This is winterene's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following winterene's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
winterene
Recent Activity
As I read more of his entries, I continue to see the value. I actually do wish I could do the same thing, on a global scale, but it is virtual impossible. Even if I had the money, I wouldn't be able to have a life that included other activities if I spent that much time inside Starbucks. Also, I prefer third wave coffee.
Having been a Starbucks customer since 1995, I've seen and continue to see plenty of waste, but that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the idea of encouraging customers to consume LESS, not MORE, even if it decreases profits.
Unless a customer is buying a Trenta in order to split with a friend, this size is offensive to the idea of limiting consumption in order to preserve the environments. Americans are horrible overconsumers, and Starbucks should not be encouraging this behaviour.
It's funny that you go through the trouble of posting a definition, which clearly states "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices", and then you proceed to address the second part of that definition even though it's obvious to you, me, and anybody reading this that I am not referring to racial bigotry. Yes, you should walk away, simply because you have demonstrated no intention of trying to expand your viewpoint. You merely say, "he's a creep; I don't want to meet him" without even trying to probe more deeply. Why do you think he's a creep? Is he really the person portrayed in the article, or is that an act? What is it about your personal past that biases you against his behaviour. There is no end to the ways in which you, me, and others could learn from this example, but you don't seem interested. So sad.
Both of you are exhibiting massive thoughtfail. I am not being judgemental. I am judging one specific action of Waltie's (and people like him), the decision to label MrPeePee a creep and not want to meet him, as being prejudiced, judgemental, and bigoted. Allow me to quote myself: > You're just being judgemental, > prejudiced, and bigoted. Forget what I said about not being a "decent" person--that was too vague. I take it back. But my other statement stands. Note that I'm not making broader judgements about you or Waltie. I'm saying that these specific actions that you are taking are judgemental, bigoted, and prejudiced. Judging an action and judging a person are not the same thing.
> But, yeah, he's a creep. The same thing has been said about homosexuals simply for being homosexuals. Somewhere I guarantee you there is somebody seeing a picture of some man kissing another and thinking "those guys are creeps". You're just being judgemental, prejudiced, and bigoted. But hey, prove me wrong. Go to New York and try and get on that Glory Hole Podcast next to this Mr. PeePee character and engage him in polite conversation. If he turns out to be a creep, I will be the first to say you were right.
Waltie, I didn't say "bad". I said "decent", which I will admit is vague. So let me be more specific. Not wanting to meet this person makes you prejudiced, a bigot. You disagree with his actions, so you don't want to meet him, just like somebody who disagrees with homosexuality, or stripping, or sex outside of marriage, or any of the many hang-ups that exist about sexual behaviour. A "fair" person would speak to the man for at least a few minutes and give him a chance to act like a polite, social person. If he acts like a jerk, well then you would be perfectly justified in walking away. But until you have *given him a chance*, you are being prejudiced.
It is sad that so many people are crazy judgemental about things that are completely benign. Sex is not harmful or shameful, and neither is masturbation. Is this guy's goal weird? Hellz yeah, but weird makes life interesting. Those people who say they wouldn't want to meet him should be ashamed of themselves for being so judgemental and prejudiced. You should NEVER EVER judge a person based on what you read or hear online. Unless you have reason to fear that the person will physically harm you, you should always TALK TO THE PERSON and give him a chance to demonstrate that he either is a decent guy or is not. For all you know, this is just a brilliant piece of performance art. Have you ever heard of Karen Finley? http://www.artinterviews.com/Karen.html I've seen her perform by pouring honey on the floor, getting naked, and rolling around in it, to a packed room. What did it mean? I don't know, but I don't judge her as gross or as not being a decent person. Let me repeat this in no uncertain terms--if you would refuse to have coffee with this guy and talk to him, then YOU are NOT a DECENT person. In fact, if I didn't think that it would jeopardize my goal to drink coffee from every Starbucks in the world (10,700+, 30+ countries, and counting), I'd like to one-up this guy with video and more detailed documentation, because I'll put my credentials as an ethical global citizen up against anybody's any day, and I'd like to prove that one can undertake wacky activities and be a "decent" person at the same time.
@Mike--thanks, but http://mobile.starbucks.com is out of date--it lists stores that have long since closed. @Waltie--I would have to call every single store (7000+) periodically. That's not feasible. @CD--It might be possible to figure out how to get the app, but I don't know Java (or JavaScript) well enough right now. Clearly the data must exist in order for the browser to display it in my window, but I haven't figured out where it is yet.
Maybe somebody reading this can help me. At some point during the summer, Starbucks changed the store locator on their site to use some kind of Java script. Since the change, I have not been able to figure out an easy and automated way to determine which stores have closed. I used to be able to run code to download the list and compare it against my database to see which stores were not longer listed, but I have not figured out a way to do this with their new locator. I'm sure dozens of stores have closed since the summer, and my website and list (starbuckseverywhere.net and starbuckseverywhere.net/ClosedStores.htm) are getting more and more out of date. If anybody has insight on how to fix this problem, or knows of store closures since the summer, I'd appreciate it.
I changed it in my profile--did it work?
No, I just work computer programming contracts and save up my money for travel. Anybody know how I can get my TypePad name to display as just "Winter" so people will stop referring to me as "Winter Winter".
No, I can't blame them for making wise decisions about expansion. And I'm not saying that whatever they end up doing (these are just rumours) will be a bad decision. I am saying that it's too soon, and that they ought to chill for a while longer before tackling expansion again. But hey, that's just my opinion, in part motivated by my personal goals and fears of losing more stores. I'm certainly not an analyst.
@#$%^&!!! Starbucks needs to chill the @#$%^&! out! They screwed up with overexpansion and had to go through the Great Starbucks Implosion of 2008/2009. If they start buying up companies, I predict they are going to end up closing a lot of those in the future. Last thing I need is a bunch of Peet's locations being converted to Starbucks and then closing a few months later before I have a chance to visit. Every time this happens (a store closing before I can visit), it's like a sharp spear stabbing me right in the heart. JUST CHILL THE @#%%^&^ OUT WITH THE GROWTH STARBUCKS!!!
Christinschu, where is the new store? I want to make sure it is on my list to visit. Thanks!
Is Starbucks going to forget its mistakes and start overbuilding again? http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/cambridge/2010/09/starbucks_aiming_for_the_heart.html I'm concerned because this store is so close to two others. The final line of the article is particularly disturbing: > “We think there is plenty of business > to go around in the neighborhood,” > Krum said. That's exactly the type of thinking that (combined with the recession) let to the Great Starbucks Implosion of 08/09.
> Maybe Starbucks should fire AT&T for > not having proper filters up. BOO!!! Boo on this sentiment. Starbucks and AT&T should not advertise that they are offering free wi-fi and then try to dictate what customers can do with the wi-fi, so long as that activity is LEGAL. Yes, AT&T can choose to block/censor, but they are going to piss a lot of customers off who are going to find a different wi-fi network that respects liberty. And let me reiterate, I'm talking about LEGAL activity.
> I've received a cease-and-desist > regarding my participation in this > discussion from Starbucks' legal > department This makes me angry at Starbucks, but perhaps there is something I fail to understand. Can somebody explain on what basis Starbucks' legal department has any standing to interfere with first amendment rights. I will assume that Xan is not legally required to comply, but chooses to do so on advise of his attorney. But it still pisses me off that Starbucks would even ask. Messing with freedom of speech is just evil. I used to be a huge fan of Starbucks, but every time I turn around they are doing something evil.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I should point out that I did get an answer from them about the photography policy, an e-mail which I printed out and carry around for the next time I'm harassed.
> I personally would like to hear > Starbuck's reasoning on why this is a > fireable offense. Yeah, good luck with that. My experience has been that Starbucks cares more about secrecy and protecting itself than about being honest and forthcoming. I have zero expectation of getting an honest answer from Starbucks on anything but the most trivial, non-controversial issues.
> It seems like a police visit is bad > publicity. Xan, I'm suspicious of Starbucks' judgement and inclined to accept that you were not fired fairly. I think many people will support you on this. However, I think you need to own up and accept that you made a poor decision by not calling the police. You might have been well-intentioned, and you might have been trying to avoid trouble, but even well-intentioned people make mistakes. A lot of harm is allowed to continue to happen because people don't call the police. And I say this as a person who HATES the police and would like to see many of them (LEGALLY, ON ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) SHOT IN THE BACK OF HEAD. I (no arrests, no criminal record) have been harassed over and over by police, and I certainly don't want them anywhere near me. However, as a taxpayer they work for you, and it is their job to deal with scumbags who would surf porn in public and then threaten you physically. You don't know that this guy might not be violent and might not go somewhere and threaten somebody else. He needs a serious talking-to from the police. There are many sides to this story, but I don't think you are going to be able to justify your decision not to call the police.
Melody, you know you hold a warm place in my heart, but I must disagree with you about this "terms of use" thing. I'm not at Starbucks right now and don't have the terms of use in front of me, but I would be livid if they included anything about what type of *LEGAL* content I was allowed to download. If I am downloading porn to watch later, or in the bathroom, and it is not visible on the screen, AT&T Wi-Fi has no business telling me what I can or cannot download. That is a horribly offensive notion, from the perspective of freedom of expression and civil liberties.
I appreciate that Xan has clarified what happened, but I still disagree with turning off the wi-fi. Once he asked the customers to leave and they did not comply, Xan was within his rights to call the police. And when that customer threatened him with physical violence, that was a crime, period. Xan should have called the police, because that customer needed to be arrested and charged with assault. Threatening physical violence is unacceptable. By turning off the wi-fi so the customer would leave, Xan might have inadvertently been allowing the problem to migrate to a different store.
I think there is more to this than Starbucks will disclose, and I certainly don't trust them to make wise decisions, but I don't see how it can be questioned that Xan acted in appropriately. I would like to see Xan come on here at answer the questions--did he ask the customers to leave? If not, why not? Did he threaten to call the police? If not, why not? Did he call the police? If not, why not? I would say it is certainly within the right of any business to ask a customer to leave if he plops down and starts watching ponr or opens up a nudie magazine. To turn off the wi-fi is unacceptable. Many people rely on this wi-fi for legitimate business reasons. What if I had been taking a test as part of a job interview? What if I had been conducting a job interview via Skype? What if I had been engaged in a video conference with a client? However, I think that Xan should explain why he did what he did, and why he did not take all the other options that were available to him, starting with asking the customers to leave.
I have a question for baristas. What is the latest you have been told regarding confronting people who are OUTSIDE THE STORE, OFF STORE PROPERTY, and taking photographs of the store. Remember, I mean OUTSIDE THE STORE, OFF STORE PROPERTY. Have any e-mails come down recently? Anything in the manuals about this? Oh, one more thing--I really mean OUTSIDE THE STORE, OFF STORE PROPERTY!