go to the library and check-out the book so you could read it in
> the future?

I don't see a problem with a friend borrowing a book for someone. They are doing
it on their card and therefore assuming responsibility for the book and its safe
return. Our library generally has a 7 day period and a reserve system. Books
cannot be renewed if they have been reserved, and overdue fines are higher for 7
day books. But if the book is just sitting in the shelf and no one else is
reading it there is no problem.

My wife has a friend is is notorious for borrowing borrowing things and not
returning them, or looking after them. She borrowed by tree pole loppers last
summer with a promise to return them "soon". I started pestering her to return
it in the winter. Finally in May I told her to get it back to me because I
needed it. It turned out that she had never got around to using it, and she had
left it outside all winter. She ended up buying me a new one. This same woman
borrowed a book from my wife. This book was part of her book club deal where
each person buys a book, reads it and then passes it on to the next person on
the list. My wife had finished the book early and agreed to loan it to her
friend, telling her that she had to have it back by the end of the month in
order to pass it on. It was almost three weeks late. It's pretty hard to
explain to a member of the club that don't have the book for her because you
loaned it to someone outside of the club.

This same woman cam by last week wanting to know if we had any good books she
could borrow. I told her that most of the good books I get are borrowed from
the library. She told me that she can't borrow from the library because she owes
it too much money for overdue fines and lost <?> books. Then she proceeded to
tell me that when she borrows a good book she gets possessive and wants to keep
it. And she wanted me to loan her books?? Fat chance.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Vox Humana wrote:
>
> I have no problem with people waiting in line with their stuff while
someone
> goes back to get something they forgot. I sure wouldn't appreciate them
holding
> a place. I know what it's like to be in a busy coffee shop and wait in
line for
> service, and then have people come in behind me and one of them goes and
grabs
> the last table.

I agree, as long as they don't hold up the line. I also don't think is
right for people to occupy scarce tables when they aren't eating.


>
> I don't see a problem with a friend borrowing a book for someone. They are
doing
> it on their card and therefore assuming responsibility for the book and
its safe
> return.

Even if they are just holding onto the book in case their friend might want
to read it? That takes the book out of circuation on speculation.

In article >,
"Vox Humana" > wrote:

> I think there are two issues here. First, there is a question of morality
> and then a question of "law." It is possible for things to be legal and
> immoral, and moral but not legal.

I think there are three divisions: illegal, immoral, and discourteous.
It's more likely for something to be both immoral and illegal than it is
discourteous and illegal. For example, in many US states, adultery is
illegal. Even in jurisdictions in which it's not illegal, most people
would probably agree that it's immoral. Discourteous acts are the most
common, but the question of what acts are immoral is probably the most
divisive. I suppose the difference (in my mind) between immoral and
discourteous is partly a matter of degree.


> That said, I think it is immoral to hold a place. Place holding assumes
> that the holder is more important and more entitled than others.

And I would say it's discourteous: it shows disrespect for others,
whereas to be immoral (in my view) would need to also inspire a
heightened outrage in the average person.

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

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

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Vox Humana" > wrote:
>
> > I think there are two issues here. First, there is a question of
morality
> > and then a question of "law." It is possible for things to be legal and
> > immoral, and moral but not legal.
>
> I think there are three divisions: illegal, immoral, and discourteous.
> It's more likely for something to be both immoral and illegal than it is
> discourteous and illegal. For example, in many US states, adultery is
> illegal. Even in jurisdictions in which it's not illegal, most people
> would probably agree that it's immoral. Discourteous acts are the most
> common, but the question of what acts are immoral is probably the most
> divisive. I suppose the difference (in my mind) between immoral and
> discourteous is partly a matter of degree.
>
>
> > That said, I think it is immoral to hold a place. Place holding assumes
> > that the holder is more important and more entitled than others.
>
> And I would say it's discourteous: it shows disrespect for others,
> whereas to be immoral (in my view) would need to also inspire a
> heightened outrage in the average person.

It's an interesting topic. I don't think that immorality requires outrage.
And conversely, sometimes people are outraged at things that are not
immoral.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...

> This same woman cam by last week wanting to know if we had any good books
> she
> could borrow. I told her that most of the good books I get are borrowed
> from
> the library. She told me that she can't borrow from the library because
> she owes
> it too much money for overdue fines and lost <?> books. Then she proceeded
> to
> tell me that when she borrows a good book she gets possessive and wants
> to keep
> it. And she wanted me to loan her books?? Fat chance.

How very strange! I'd stay away from her. I have a friend who would borrow
books,
almost reference type books, by the time she *evenually* got around to
returning it,
it would look as if it's been rattling around the back of her station wagon
for months.
Grrr, that really bugs me. I must say, the few things I've lent to anyone
in this group
have been returned in pristine condition.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:

>
> > the library. She told me that she can't borrow from the library because she
> owes
> > it too much money for overdue fines and lost <?> books. Then she proceeded
> > to tell me that when she borrows a good book she gets possessive and wants
> > to keep it. And she wanted me to loan her books?? Fat chance.
>
> How very strange! I'd stay away from her. I have a friend who would borrow
> books, almost reference type books, by the time she *evenually* got around to
> returning it, it would look as if it's been rattling around the back of her
> station wagon
> for months. Grrr, that really bugs me. I must say, the few things I've lent
> to anyone
> in this group have been returned in pristine condition.

Believe me. I avoid her. People like her make number display worthwhile. She is
a friend of my wife, not my friend. She was lucky when she called two weeks ago
to ask if she could borrow a car to get to work. Neither of her two cars would
start. We were in the midst of a heck of a snow storm and I wasn't planning on
going anywhere. We needed both cars in the morning because my wife goes to
church and I go to my riding lesson. My wife made arrangements to go and get her
and to be dropped off at the house, and then her friend came back here at
midnight to drop off the car and get a ride back home. She called the next day
to ask to borrow the car again, and again two days later. Bad luck for her that
she got me instead of my wife because I said no.

Now she is bad mouthing the mechanic I recommend last summer when her car
battery went dead. She had to get a new battery and was also told that she
needed an alternator. She blames him for the poor battery and doesn't understand
that they don't recharge if the alternator isn't working. She won't come up with
the money for a new one. I realize that she probably can't afford it, but we
have two cars because we live in the country and there is no public transit. I
don't pay to maintain two vehicles so that I can provide her with the means to
get to work.

Vox Humana wrote:

>
> > I don't see a problem with a friend borrowing a book for someone. They are
> doing
> > it on their card and therefore assuming responsibility for the book and
> its safe
> > return.
>
> Even if they are just holding onto the book in case their friend might want
> to read it? That takes the book out of circuation on speculation.

That was not the impression I got from what you wrote. I thought you meant the
person got the book out because the friend wanted to read if, not that they
might want to read it. If it turned out that they didn't want to read it you
could always return it. Personally, I would not do it. If I saw it in the
library I would tell the friend that it is available. I have paid the library
enough late fines on my own and am not a strong believer on borrowing anything
on behalf of someone else.

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.

I agree. I guess I don't mind too much if they are already
in line with the full cart and one of them runs back to
get something they forgot. But I would sure raise a ruckus
is someone pulled on me what they pulled on you.
Kate

--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Vox Humana wrote:
>
> >
> > > I don't see a problem with a friend borrowing a book for someone. They
are
> > doing
> > > it on their card and therefore assuming responsibility for the book
and
> > its safe
> > > return.
> >
> > Even if they are just holding onto the book in case their friend might
want
> > to read it? That takes the book out of circuation on speculation.
>
> That was not the impression I got from what you wrote. I thought you meant
the
> person got the book out because the friend wanted to read if, not that
they
> might want to read it. If it turned out that they didn't want to read it
you
> could always return it. Personally, I would not do it. If I saw it in the
> library I would tell the friend that it is available. I have paid the
library
> enough late fines on my own and am not a strong believer on borrowing
anything
> on behalf of someone else.

Perhaps I wan't clear. Here is what I wrote:
"If you mention that you
would like to read a particular book, would it be OK for a friend to
immediately go to the library and check-out the book so you could read it in
the future?"

It wasn't that you would be doing something on behalf of your friend. I
would have no problem is someone simply went to the supermarket, shopped,
waited in line, and paid for items on behalf of someone else. The problem
comes when the components of the job are split and delegated to others so
the shopping and check-out are done simultaneously.

In article >,
"Vox Humana" > wrote:

> It's an interesting topic. I don't think that immorality requires outrage.
> And conversely, sometimes people are outraged at things that are not
> immoral.

Well, it was certainly a personal POV.

OTOH, I think the above situations often occur as a result of a skewing
of priorities. Often, immorality is not accompanied by outrage as a
result of complacency (i.e., we're used to the act). I view adultery as
outrageous and immoral not because of any Ten Commandments thing, but
because I think it's an extreme breach of a very personal trust. And
people often get outraged by things that don't deserve it. Cutting the
line? Rude. Cause for outrage? No. Then again, people who are rude often
become outraged when you *point out* that you're rude--i.e., what will
often happen if you point out to someone that they're on the ten items
or fewer line with 30 items.

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

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

Scott at lid wrote on 1/24/05 2:42 PM:

> In article >,
> "Vox Humana" > wrote:
>
>> I think there are two issues here. First, there is a question of morality
>> and then a question of "law." It is possible for things to be legal and
>> immoral, and moral but not legal.
>
> I think there are three divisions: illegal, immoral, and discourteous.
> It's more likely for something to be both immoral and illegal than it is
> discourteous and illegal. For example, in many US states, adultery is
> illegal. Even in jurisdictions in which it's not illegal, most people
> would probably agree that it's immoral. Discourteous acts are the most
> common, but the question of what acts are immoral is probably the most
> divisive. I suppose the difference (in my mind) between immoral and
> discourteous is partly a matter of degree.
>
>
>> That said, I think it is immoral to hold a place. Place holding assumes
>> that the holder is more important and more entitled than others.
>
> And I would say it's discourteous: it shows disrespect for others,
> whereas to be immoral (in my view) would need to also inspire a
> heightened outrage in the average person.

That's exactly what I was getting at when I said "sure, it's rude and
inconsiderate, but is it really wrong?"

I agree, place holding in line is "just" discourteous.

Immoral is much bigger than that.
-Removing the parts of produce you aren't going to use before you weigh them
at the checkout counter.
-Using the self-checkout lane and punching a code for something that costs
99 cents per pound for an item that costs $2.99 per pound. (this is illegal,
too)
-"forgetting" to put that large item you placed on the bottom of the cart
on the belt to be rung up. (also stealing)
-Eating or drinking something before you get to the checkout stand, even
though you scan the empty container. (not stealing, b/c you're paying for it
after the fact)
-Eating half the grapes before you get to the checkout stand.

"Scott" > wrote in message

>
> Often, immorality is not accompanied by outrage as a
> result of complacency (i.e., we're used to the act).


I can agree wiht that.

>. And
> people often get outraged by things that don't deserve it. Cutting the
> line? Rude. Cause for outrage? No. Then again, people who are rude often
> become outraged when you *point out* that you're rude--i.e., what will
> often happen if you point out to someone that they're on the ten items
> or fewer line with 30 items.

What do you do then? Become complacent and say nothing? IMO, if the rude
person gets away with it they will continue being rude. If people open
their mouths and voice their opinion, maybe the rude person will be
reluctant to pull the same stunt again.

If the customer in front of me is a frail 90 year old person and it takes he
a few minutes longer to get the money out, load the cart, I'll give them all
the time they needs. I'm willing to assist with heavy packages if needed.
But the 30 item person should wait like everyone else.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Often, immorality is not accompanied by outrage as a
>>result of complacency (i.e., we're used to the act).
>
>
>
> I can agree wiht that.
>
> >. And
>
>>people often get outraged by things that don't deserve it. Cutting the
>>line? Rude. Cause for outrage? No. Then again, people who are rude often
>>become outraged when you *point out* that you're rude--i.e., what will
>>often happen if you point out to someone that they're on the ten items
>>or fewer line with 30 items.
>
>
> What do you do then? Become complacent and say nothing? IMO, if the rude
> person gets away with it they will continue being rude. If people open
> their mouths and voice their opinion, maybe the rude person will be
> reluctant to pull the same stunt again.
>
> If the customer in front of me is a frail 90 year old person and it takes he
> a few minutes longer to get the money out, load the cart, I'll give them all
> the time they needs. I'm willing to assist with heavy packages if needed.
> But the 30 item person should wait like everyone else.
>
>

Agreed. The elderly or folks that are impeded in someway I don't say
anything to for the most part. But able folks I'll voice my displeasure.
They probably won't care and will continue to think that they're better
and more deserving than everyone else but ya never know. If just one
starts to actually think about their actions vs. just being "better"
than everyone else it may help.



--
Steve

Ever wonder about those people who spend $2.00 apiece on those little
bottles of Evian water? Try spelling Evian backwards...

In article > ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> What do you do then? Become complacent and say nothing? IMO, if the rude
> person gets away with it they will continue being rude. If people open
> their mouths and voice their opinion, maybe the rude person will be
> reluctant to pull the same stunt again.

But there's a difference between becoming outraged and opening your
mouth to say something. In a way (I think), becoming outraged at mere
rudeness is sort of its own incivility. If the person ahead of me has 25
items on a 12 items or few line, I'll say something--but I won't froth
at the mouth over it. I think I get better results if I approach the
issue as if they've made an oversight, like they didn't see the express
aisle sign. Sometimes giving them a face-saving way out better resolves
the issue.


> If the customer in front of me is a frail 90 year old person and it takes he
> a few minutes longer to get the money out, load the cart, I'll give them all
> the time they needs. I'm willing to assist with heavy packages if needed.
> But the 30 item person should wait like everyone else.

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.

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

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

In article >,
Sheryl Rosen > wrote:

> That's exactly what I was getting at when I said "sure, it's rude and
> inconsiderate, but is it really wrong?"
>
> I agree, place holding in line is "just" discourteous.

As you say below, immoral is bigger than discourteous, but they're still
both wrong.


> Immoral is much bigger than that.
> -Removing the parts of produce you aren't going to use before you weigh them
> at the checkout counter.
> -Using the self-checkout lane and punching a code for something that costs
> 99 cents per pound for an item that costs $2.99 per pound. (this is illegal,
> too)
> -"forgetting" to put that large item you placed on the bottom of the cart
> on the belt to be rung up. (also stealing)
> -Eating or drinking something before you get to the checkout stand, even
> though you scan the empty container. (not stealing, b/c you're paying for it
> after the fact)
> -Eating half the grapes before you get to the checkout stand.

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?

Items 2, 3, and 5 (self-checkout, "forgetting" about the large item, or
eating the grapes before you check out and not paying what you ate) are
simply theft, and are both illegal and immoral. But what's morally wrong
with eating or drinking something and then paying for it?

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

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