sam chalmersSoon to come
September 27th 2010 02:51
Still waiting on our report on the safests rub and tugs in sydney, also coming soon, how to stop yourself getting ripped off by taxi drivers.
| 116 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
World Youth Day!
July 3rd 2008 00:45
Sydney-siders face 'unreasonable interference' during World Youth Day
Pope Benedict will arrive in Sydney amid tight security. (Reuters, file photo: Erin Siegal)
Draconian, repugnant and unnecessary. These are just a few of the criticisms of special regulations coming into force for the upcoming Catholic World Youth Day event in Sydney.
Civil libertarians and legal experts say the regulations could see situations such as someone deemed to be wearing an offensive T-shirt being arrested and given a hefty fine.
New South Wales Police say the measures are designed simply to ensure that World Youth Day is a peaceful and happy event.
The event runs from July 15 to July 20, but from today until the end of the month the regulations come into force.
Under the regime SES and Rural Fire Service volunteers will assist police in bag checks at World Youth Day locations.
And anyone deemed to be causing annoyance could be arrested and fined up to $5,500.
New South Wales deputy police commissioner Dave Owens says the regulations do not restrict democratic rights.
"If people wish to lawfully protest, we will facilitate those protests as long as they are law abiding," he said.
"Police officers always maintain a discretion, and I expect them to use that discretion."
There have been suggestions that people could be arrested if they wear a T-shirt that promotes the use of condoms. Mr Owens refused to rule that out.
"There are individual circumstances that will have to be dealt with individually," he said.
'Repugnant'
President of the New South Wales Bar Association Anna Katzmann says she does not understand why the regulations have been brought in.
"They are repugnant for two reasons," she said.
"First of all the Government has by-passed the normal parliamentary scrutiny that would be available if they were introduced by an Act of Parliament," she said.
"Secondly they are an unreasonable interference with people's freedom of speech and movement."
She says there is a chance people could be arrested for trivial offences in the areas that have been declared as special World Youth Day zones.
"These World Youth Day-declared areas are numerous and they encompass places like Sydney University and the Opera House. Places that you and I would travel to regularly, not just churches or church schools," she said.
New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy says he is opposed to the proposed measures.
"A police officer may find someone's T-shirt annoying and on that basis issue them with a fine," he said.
"That sort of thing is likely to escalate any problems that occur rather than prevent them."
The Greens have joined civil libertarians and the Bar Association in calling for the regulations to be cancelled.
Based on an AM report by Barbara Miller.
Pope Benedict will arrive in Sydney amid tight security. (Reuters, file photo: Erin Siegal)
Draconian, repugnant and unnecessary. These are just a few of the criticisms of special regulations coming into force for the upcoming Catholic World Youth Day event in Sydney.
Civil libertarians and legal experts say the regulations could see situations such as someone deemed to be wearing an offensive T-shirt being arrested and given a hefty fine.
New South Wales Police say the measures are designed simply to ensure that World Youth Day is a peaceful and happy event.
The event runs from July 15 to July 20, but from today until the end of the month the regulations come into force.
Under the regime SES and Rural Fire Service volunteers will assist police in bag checks at World Youth Day locations.
And anyone deemed to be causing annoyance could be arrested and fined up to $5,500.
New South Wales deputy police commissioner Dave Owens says the regulations do not restrict democratic rights.
"If people wish to lawfully protest, we will facilitate those protests as long as they are law abiding," he said.
"Police officers always maintain a discretion, and I expect them to use that discretion."
There have been suggestions that people could be arrested if they wear a T-shirt that promotes the use of condoms. Mr Owens refused to rule that out.
"There are individual circumstances that will have to be dealt with individually," he said.
'Repugnant'
President of the New South Wales Bar Association Anna Katzmann says she does not understand why the regulations have been brought in.
"They are repugnant for two reasons," she said.
"First of all the Government has by-passed the normal parliamentary scrutiny that would be available if they were introduced by an Act of Parliament," she said.
"Secondly they are an unreasonable interference with people's freedom of speech and movement."
She says there is a chance people could be arrested for trivial offences in the areas that have been declared as special World Youth Day zones.
"These World Youth Day-declared areas are numerous and they encompass places like Sydney University and the Opera House. Places that you and I would travel to regularly, not just churches or church schools," she said.
New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy says he is opposed to the proposed measures.
"A police officer may find someone's T-shirt annoying and on that basis issue them with a fine," he said.
"That sort of thing is likely to escalate any problems that occur rather than prevent them."
The Greens have joined civil libertarians and the Bar Association in calling for the regulations to be cancelled.
Based on an AM report by Barbara Miller.
| 119 |
| Vote |
Comments (4)[ Link ]
Posted By: Troy McNaughton - Category: Rants, Chai, Paraphernalia, Inner West, CBD, North Shore, North West, West, South, Miscellany, Food
Oxford Street--What Happened?
January 23rd 2008 01:46
What happened to Oxford Street?
Recently, the Sydney Morning Herald published the conclusions of a report lamenting the decline of Oxford Street. The report, commissioned by the City of Sydney, found that crime, alcohol-fuelled violence and gay-bashings are discouraging large sections of the public from visiting.
I’m not out late enough to be worried by any of the area’s crime. Sadly, lots of things discourage me from visiting even during the day. Things like:
• Beggars. The same sorry individuals eternally whining for your spare change after they’ve blown their dole money on booze and drugs. ‘Scuuuuuuuuse me……’
• Straight Male Wankers. Groups of open-shirted, gold-chained young men, intent on an evening of clubbing. Frequently pumped up on drugs, they stride down Oxford Street radiating angry, bristly machismo, ready to fistfight anyone who mistakenly assumes they’re gay. By the end of the evening, they’ll be too smashed to score the pussy that they came in search of. They will spend Monday morning at the used car yard where they work bragging about how much they vomited.
• Straight Female Wankers. Chattering nervously and wearing skimpy clothes even if they’re fat, these Paris Hilton wanna-bes can be spotted shrieking into their mobile phones and attempting to text message with their horrid fake fingernails. They will spend Monday tittering with their fellow shop assistants about the Straight Male Wankers who stared at their boobs/grabbed their arse/vomited on their designer handbag.
• Bad takeaway. Clubbers seeking sustenance at 3 a.m. after a boozy night tend not to be terribly choosy. Shrewd owners of fast-food outlets realise this, and start serving inferior-quality food. Anyway, the Straight Wanker crowd doesn’t have sophisticated food preferences even when they’re sober.
The report wistfully concluded that Oxford Street had ‘lost its mojo’. I agree. A more precise diagnosis might be that Oxford Street has become a victim of its own success. Oxford Street became known as a place that was edgy and interesting. Straight Wankers who want to be interesting, and think that being interesting is something that can be bought, began frequenting Oxford Street. Landlords, finding that it is more profitable to rent to high-volume businesses, raise rents. Small, unique businesses like The Pop Shop are forced out. Tawdry clubs flourish.
I still like Oxford Street. There aren’t many other places in Sydney where you can
do your weekly grocery shop at 11:00 pm. But I regret the passing of places like The Albury Hotel, which I first visited on a blistering summer day in 1994. My then-boyfriend, a Manly native who rarely ventured south of the Bridge, took us in for a beer, not realising it was a gay venue. The pretty bartender handed my boyfriend his change, then squeezed his hand and winked suggestively.
My boyfriend and I had a laugh. We realised that were out of place, but knew we were welcome. My boyfriend wasn’t offended by the gay pass. The gay bartender wasn’t annoyed that a straight couple came into a gay business. Could a similar scenario happen now? I don’t think so, and it makes me sad.
Recently, the Sydney Morning Herald published the conclusions of a report lamenting the decline of Oxford Street. The report, commissioned by the City of Sydney, found that crime, alcohol-fuelled violence and gay-bashings are discouraging large sections of the public from visiting.
I’m not out late enough to be worried by any of the area’s crime. Sadly, lots of things discourage me from visiting even during the day. Things like:
• Beggars. The same sorry individuals eternally whining for your spare change after they’ve blown their dole money on booze and drugs. ‘Scuuuuuuuuse me……’
• Straight Male Wankers. Groups of open-shirted, gold-chained young men, intent on an evening of clubbing. Frequently pumped up on drugs, they stride down Oxford Street radiating angry, bristly machismo, ready to fistfight anyone who mistakenly assumes they’re gay. By the end of the evening, they’ll be too smashed to score the pussy that they came in search of. They will spend Monday morning at the used car yard where they work bragging about how much they vomited.
• Straight Female Wankers. Chattering nervously and wearing skimpy clothes even if they’re fat, these Paris Hilton wanna-bes can be spotted shrieking into their mobile phones and attempting to text message with their horrid fake fingernails. They will spend Monday tittering with their fellow shop assistants about the Straight Male Wankers who stared at their boobs/grabbed their arse/vomited on their designer handbag.
• Bad takeaway. Clubbers seeking sustenance at 3 a.m. after a boozy night tend not to be terribly choosy. Shrewd owners of fast-food outlets realise this, and start serving inferior-quality food. Anyway, the Straight Wanker crowd doesn’t have sophisticated food preferences even when they’re sober.
The report wistfully concluded that Oxford Street had ‘lost its mojo’. I agree. A more precise diagnosis might be that Oxford Street has become a victim of its own success. Oxford Street became known as a place that was edgy and interesting. Straight Wankers who want to be interesting, and think that being interesting is something that can be bought, began frequenting Oxford Street. Landlords, finding that it is more profitable to rent to high-volume businesses, raise rents. Small, unique businesses like The Pop Shop are forced out. Tawdry clubs flourish.
I still like Oxford Street. There aren’t many other places in Sydney where you can
do your weekly grocery shop at 11:00 pm. But I regret the passing of places like The Albury Hotel, which I first visited on a blistering summer day in 1994. My then-boyfriend, a Manly native who rarely ventured south of the Bridge, took us in for a beer, not realising it was a gay venue. The pretty bartender handed my boyfriend his change, then squeezed his hand and winked suggestively.
My boyfriend and I had a laugh. We realised that were out of place, but knew we were welcome. My boyfriend wasn’t offended by the gay pass. The gay bartender wasn’t annoyed that a straight couple came into a gay business. Could a similar scenario happen now? I don’t think so, and it makes me sad.
| 117 |
| Vote |
[ Link ]
Posted By: Mitchell Hooter - Category: Rants
Surry Hills - the language of trend
August 10th 2006 06:45
Surry Hills, somewhere between Newtown and the Eastern suburbs. Close enough to Oxford St to be full of people of particular persuasion, far enough from the CBD to be without suits and cigarettes.
So the rumour mill was pumping with the exciting speculation that somewhere in Surry Hills, there was a shit little boutique store with $35 dresses. So Miss E and I went to investigate.
After being bolstered by a spot of cafe review research, (soon to appear), we headed down to some shop that will remain nameless (because we don't remember the name). This is partly due to the fact that, in true "we live upstairs" fashion, the owner seemed to be ironing his dresses in the middle of the shop, but, more to the point, was releasing his wares in unmarked paper bags; and partly due to the fact that there is an endemic trend in Surry Hills which the public should be aware of.
My Girl Guides history has taught me to be prepared, so I impart this advice from our recent excursion:
Take your reading glasses.
Cafes, restaurants, pubs, galleries, shops in Surry Hills all have illegibly miniature (often scrawled in some kind of artsy script) names.
Take Cafe Mint for example, which has fading green writing (about 5cm high) on a rough wood panel with not so much as a hanging sign of a sandwich board to announce the presence.
But Surry Hills relies on word of mouth, and the foodie community, to ensure lines out the door: because as we all know, the least known is the most trendy.
Surry Hills is officially too good for advertising, or even publishing any kind of recognisable name that you could use for directions or organising meeting places. If you're not a local, they'd rather you didn't know they were there. And they've managed to seal the place up from access by train, reliable buses, or cars you can park (or ferries or planes).
So what's the moral of the story, kids?
Bring along a local guide who knows the language, has a private driver, will shout you lunch, and knows that the shitty place with plastic chairs and a plastic sign in Chinese is, actually, Billy Kwong's! (Where entry after 6pm means you have to give your mobile phone number to the "bouncer", who may or may not call you, if you are lucky and look trendy enough.)
So wear your belt too high over several layers of retro clothes that would be ugly out of context and take a trip down Crown Street - stay tuned for a look inside one of those unpretentiously pretentious cafes.
So the rumour mill was pumping with the exciting speculation that somewhere in Surry Hills, there was a shit little boutique store with $35 dresses. So Miss E and I went to investigate.
After being bolstered by a spot of cafe review research, (soon to appear), we headed down to some shop that will remain nameless (because we don't remember the name). This is partly due to the fact that, in true "we live upstairs" fashion, the owner seemed to be ironing his dresses in the middle of the shop, but, more to the point, was releasing his wares in unmarked paper bags; and partly due to the fact that there is an endemic trend in Surry Hills which the public should be aware of.
My Girl Guides history has taught me to be prepared, so I impart this advice from our recent excursion:
Take your reading glasses.
Cafes, restaurants, pubs, galleries, shops in Surry Hills all have illegibly miniature (often scrawled in some kind of artsy script) names.
Take Cafe Mint for example, which has fading green writing (about 5cm high) on a rough wood panel with not so much as a hanging sign of a sandwich board to announce the presence.
But Surry Hills relies on word of mouth, and the foodie community, to ensure lines out the door: because as we all know, the least known is the most trendy.
Surry Hills is officially too good for advertising, or even publishing any kind of recognisable name that you could use for directions or organising meeting places. If you're not a local, they'd rather you didn't know they were there. And they've managed to seal the place up from access by train, reliable buses, or cars you can park (or ferries or planes).
So what's the moral of the story, kids?
Bring along a local guide who knows the language, has a private driver, will shout you lunch, and knows that the shitty place with plastic chairs and a plastic sign in Chinese is, actually, Billy Kwong's! (Where entry after 6pm means you have to give your mobile phone number to the "bouncer", who may or may not call you, if you are lucky and look trendy enough.)
So wear your belt too high over several layers of retro clothes that would be ugly out of context and take a trip down Crown Street - stay tuned for a look inside one of those unpretentiously pretentious cafes.
| 141 |
| Vote |
Beef of the Day..............gratis
July 9th 2006 18:35
What is worse than skim or soy milk that doesn’t get a mention on the menu and is therefore free?
Paying extra for skim or soy milk.
What is worse than paying extra for skim or soy milk?
The lack of an extra fee for skim or soy milk featuring as a separate item on the menu.
Who are these menu writers? Forget all the typos and spelling mistakes and formatting issues; forget the sticky menus, the 20 year old menus, the illegible menus.
There is nothing more annoying than being made to feel indebted or grateful by being informed that you are getting something for free that you should be getting free anyway.
It’s like “free gift” – a tautology if ever I heard one, or “free sauce”. When did tomato sauce become a 20c money spinner?
If I see another “Skim or soy milk………………gratis” I will scream. Or more likely I will do my best impression of a somewhat well-known Munch painting and make a terrible face while emitting no sound at all. Maybe I’ll shave my hair off too.
If it’s free, don’t mention it. Not even “no extra charge”. We are not going to tip you more in irrepressible gratitude at your generosity in giving us reheated, poorly foamed milk from the fly-infested, milk-encrusted jug next to the full cream one.
Or alternatively, at least have some consistency. Why not list other “gratis” items too? (and how wanky to be using Latin on a café menu – puhlease, most people just know if there isn’t a number there it probably doesn’t cost anything)
“Serviettes de la papier………………. gratis”
“Implements de la mange (knife and fork only)……………… gratis”
“Service no smile.…………………….gratis”
“Service with a smile…………………….how much have you got?”
No, we punters can’t be fooled. We know when we’re getting something for nothing, and we love it, we appreciate it, we wallow in it. Be it a marshmallow, a tiny teddy, or a double expresso shot for no extra cost – we treasure it and it keeps us warm on those long, lonely, winter nights.
Gratify me, and then you will have cause to write “gratis”.
No. Not now.
I’ll tell you when.
Paying extra for skim or soy milk.
What is worse than paying extra for skim or soy milk?
The lack of an extra fee for skim or soy milk featuring as a separate item on the menu.
Who are these menu writers? Forget all the typos and spelling mistakes and formatting issues; forget the sticky menus, the 20 year old menus, the illegible menus.
There is nothing more annoying than being made to feel indebted or grateful by being informed that you are getting something for free that you should be getting free anyway.
It’s like “free gift” – a tautology if ever I heard one, or “free sauce”. When did tomato sauce become a 20c money spinner?
If I see another “Skim or soy milk………………gratis” I will scream. Or more likely I will do my best impression of a somewhat well-known Munch painting and make a terrible face while emitting no sound at all. Maybe I’ll shave my hair off too.
If it’s free, don’t mention it. Not even “no extra charge”. We are not going to tip you more in irrepressible gratitude at your generosity in giving us reheated, poorly foamed milk from the fly-infested, milk-encrusted jug next to the full cream one.
Or alternatively, at least have some consistency. Why not list other “gratis” items too? (and how wanky to be using Latin on a café menu – puhlease, most people just know if there isn’t a number there it probably doesn’t cost anything)
“Serviettes de la papier………………. gratis”
“Implements de la mange (knife and fork only)……………… gratis”
“Service no smile.…………………….gratis”
“Service with a smile…………………….how much have you got?”
No, we punters can’t be fooled. We know when we’re getting something for nothing, and we love it, we appreciate it, we wallow in it. Be it a marshmallow, a tiny teddy, or a double expresso shot for no extra cost – we treasure it and it keeps us warm on those long, lonely, winter nights.
Gratify me, and then you will have cause to write “gratis”.
No. Not now.
I’ll tell you when.
Skinny cows eat less - so where's the discount on the milk???
| 65 |
| Vote |
Mystery of the week: Unlicensed happy hours
July 6th 2006 18:23
I understand Happy Hour. It’s one of two times: when there would otherwise be nobody at the venue and you don’t expect to be overrun by people wanting cheap drinks either, or when you’re trying to snag people before they choose somewhere else to settle down in for the night.
A good example of the latter is Kuletos, King Street, Newtown and its double happy hour on Thursday nights. There’s an early and a late shift, and by the time you’ve been to the first, you can’t be bothered to go far, so you go grab some Thai for dinner and by the time you’re ready to drink again, wha-hey! It’s the second happy hour! Two-for-one cocktails – why would anyone go anywhere else?
So happy hours are about a) getting people to choose your venue, b) getting people to stay at your venue and c) getting people to buy more of whatever you’re selling.
Therefore, logically, why hasn’t McDonalds co-opted “happy hour” as “McHappy McHour” at, say, 11am or 4am, when they should theoretically reap the same benefits as pubs and bars?
The answer?
Because they won’t reap those benefits.
a) People go to McDonalds because it’s convenient, it’s the only thing open, it’s the only thing they can afford, or they have a craving. And people who don’t go to McDonalds won’t go there for cheaper Maccas.
b) Nobody is going to hang around and eat more at a take-away joint.
c) You might be able to drink all night, but you certainly can’t eat Maccas all night unless you’re a hardcore documentarian doing some seriously dedicated research.
So given this comparison, why would take-away coffee places in the CBD suddenly be jumping on the happy hour bandwagon?
I’ve seen at least three. One was at 1pm. One was at 3pm. Both for an hour, offering discounted coffees. Let’s address the benefits again:
a) People go to their favourite café where the baristas know what they like, or they go to the place closest to where they are. Fifty cents’ difference for a specified timeslot in the day is not going to be much of a drawcard if you work in the CBD.
b) It’s a take-away place!
c) It might be addictive, but you’re not going to buy 4 coffees and line them all up just because they’re a little bit cheaper. More coffees are not going to make your coworkers look more attractive in the afternoon. More coffees are not going to make you forget your hellish afternoon. More coffees are not going to decrease your inhibitions (if anything all that nervous tension and hyperawareness will probably increase them) or make you relax.
Coffee is a social drink, for sure, but it’s never going to replace the role of alcohol as a social lubricant. Talking to someone you don’t like or are not interested by only gets harder with an increased number of coffees with them (over time) – the opposite is the case with alcohol.
Café happy hours – or worse, coffee vendor happy hours – are not going to catch on, for the simple reason that they achieve nothing from a business or a social perspective.
Very innovative, guys, but you’re going to have to try harder than that to snare the suited savvy Sipper in the City.
* Photo by Nik Frey
So happy hours are about a) getting people to choose your venue, b) getting people to stay at your venue and c) getting people to buy more of whatever you’re selling.
Therefore, logically, why hasn’t McDonalds co-opted “happy hour” as “McHappy McHour” at, say, 11am or 4am, when they should theoretically reap the same benefits as pubs and bars?
The answer?
Because they won’t reap those benefits.
a) People go to McDonalds because it’s convenient, it’s the only thing open, it’s the only thing they can afford, or they have a craving. And people who don’t go to McDonalds won’t go there for cheaper Maccas.
b) Nobody is going to hang around and eat more at a take-away joint.
c) You might be able to drink all night, but you certainly can’t eat Maccas all night unless you’re a hardcore documentarian doing some seriously dedicated research.
So given this comparison, why would take-away coffee places in the CBD suddenly be jumping on the happy hour bandwagon?
I’ve seen at least three. One was at 1pm. One was at 3pm. Both for an hour, offering discounted coffees. Let’s address the benefits again:
a) People go to their favourite café where the baristas know what they like, or they go to the place closest to where they are. Fifty cents’ difference for a specified timeslot in the day is not going to be much of a drawcard if you work in the CBD.
b) It’s a take-away place!
c) It might be addictive, but you’re not going to buy 4 coffees and line them all up just because they’re a little bit cheaper. More coffees are not going to make your coworkers look more attractive in the afternoon. More coffees are not going to make you forget your hellish afternoon. More coffees are not going to decrease your inhibitions (if anything all that nervous tension and hyperawareness will probably increase them) or make you relax.
Coffee is a social drink, for sure, but it’s never going to replace the role of alcohol as a social lubricant. Talking to someone you don’t like or are not interested by only gets harder with an increased number of coffees with them (over time) – the opposite is the case with alcohol.
Café happy hours – or worse, coffee vendor happy hours – are not going to catch on, for the simple reason that they achieve nothing from a business or a social perspective.
Very innovative, guys, but you’re going to have to try harder than that to snare the suited savvy Sipper in the City.
* Photo by Nik Frey
| 66 |
| Vote |
Addendum to Tipping Etiquette
June 9th 2006 03:13
Revisiting yesterday’s post on tipping etiquette, I was chatting to my father about the issue and discovered another option for giving feedback for bad service.
If you really want to get the message across – and particularly if you look like a young, poor student who wouldn’t tip anyway – don’t just not leave a tip. Leave five cents.
The rationale is this: you make it clear that you considered giving them a tip – you didn’t forget, you’re not too stingy, and you realised the etiquette would be to leave one.
But you decided against giving them anything substantial because they were rubbish. Oh how actions may speak louder than words!
It’s a matter for you whether you think they’re worth your precious five cents!
Two scenarios that have also been raised as potential crises of tipping conscience:
SCENARIO A: The friend who throws all the change, some or all of which was yours, into the tipping kitty without your consent.
It's widely understood that tipping in Australia is a personal choice. Hell, it's a lifestyle choice. Do you have spare change? Are you going to need that dollar for your weekly loaf of bread? Do you care whether the wait staff like you? Do you believe they get paid too little? Do you want the world to be a better place?
This means that one should never tip on another's behalf. This is RUDE. They should always offer your change back to you, leaving it to your discretion whether you say "Don't worry about it" or you put it in the jar on your way out or you pocket it.
The other person has the right to guilt you into tipping, coerce you even, but they're not allowed to tip your money for you!
What is the appropriate response? No, you can't tell them off (they will think you're pathetic and petty and stingy). No, you can't raid the tip jar for your money (the wait staff will chase you away thinking what your friend was thinking but also considering laying charges).
No, the only remedy is this: Always bring exact change when you're out with said presumptuous friend!
SCENARIO B: The friend who lets you pay (including the tip) and then pays you back (ignoring the tip).
This is a product of common tenet that tipping is a personal choice. The question of etiquette lies not in whether they pay half the tip, but rather whether they would have tipped if you did not.
It is at your discretion to tip, and you can't EXPECT someone else to pay half.
But if they were going to tip anyway, they ought to share some of that responsibility by either adding their own tip at the time or taking the opportunity to pay half (or at least a contribution) when they pay you back.
Now we have to wonder, "What are a few dollars between friends?" (feeling a bit Carrie Bradshaw today....!)
Remedy? Don't tip any more than you would if you were there by yourself. Don't tip on your friend's behalf. If they consider your tip to be too little, they will have to bring it up, which makes them liable for half. Hurrah!
Stay tuned for more etiquette posts on "Who pays?" questions for the cafe-goer. Meantime, may your coffees be hot and your cafes cool.
PS. Note to my non-registered readers: now you can POST A COMMENT without having to register! It can be anonymous or with a nickname or your own name, but it's fast and easy. Just click on "Comments" under this post! Sometimes your opinions just shouldn't stay under that bushel...
If you really want to get the message across – and particularly if you look like a young, poor student who wouldn’t tip anyway – don’t just not leave a tip. Leave five cents.
The rationale is this: you make it clear that you considered giving them a tip – you didn’t forget, you’re not too stingy, and you realised the etiquette would be to leave one.
But you decided against giving them anything substantial because they were rubbish. Oh how actions may speak louder than words!
It’s a matter for you whether you think they’re worth your precious five cents!
Two scenarios that have also been raised as potential crises of tipping conscience:
SCENARIO A: The friend who throws all the change, some or all of which was yours, into the tipping kitty without your consent.
It's widely understood that tipping in Australia is a personal choice. Hell, it's a lifestyle choice. Do you have spare change? Are you going to need that dollar for your weekly loaf of bread? Do you care whether the wait staff like you? Do you believe they get paid too little? Do you want the world to be a better place?
This means that one should never tip on another's behalf. This is RUDE. They should always offer your change back to you, leaving it to your discretion whether you say "Don't worry about it" or you put it in the jar on your way out or you pocket it.
The other person has the right to guilt you into tipping, coerce you even, but they're not allowed to tip your money for you!
What is the appropriate response? No, you can't tell them off (they will think you're pathetic and petty and stingy). No, you can't raid the tip jar for your money (the wait staff will chase you away thinking what your friend was thinking but also considering laying charges).
No, the only remedy is this: Always bring exact change when you're out with said presumptuous friend!
SCENARIO B: The friend who lets you pay (including the tip) and then pays you back (ignoring the tip).
This is a product of common tenet that tipping is a personal choice. The question of etiquette lies not in whether they pay half the tip, but rather whether they would have tipped if you did not.
It is at your discretion to tip, and you can't EXPECT someone else to pay half.
But if they were going to tip anyway, they ought to share some of that responsibility by either adding their own tip at the time or taking the opportunity to pay half (or at least a contribution) when they pay you back.
Now we have to wonder, "What are a few dollars between friends?" (feeling a bit Carrie Bradshaw today....!)
Remedy? Don't tip any more than you would if you were there by yourself. Don't tip on your friend's behalf. If they consider your tip to be too little, they will have to bring it up, which makes them liable for half. Hurrah!
Stay tuned for more etiquette posts on "Who pays?" questions for the cafe-goer. Meantime, may your coffees be hot and your cafes cool.
PS. Note to my non-registered readers: now you can POST A COMMENT without having to register! It can be anonymous or with a nickname or your own name, but it's fast and easy. Just click on "Comments" under this post! Sometimes your opinions just shouldn't stay under that bushel...
| 84 |
| Vote |
Here's a tip: Tipping Etiquette
June 7th 2006 18:10
As much as I’d like to enlighten you all on the etiquette of tipping one’s hat – not least of which because hats are one of the greatest victims of modern fashion – current trends in greeting and acknowledgement would be lucky to have you look up from your mobile phone. At least you can still tip the tip jar / plate / glass of coloured water / cutesy receptacle at your café of choice.
But should you? Do you need to? Is it expected? Will they spit in your coffee next time if you don’t tip?
Firstly, I’d like to dispel the myth that we in Australia are a tipping society. Until very recently we had fairly decent minimum wage laws, and the effect of the new industrial relations reforms has not been felt yet. So let us proceed with a tentatively optimistic assumption that minimum awards will be maintained at a reasonable level in the future.
Minimum wages for café staff are at least stopping your average barista from limboing under the poverty line. It’s hard to limbo when you’re hungry. Unlike America, our service industry professionals do not rely on tips to make a decent living, and of course this means that the cost of employing staff is built into the cost of the service to the customer. We already have a service charge built into any bill – all things being equal, you are not obliged or required to tip.
There are several exceptions to this rule, however. Tipping is used in Australia not as bread and butter sustenance for workers but as a feedback system.
You should start from a presumption of tipping when:
a) There is a big group of you – especially if you’ve been noisy or the café is busy.
b) You have been there a long time and ordered a lot.
c) You have been there a long time and ordered very little – 4 hours on one coffee for example.
d) You have been impressed with the food.
e) You have been impressed with the staff/service.
f) You have been a pain in the ass and made special requests of tricky menu adjustments or complicated coffee preferences and they've accommodated you.
g) You have broken anything.
h) It’s your local and you can reap benefits from a healthy café/patron relationship.
i) It’s a family run café – often family members work for peanuts; they bend the award wages rules.
j) You’re on a date with someone you want to think well of you – it shows generosity and a lack of materialism.
k) You rushed them because you were in a hurry and they stepped up to the challenge.
This presumption can of course be overridden and you can reasonably forget about tipping when:
a) The food was bad, or especially if the food was overpriced.
b) The staff/service was bad or just ordinary.
c) Any staff were rude to you or it took you forever to get their attention, particularly to get the bill.
d) You felt pressured to leave as soon as you’d finished.
e) They asked you to accommodate them – by moving tables etc.
f) They had run out of whatever you wanted from the menu.
g) You’re never going to see them again and you’re feeling frugal that week.
h) University cafes – you know it’s a cushy job, they’re ridiculously well paid and they KNOW they get students for customers. And they’re hardly ever any good at customer service.
i) There is any kind of Sunday/public holiday surcharge. Or they tried to overcharge you.
j) It’s a self-serve kinda café.
k) You bring in a lot of business by taking all your friends there.
Finally, how much to tip is always a hard decision. At a good restaurant you would expect to tip 10% of the total bill. The rules are different in your more informal dining/coffeeing situation.
If you’re feeling on the neutral side of satisfied with your time at the café, silver coinage, particularly your change from paying, will do nicely.
If they’ve managed to fulfil one or more of the positive criteria above, you’re feeling generous and content, gold coins will be appropriate. Only large groups need ever tip note values.
I know it’s hard. I know it’s stressful. But in the end, it’s a service industry and every business venture should be working hard for your hard-earned. Balance this with the common sense of rewarding good business practice and voila! You have your answer. Follow these simple rules and you’ll never feel embarrassed, conflicted, confused or stingy ever again!
But should you? Do you need to? Is it expected? Will they spit in your coffee next time if you don’t tip?
Firstly, I’d like to dispel the myth that we in Australia are a tipping society. Until very recently we had fairly decent minimum wage laws, and the effect of the new industrial relations reforms has not been felt yet. So let us proceed with a tentatively optimistic assumption that minimum awards will be maintained at a reasonable level in the future.
There are several exceptions to this rule, however. Tipping is used in Australia not as bread and butter sustenance for workers but as a feedback system.
You should start from a presumption of tipping when:
a) There is a big group of you – especially if you’ve been noisy or the café is busy.
b) You have been there a long time and ordered a lot.
c) You have been there a long time and ordered very little – 4 hours on one coffee for example.
d) You have been impressed with the food.
e) You have been impressed with the staff/service.
f) You have been a pain in the ass and made special requests of tricky menu adjustments or complicated coffee preferences and they've accommodated you.
g) You have broken anything.
h) It’s your local and you can reap benefits from a healthy café/patron relationship.
i) It’s a family run café – often family members work for peanuts; they bend the award wages rules.
j) You’re on a date with someone you want to think well of you – it shows generosity and a lack of materialism.
k) You rushed them because you were in a hurry and they stepped up to the challenge.
This presumption can of course be overridden and you can reasonably forget about tipping when:
a) The food was bad, or especially if the food was overpriced.
b) The staff/service was bad or just ordinary.
c) Any staff were rude to you or it took you forever to get their attention, particularly to get the bill.
d) You felt pressured to leave as soon as you’d finished.
e) They asked you to accommodate them – by moving tables etc.
f) They had run out of whatever you wanted from the menu.
g) You’re never going to see them again and you’re feeling frugal that week.
h) University cafes – you know it’s a cushy job, they’re ridiculously well paid and they KNOW they get students for customers. And they’re hardly ever any good at customer service.
i) There is any kind of Sunday/public holiday surcharge. Or they tried to overcharge you.
j) It’s a self-serve kinda café.
k) You bring in a lot of business by taking all your friends there.
Wikipic
If you’re feeling on the neutral side of satisfied with your time at the café, silver coinage, particularly your change from paying, will do nicely.
If they’ve managed to fulfil one or more of the positive criteria above, you’re feeling generous and content, gold coins will be appropriate. Only large groups need ever tip note values.
I know it’s hard. I know it’s stressful. But in the end, it’s a service industry and every business venture should be working hard for your hard-earned. Balance this with the common sense of rewarding good business practice and voila! You have your answer. Follow these simple rules and you’ll never feel embarrassed, conflicted, confused or stingy ever again!
| 91 |
| Vote |
Yet more proof that coffee chains are EVIL
May 9th 2006 02:49
This is gold, Jerry, gold.
Not that. That was site full of Seinfeld scripts. I mean, it's gold, but it's not the gold of the moment.
It's beautiful in its simplicity, its goofiness, its dark satirical approach to baristas of the chain(ed) variety. It's one of the funniest videos I've seen in a while.
Not that. That was site full of Seinfeld scripts. I mean, it's gold, but it's not the gold of the moment.
It's beautiful in its simplicity, its goofiness, its dark satirical approach to baristas of the chain(ed) variety. It's one of the funniest videos I've seen in a while.
| 74 |
| Vote |
Rantorama - Comedic Currency Index
April 28th 2006 06:34
“Would you like to hear an Offensive Joke?”
“Um… will I be offended?”
“No, it’s just an Offensive Joke.”
Welcome to the post-shock, post-political-correctness (P-PC) era.
Apoplexies at the inappropriate are no longer considered legitimate: feminism, racial hypersensitivity and censorship are passé.
To call such spectres back into the ‘modern world’ is worse than living in the past, it’s (gasp) lacking a sense of humour.
If you’re in mixed company, “I’m about to say something Offensive now” acts like a disclaimer, an SBS warning that nudity is about to appear, and that anyone who hasn’t changed the channel will be responsible for the consequences. Mostly, however, it works as well as, “Don’t look, I’m changing,” which always draws its own attention.
In the arena of amateur comedy in the Australian comedic tradition, whatever subject matter was once considered offensive, be it racially discriminatory, sexist, at the expense of the disabled or based on killing babies, has now been filed neatly under the category of “Offensive Jokes”.
As long as you read the label, loudly and clearly, it seems you are now welcome to open the Tupperware container and disseminate at will.
(NB: If you’re looking for one, they are stacked for easy access on the internet among the stamp collecting and fetish sites. Some even come with guarantees to offend.)
Offensive Jokes have not ceased to be offensive just because we call them by their proper name, and yet intelligent, educated, liberal-minded, progressive people have given themselves an outlet for their political correctness: propagating jokes they claim not personally to condone.
Perhaps it is the logical next step: humour has always been a status symbol in our culture, and like swear words, we need to keep pushing the boundaries of offence to up the effects in the face of an ever-increasing tolerance.
But at the same time, rules are tightening their grip. Hungary was considering banning blonde jokes; Britain’s comedians have been campaigning against a bill for a seven-year jail term for inciting religious hatred, which they claim will stifle humour.
Rowan Atkinson remarked, "It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended… The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness - and the other represents oppression."
(Australian comedians are too Australia to get up in arms about sedition laws.)
You can’t publish this new breed of jokes except amidst the anarchy of the internet. Through censorship and anti-discrimination laws, company and institutional policies, it has become almost exclusively an oral tradition. Although John Brodgen was crucified for his ‘mail-order bride’ quips in public, it’s unlikely they would have raised an eyebrow if he weren’t speaking in an official capacity in public.
Prison welfare activists successfully pressured 7-Up a few years ago into removing an advertisement rolling out the old soap-dropping gag, but these and women’s groups will have a harder time dealing with the private Offensive Joke sessions with their innocuous pleas to interrupt or at least greet with a stony silence the assorted rape jokes that always seem to feature when race jokes have been exhausted.
On the flip side, one female commentator noted that if feminists want to politicise rape, then to censor jokes about rape is to violate our freedom of political speech. It’s an interesting argument.
But when did we lose sight of the legitimate reasons these jokes were set aside as taboo in the first place? Why is it that by acknowledging the nature of the joke, the teller is granted immunity from reproach?
Humour in the past has been successfully used to dismantle prejudices and undercut intimidation tactics and attacks; it is now being used as an impenetrable force field protecting un-PC ideas from reasonable criticism.
It is potentially more subversive and more insidious, because it steals the wind from the sails of any dissenter, and so we find ourselves laughing at jokes we know are inappropriate, not knowing how else to respond. Even worse, we are being slowly desensitised to serious issues, which, no matter the intentions of the joke-teller, are inevitably trivialised as punch lines.
If you’ve never been to an (unofficial, amateur) Offensive Joke Convention, interestingly, it is rarely the funniest than win the most kudos – better to be downright unfunny and incredibly offensive at the same time.
The same goes for Offensive T-shirt slogans, an industry in itself – the more pointlessly offensive, the better. You know who I mean.
Wilful offensiveness is very hard to criticise on a level of content.
I’m not drawing lines in the sand but I think it’s worth remembering that, like the universe, black humour has its limits out there somewhere. Even the Sydney Law Revue stopped short of Holocaust jokes.
Laughter is collusion. Silence is complicity.
Offensive Jokes: just say ‘No’… or I’ll tell you the worst dead baby joke I’ve ever heard.
“Um… will I be offended?”
“No, it’s just an Offensive Joke.”
Welcome to the post-shock, post-political-correctness (P-PC) era.
Apoplexies at the inappropriate are no longer considered legitimate: feminism, racial hypersensitivity and censorship are passé.
To call such spectres back into the ‘modern world’ is worse than living in the past, it’s (gasp) lacking a sense of humour.
In the arena of amateur comedy in the Australian comedic tradition, whatever subject matter was once considered offensive, be it racially discriminatory, sexist, at the expense of the disabled or based on killing babies, has now been filed neatly under the category of “Offensive Jokes”.
As long as you read the label, loudly and clearly, it seems you are now welcome to open the Tupperware container and disseminate at will.
(NB: If you’re looking for one, they are stacked for easy access on the internet among the stamp collecting and fetish sites. Some even come with guarantees to offend.)
Offensive Jokes have not ceased to be offensive just because we call them by their proper name, and yet intelligent, educated, liberal-minded, progressive people have given themselves an outlet for their political correctness: propagating jokes they claim not personally to condone.
Perhaps it is the logical next step: humour has always been a status symbol in our culture, and like swear words, we need to keep pushing the boundaries of offence to up the effects in the face of an ever-increasing tolerance.
But at the same time, rules are tightening their grip. Hungary was considering banning blonde jokes; Britain’s comedians have been campaigning against a bill for a seven-year jail term for inciting religious hatred, which they claim will stifle humour.
(Australian comedians are too Australia to get up in arms about sedition laws.)
You can’t publish this new breed of jokes except amidst the anarchy of the internet. Through censorship and anti-discrimination laws, company and institutional policies, it has become almost exclusively an oral tradition. Although John Brodgen was crucified for his ‘mail-order bride’ quips in public, it’s unlikely they would have raised an eyebrow if he weren’t speaking in an official capacity in public.
Prison welfare activists successfully pressured 7-Up a few years ago into removing an advertisement rolling out the old soap-dropping gag, but these and women’s groups will have a harder time dealing with the private Offensive Joke sessions with their innocuous pleas to interrupt or at least greet with a stony silence the assorted rape jokes that always seem to feature when race jokes have been exhausted.
On the flip side, one female commentator noted that if feminists want to politicise rape, then to censor jokes about rape is to violate our freedom of political speech. It’s an interesting argument.
Humour in the past has been successfully used to dismantle prejudices and undercut intimidation tactics and attacks; it is now being used as an impenetrable force field protecting un-PC ideas from reasonable criticism.
It is potentially more subversive and more insidious, because it steals the wind from the sails of any dissenter, and so we find ourselves laughing at jokes we know are inappropriate, not knowing how else to respond. Even worse, we are being slowly desensitised to serious issues, which, no matter the intentions of the joke-teller, are inevitably trivialised as punch lines.
If you’ve never been to an (unofficial, amateur) Offensive Joke Convention, interestingly, it is rarely the funniest than win the most kudos – better to be downright unfunny and incredibly offensive at the same time.
The same goes for Offensive T-shirt slogans, an industry in itself – the more pointlessly offensive, the better. You know who I mean.
Wilful offensiveness is very hard to criticise on a level of content.
I’m not drawing lines in the sand but I think it’s worth remembering that, like the universe, black humour has its limits out there somewhere. Even the Sydney Law Revue stopped short of Holocaust jokes.
Laughter is collusion. Silence is complicity.
Offensive Jokes: just say ‘No’… or I’ll tell you the worst dead baby joke I’ve ever heard.
| 89 |
| Vote |
Starbucks crosses the line (again!)
April 8th 2006 04:43
from Wikipedia
A friend of mine has informed me that on his trip to China this year, he was ASTOUNDED to see that Starbucks has even made its presence felt in the Forbidden City in Beijing.
WRONG! It's akin to a McDonalds in Vatican City in Italy or a Krispy Kreme in Ouzzane, Morocco.
Talk about ruining the mystique...
| 84 |
| Vote |
Top Coffee Gripes
April 4th 2006 00:19
Let's have one more whinge before I hit you with another review of a favourite Sydney nook (or cranny). We've all got pet peeves and not all of them are monopolised by Starbucks, so let's compile, compare and contrast, and generally share the spleen around.
AMY'S TOP FIVE
1. Nobody likes cold foam - a product of letting the milk jug sit there until someone wants a coffee - WRONG.
Punishment: lick the crusty burnt milk off the outside of the jug.
2. Tiny weeny coffee cups - unless you're an expresso drinker, for $3 or $3.50 you expect something that will last you more than two sips.
Punishment: Trial by Ikea.
3. Fully refined sugar - it's too strong and it's just too dang white.
Punishment: Buried alive in raw sugar.
4. Too much sediment at the bottom of the cup - clean your coffee machine!!!
Punishment: Eat sand. Mmm crunchy.
5. Burnt, nasty, bitter coffee. There is NEVER any excuse.
Punishment: Banishment to coffee hell - the Land of Decaff, where you still get scalded by overheated milk but never get that buzz you can't learn to live without. Then beheading. By teaspoon.
Please contribute your greatest gripes by commenting below. You do need to be a member, but setup is quick and easy and you needn't start your own blog if you have someone in your life who will listen to this kind of rubbish from you.
Vent that spleen! (I'll clean it up afterwards)
AMY'S TOP FIVE
1. Nobody likes cold foam - a product of letting the milk jug sit there until someone wants a coffee - WRONG.
Punishment: lick the crusty burnt milk off the outside of the jug.
2. Tiny weeny coffee cups - unless you're an expresso drinker, for $3 or $3.50 you expect something that will last you more than two sips.
Punishment: Trial by Ikea.
3. Fully refined sugar - it's too strong and it's just too dang white.
Punishment: Buried alive in raw sugar.
4. Too much sediment at the bottom of the cup - clean your coffee machine!!!
Punishment: Eat sand. Mmm crunchy.
5. Burnt, nasty, bitter coffee. There is NEVER any excuse.
Punishment: Banishment to coffee hell - the Land of Decaff, where you still get scalded by overheated milk but never get that buzz you can't learn to live without. Then beheading. By teaspoon.
Please contribute your greatest gripes by commenting below. You do need to be a member, but setup is quick and easy and you needn't start your own blog if you have someone in your life who will listen to this kind of rubbish from you.
Vent that spleen! (I'll clean it up afterwards)
| 75 |
| Vote |
Starbuckers - the reason for this blog
April 2nd 2006 08:29
I was thinking about having a huge rant today but decided instead to do my homework, and sure enough, there are thousands of people who beat me to it. Their complaints aren't exactly the same as mine, but worth thinking about.
Take yesterday's article, 'Thoroughly Starbucked' for example. It poses the question, "Is Starbucks truly evil?" and seems to come out with ambiguity (which blows my mind). It deals with the economical and cultural side of things - globalisation and whatnot - although my favourite part was the comment at the bottom with the startling insight from "Stuart" that you could walk to a Starbucks in New York, York or Beijing and "You could shut your eyes in one and not been able to tell where in the world you were."
Knock me down with a feather. I think the only place in the world I could identify blindfolded is my bedroom, and that's just because it has such a special smell.
But to return from this orbit around cyber stupidity, Starbucks is evil for the following reasons:
1) They started the insidious, infectious, inaccurate rumour that a cappuccino is two thirds milk and one third foam, depriving us all of one third of the drink (just as icing is not the cake itself, so too is the foam merely decoration atop a good cappuccino).
2) They overcharge for basic human necessities* – it’s tantamount to profiteering in times of war. Alternatively if you don’t like that analogy I have another: they exploit people’s weaknesses like drug traffickers and tobacco companies… But that stuff’ll kill you so probably it should be overpriced. Who’s been vilifying coffee?
3) “Regular” strength coffee (cf. what is “normal” anyway?) is like drinking dirty dishwater with half a cup of milk in it, but an “extra shot” (like the other half of what you’d get elsewhere for no extra charge) brings out that bitter, burnt, biley taste that makes you remember the golden rule**.
4) They play Christmas carols in November and that makes them twice as bad as the schmucks who play them in December.
5) Despite prices that imply they have huge numbers staff who break their backs serving pampered customers, they don’t believe in cleaning the tables (apparently it’s not in anyone’s two line job description because they’re all just cogs in the corporate machine), not to mention taking orders from the table.
6) No matter how pigeon common your name is, they always write down something different.
7) They want private information like your name because they won’t even pretend they’ll recognise you in thirty seconds because the staff are brainwashed into mindless automatons.
8) Wait two years and their fancy schmancy furniture will be looking tattier than the old faithful down the street because it was cheap to begin with and franchisees don’t pay attention to the fittings, just the bottom line. Well the corporation probably has their private parts in the coffee grinder but someone’s gotta take the fall for this.
So think twice before you follow that friend into the hollow heathen of coffee houses. If they’re English, remember that they only drink tea and they really believe Starbucks is the coffee drinker’s choice. Forgive them their ignorance and remind them that their tea will be EXACTLY the same and about half the price at your average café, while your quality of life will be 100% improved.
They will bow to this logic or you really need to find some smarter friends.
* Frappuccinos are not basic human necessities. They are comfortably categorised as a dessert, and as it happens, I don’t mind paying $5 or $6 for dessert. This is the ONLY exception to the Starbucks boycott.
**NB: The golden rule is of course that if you’re going to opt for strong coffee, always try a single shot at your vendor of choice first. It could mean the difference between an average coffee with half the caffeine and an undrinkable monster with all the caffeine in the world locked away in a nausea-inducing cage. Do yourself a favour.
Starbucks can be found absolutely bloody everywhere in the most sacrilegious locations and saturated with that garish faux-stylish stigmata.
Take yesterday's article, 'Thoroughly Starbucked' for example. It poses the question, "Is Starbucks truly evil?" and seems to come out with ambiguity (which blows my mind). It deals with the economical and cultural side of things - globalisation and whatnot - although my favourite part was the comment at the bottom with the startling insight from "Stuart" that you could walk to a Starbucks in New York, York or Beijing and "You could shut your eyes in one and not been able to tell where in the world you were."
Knock me down with a feather. I think the only place in the world I could identify blindfolded is my bedroom, and that's just because it has such a special smell.
But to return from this orbit around cyber stupidity, Starbucks is evil for the following reasons:
1) They started the insidious, infectious, inaccurate rumour that a cappuccino is two thirds milk and one third foam, depriving us all of one third of the drink (just as icing is not the cake itself, so too is the foam merely decoration atop a good cappuccino).
2) They overcharge for basic human necessities* – it’s tantamount to profiteering in times of war. Alternatively if you don’t like that analogy I have another: they exploit people’s weaknesses like drug traffickers and tobacco companies… But that stuff’ll kill you so probably it should be overpriced. Who’s been vilifying coffee?
4) They play Christmas carols in November and that makes them twice as bad as the schmucks who play them in December.
5) Despite prices that imply they have huge numbers staff who break their backs serving pampered customers, they don’t believe in cleaning the tables (apparently it’s not in anyone’s two line job description because they’re all just cogs in the corporate machine), not to mention taking orders from the table.
6) No matter how pigeon common your name is, they always write down something different.
7) They want private information like your name because they won’t even pretend they’ll recognise you in thirty seconds because the staff are brainwashed into mindless automatons.
8) Wait two years and their fancy schmancy furniture will be looking tattier than the old faithful down the street because it was cheap to begin with and franchisees don’t pay attention to the fittings, just the bottom line. Well the corporation probably has their private parts in the coffee grinder but someone’s gotta take the fall for this.
So think twice before you follow that friend into the hollow heathen of coffee houses. If they’re English, remember that they only drink tea and they really believe Starbucks is the coffee drinker’s choice. Forgive them their ignorance and remind them that their tea will be EXACTLY the same and about half the price at your average café, while your quality of life will be 100% improved.
They will bow to this logic or you really need to find some smarter friends.
* Frappuccinos are not basic human necessities. They are comfortably categorised as a dessert, and as it happens, I don’t mind paying $5 or $6 for dessert. This is the ONLY exception to the Starbucks boycott.
**NB: The golden rule is of course that if you’re going to opt for strong coffee, always try a single shot at your vendor of choice first. It could mean the difference between an average coffee with half the caffeine and an undrinkable monster with all the caffeine in the world locked away in a nausea-inducing cage. Do yourself a favour.
Starbucks can be found absolutely bloody everywhere in the most sacrilegious locations and saturated with that garish faux-stylish stigmata.
| 77 |
| Vote |
sam chalmers's Blogs
Moderated by sam chalmers
