Dear McDonalds,
I don't know what is going on, but it appears that your locations hire people who won't follow simple instructions these days. For the past five or so months, I have gone to four different Chicagoland locations of yours and ordered a specific burger--either a McDouble or a Quarter Pounder, with no pickle or ketchup. I have ordered this at your North Riverside mall location, your Forest Park location, your Little Village location, and especially your northern Humboldt Park location. In all of these locations, they have gotten it wrong. The put the ketchup and/or pickle on anyway. Occasionally, the cashier would put the order in incorrectly (no onion or ketchup), but 95% of the time, the order I received incorrectly had the special order ticket on it with the correct specifications! There was a time, at the aforesaid Humboldt Park location, when I had to send the order back twice, and the third time it still came incorrectly! By this time, I was fed up with the game and demanded a refund. I complained about this specific location to your headquarters, and they called to apologize. You wrote me a letter to apologize, and you gave me a coupon for a free meal. And after all that, this location still could not follow orders! There was a time that I told them my order was "for here," and they bagged my food to go!
At first, I thought it was just this location, but I am noticing more and more of this. If one location is incompetent, there is something wrong with that location, but when four locations cannot get a simple order right, there is something wrong with the company. Please tell me, what is so difficult about NOT putting pickles and ketchup on a burger? And please, don't point out to me that there are immigrants at this location who cannot understand English. Down the street from that Humboldt Park McDonalds is a Burger King--also with immigrants for employees, whose first language is not English, yet when I tell them to hold the pickle and ketchup, they almost always oblige. Sure, they are very slow at completing orders at times, but I don't recall ever having to complain about them getting orders wrong. Besides, the word No is not just an English word; it is Spanish, Italian, Catalan, Galician, and Latin.
Either you are hiring people who cannot or will not read or obey orders, or this is divine intervention to discourage me from eating your food. Whatever the reason, you did not become the world's largest restaurant chain and a household name in several countries by not listening to your customers. Think about it: what if I were allergic to pickles or ketchup and I trusted your location to get my order right, only to find myself in a hospital? Can you spell lawsuit? It is getting to the point where I am losing my appetite for your food. If you care at all for your customers, please look into your restaurants and crack down on locations that don't listen to your customers. If not, there is always Burger King, Wendy's, Culver's, Five Guy's, Jack-in-the-Box, Carl Jr.'s, In-and-out, White Castles...get my point?
Sincerely,
An unsatisfied customer
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Back with the LCMS!
So, my experiment with Grace Lutheran Church, an independent Lutheran church, did not go as well as I thought. Therefore, I have returned to the LCMS.
First, here are the things about Grace that I enjoyed:
a. Eucharist at every service
b. Sprinkling of holy water at special services.
c. Wood carved design of their nave and sanctuary
d. Bach Cantata Vespers once a month (even though I barely went)
e. They recite the Nicene Creed exactly how the Roman Catholics used to recite it before they changed it
f. Most of the congregation was very welcoming
g. They have Stephen Ministry
Second, the reasons why I was not happy enough at Grace to stay are the following:
a. I missed the Anglican-style liturgy commonplace at St. John and other LCMS (Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod) congregations
b. The congregation is so big that I did not always feel needed. Appreciated, yes. Needed, no.
c. While the music directors at St. John, especially Paul Lindblad and Pastor Payton, knew how much my hymns meant to me, they were willing to work with me and even allowed for some of my works to be used in church services. They were just proud that I had such desire, and my efforts were not beneath their education and experience. I had been sending my hymns to Grace for years even before I joined, but none of them were used or even taken seriously.
d. Out of the three pastors at Grace, I only received closeness and warmth from one of them. One, a decent clergyman, was always so busy, and the other one...while she gave good sermons, I felt no love coming from her. Cannot elaborate any more than this...at least not publicly.
e. Grace, while independent, is getting too close to ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America). While the congregation voted against the use of ELCA's corrupted hymnal, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, to placate those who wanted Grace to be independent by politics only, they not only used service settings from ELW from time to time during the summer; they implemented a change in the service regularly. When the pastor says, in the Prologue of the Communion service, "Let us give thanks to the Lord our God," LCMS, WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod), and NALC (North American Lutheran Church) congregations typically say, "It is right to give Him thanks and praise." Grace and ELCA congregations say, "It is right to give OUR thanks and praise." Yes, they made this phrase gender neutral. If the word "Him" offends feminazis and people who don't believe in gender so much, why didn't they just use the Roman Catholic response: "It is right and just," or the old Lutheran response, "It is meet and right so to do?" What were they thinking? The phrase they chose sounds too awkward. When it comes to ELCA, this is only the tip of the iceberg. In their hymnal, they do not even say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since some people find it more important to impose their personal agendas than to preserve the infallacy and superiority of the Holy Scriptures, they instead say Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer. No, sorry, but Jesus said to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and He did not call God his Creator (of course, that would suggest that Jesus was created, which is blasphemy). He called God his Father. Not only this, but many ELCA pastors openly stand for things, and post them online, that are immoral and unbecoming of a pastor, let alone a congregant. One pastor shamelessly posted online, for billions to see, having had worked for Planned Parenthood. That the leaders of ELCA see what their pastors are standing for, out in the open, and not call for an ultimatum to repent or be defrocked, I have lost all respect for ELCA and want nothing to do with them--until they repent. I apologize to friends who belong to ELCA, but this is how I feel. Also, accept for a few occasions, any guest pastors they had came from the Lutheran Theological Seminary of Chicago--an ELCA seminary. If Grace needed a new pastor, they would request one from ELCA. I know the senior pastor wants to keep Grace more "progressive" than LCMS, yet more doctrinally and historically sound than ELCA, yet with the changed climate of ELCA, how can he ascertain this when the only pastors they have considered are ELCA? They would be able to be confident in keeping GRace stuck in the middle, so to speak, if they would consider inviting NALC pastors to speak, work with NALC charities, if they have any yet, and putting Grace on NALC rosters for when they need a new pastor. After all, while the senior pastor is a great man, he will eventually retire like all people, if they are so fortunate, usually do. Then, they will need to look for a new pastor. If they look within ELCA, it is highly probable that the pastor they choose will stand for ungodly things, causing a possible split, driving the more moderate members away, and then Grace would look just like the stereotypical ELCA church.
f. Whenever I went to Bible study, they began right on the button, and when they started the lesson, they shut the door. It was very embarrassing to open the door and walk in, gaining everyone's attention, even though I was only 30 seconds late. At St. John, the door to the Bible study room is typically left open so than anyone could saunter in unnoticed.
The bottom line: as much as I wanted it to be, and as much as many of the people there wanted it to be for me, Grace just was not my home. I tried to be involved, within reason, but it just did not feel the same.
In closing, I am going to quote something from Dietrich Bonhoeffer that I learned the hard way:
"One who wants more than what Christ has established does not want Christian brotherhood…. Innumerable times a whole Christian community has broken down because it had sprung from a wish dream…. But God's grace speedily shatters such dreams. Just as surely as God desires to lead us to a knowledge of genuine Christian fellowship, so surely must we be overwhelmed by a great disillusionment with others, with Christians in general, and, if we are fortunate, with ourselves. By sheer grace, God will not permit us to live even for a brief period in a dream world…. He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial."
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Letter to Cheerios/General Mills
[To whom this may concern:]
I don't eat cereal, except for good old-fashioned oatmeal, but after seeing your commercial with the cute mulatto girl and "interracial couple," I kind of wish I ate cereal because I would eat Cheerios every day. I am of mixed blood--even though most people only see the black in me, and I am about to marry a beautiful woman of European decent. We both don't really believe in the concept of race. I have openly stood against affirmative action, and my study of biology has led me to conclude that our skin color, facial features, and hair texture were only of use in helping us adapt to our respective environments. In fact, I also believe that every one in America will look Native American in 1000 years. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with us. There was an occasion when my fiancee and I were having dinner at a pub, and a group of women stared at us like aliens. I even worry about our safety if we ever visit relatives who live in the South. By you creating this commercial, you have done a great service for all mixed couples and families, and I thank you for that.
God bless[.]
Here is the commercial that caused the uproar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYofm5d5Xdw&feature=share
I don't eat cereal, except for good old-fashioned oatmeal, but after seeing your commercial with the cute mulatto girl and "interracial couple," I kind of wish I ate cereal because I would eat Cheerios every day. I am of mixed blood--even though most people only see the black in me, and I am about to marry a beautiful woman of European decent. We both don't really believe in the concept of race. I have openly stood against affirmative action, and my study of biology has led me to conclude that our skin color, facial features, and hair texture were only of use in helping us adapt to our respective environments. In fact, I also believe that every one in America will look Native American in 1000 years. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with us. There was an occasion when my fiancee and I were having dinner at a pub, and a group of women stared at us like aliens. I even worry about our safety if we ever visit relatives who live in the South. By you creating this commercial, you have done a great service for all mixed couples and families, and I thank you for that.
God bless[.]
Here is the commercial that caused the uproar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYofm5d5Xdw&feature=share
Friday, April 5, 2013
When Discipline Goes Too Far
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=113_1364727665
Take a look at the video in the link above. Here, you will see a father beating his two daughters with a wire cable (or 'stention cord) after he caught them "twerking" on Facebook. You will see many definitions of twerking on Urban Dictionary, but it bascially means dancing in a sexually-suggestive manner. While the father no doubt felt disgraced by his daughters' public behavior, he may have felt that by beating them, he was saving them from teen pregnancy, prostitution, rape, and death. The mother, reportedly, disagreed and had the father arrested.
When one looks at videos such as this, there are often two polar responses. First, there are those of upper or middle classes, usually of European or East Asian descent--and mostly likely of younger generations--who are shocked and dismayed by this. They say, "How brutal! How evil of the father! Lock him up and throw away the key! He should have talked to the children!"
Then there would be those who saw the video who sided with the father. These are usually those who are Southern, working-or-lower-class individuals, typically Afro-Americans. They will say, "Those girls got what they deserved, and only a father who cares would give it to them. If only we had more of such old-school punishment; we would see less crime. Besides, no one has the right to tell a parent how to raise their children." Some of the same parents take it a step further by saying, "To punish a Black parent for whipping their children is just a form of racism. This same government won't help us raise our children. It will just lock them up when they grow up because we didn't whip them. Then they blame the parents for not disciplining them."
Those who know me best know that I am usually strict about raising children. I believe that today's children have it too easy. So many of them are spoiled with expensive clothes and technology, and they don't appreciate what they have. They complain when they are expected to do chores, yet they still want to get allowances. They would rather stay inside and play video games than go out and earn money by raking leaves and shoveling snow. Worst of all, they call their parents names and swear at them. Few things make me cringe more. I don't care how old you get or how much you deserve it; using even the mildest of foul language in front of your parents--especially your mother--is very disrespectful. (My own mother would stop me mid-sentence and say "Watch your mouth. Who do you think you are talk to?")
All of what I mentioned in the last paragraph would not stand on the block where I grew up. Most parents were not shy to discipline and did not use the belt (or 'stention cord for severe offenses) sparingly. In fact, parents compared methods whilst sitting on the porch. Teens joked about it while jumping rope or shooting hoops. And children old enough to survive it but young enough to not fight back feared it. While I recount these things in an almost sentimental light, there is nothing sweet or funny about corporal punishment. First, it teaches the child to fear the parent, and fear is a major barrier to true learning and even love. Second, it teaches the child that the only way to get what you want is through violence. Third, and this is for those who feel that corporal punishment is the way to keep children out of the legal system, corporal punishment creates just as many criminals as no punishment at all. This is a statistical fact. In fact, I am certain that out of those doing the killing in Englewood and other parts of Chicago's Southside, there were just as many who had gotten whippings growing up as there were those who were allowed to run wild. I am pretty sure if a woman had to choose between getting "whupped" as a child to raped as an adult, she would choose the former, but that does not make the "whupping" any better. It is still traumatic. No matter how much the father apologizes, they will feel that beating for the rest of their lives, even when the wound and welts heal. They will fear their father for a little while, then resent him a little longer.
The question one may ask, therefore, is "Who is right?" The truth is, no one is right. The entertainment industry is wrong for poisoning the heads of our children with such immoral filth we hear in songs and and see in dance steps. The girls were wrong disrespecting themselves and their parents by twerking in front of, essentially, the entire world. The father, finally, was definitely wrong in beating his daughters--no matter how severe their actions. I believe in the old Yiddish saying: "If you must beat a child, use a string." Besides, even if the most liberal psychologist approves of corporal punishment, one should never hit a child in anger. He would have caused far less damage if he would have allowed himself to cool off. To this, the proponents of corporal punishment would say, "All right then, since you know so much about handling kids, what would you have done?" First, I would turn off the laptop and take it away. Then, I would send them to their room. Then, I would take some deep breaths and say a prayer. Next, I would talk to them about self-respect and remind them of what happens to girls who are too liberal with their bodies. Finally, I would put parental controls on their laptop and ground them for a month. They would then have to post a video online about why their actions were wrong, before they could get off punishment, but they would still not be able to use Facebook or Youtube for another three months.
The simple fact is, the only person who came close to being right in this situation is the mother--for calling the police. Still, did she ever talk to the girls about not falling for the hype? Did she tell them that their bodies were more than a source of entertainment for others? Also, what was her reasoning behind calling the police: to protect them from their father or to protect them from Child Protective Services? At an rate, the mother at least did well to protect her daughters and no has a chance to discuss their father's possible manifest message. As for the father, if he does get to keep his parental rights, at least he has learned that there are more positive, civilized ways to discipline a child.
Take a look at the video in the link above. Here, you will see a father beating his two daughters with a wire cable (or 'stention cord) after he caught them "twerking" on Facebook. You will see many definitions of twerking on Urban Dictionary, but it bascially means dancing in a sexually-suggestive manner. While the father no doubt felt disgraced by his daughters' public behavior, he may have felt that by beating them, he was saving them from teen pregnancy, prostitution, rape, and death. The mother, reportedly, disagreed and had the father arrested.
When one looks at videos such as this, there are often two polar responses. First, there are those of upper or middle classes, usually of European or East Asian descent--and mostly likely of younger generations--who are shocked and dismayed by this. They say, "How brutal! How evil of the father! Lock him up and throw away the key! He should have talked to the children!"
Then there would be those who saw the video who sided with the father. These are usually those who are Southern, working-or-lower-class individuals, typically Afro-Americans. They will say, "Those girls got what they deserved, and only a father who cares would give it to them. If only we had more of such old-school punishment; we would see less crime. Besides, no one has the right to tell a parent how to raise their children." Some of the same parents take it a step further by saying, "To punish a Black parent for whipping their children is just a form of racism. This same government won't help us raise our children. It will just lock them up when they grow up because we didn't whip them. Then they blame the parents for not disciplining them."
Those who know me best know that I am usually strict about raising children. I believe that today's children have it too easy. So many of them are spoiled with expensive clothes and technology, and they don't appreciate what they have. They complain when they are expected to do chores, yet they still want to get allowances. They would rather stay inside and play video games than go out and earn money by raking leaves and shoveling snow. Worst of all, they call their parents names and swear at them. Few things make me cringe more. I don't care how old you get or how much you deserve it; using even the mildest of foul language in front of your parents--especially your mother--is very disrespectful. (My own mother would stop me mid-sentence and say "Watch your mouth. Who do you think you are talk to?")
All of what I mentioned in the last paragraph would not stand on the block where I grew up. Most parents were not shy to discipline and did not use the belt (or 'stention cord for severe offenses) sparingly. In fact, parents compared methods whilst sitting on the porch. Teens joked about it while jumping rope or shooting hoops. And children old enough to survive it but young enough to not fight back feared it. While I recount these things in an almost sentimental light, there is nothing sweet or funny about corporal punishment. First, it teaches the child to fear the parent, and fear is a major barrier to true learning and even love. Second, it teaches the child that the only way to get what you want is through violence. Third, and this is for those who feel that corporal punishment is the way to keep children out of the legal system, corporal punishment creates just as many criminals as no punishment at all. This is a statistical fact. In fact, I am certain that out of those doing the killing in Englewood and other parts of Chicago's Southside, there were just as many who had gotten whippings growing up as there were those who were allowed to run wild. I am pretty sure if a woman had to choose between getting "whupped" as a child to raped as an adult, she would choose the former, but that does not make the "whupping" any better. It is still traumatic. No matter how much the father apologizes, they will feel that beating for the rest of their lives, even when the wound and welts heal. They will fear their father for a little while, then resent him a little longer.
The question one may ask, therefore, is "Who is right?" The truth is, no one is right. The entertainment industry is wrong for poisoning the heads of our children with such immoral filth we hear in songs and and see in dance steps. The girls were wrong disrespecting themselves and their parents by twerking in front of, essentially, the entire world. The father, finally, was definitely wrong in beating his daughters--no matter how severe their actions. I believe in the old Yiddish saying: "If you must beat a child, use a string." Besides, even if the most liberal psychologist approves of corporal punishment, one should never hit a child in anger. He would have caused far less damage if he would have allowed himself to cool off. To this, the proponents of corporal punishment would say, "All right then, since you know so much about handling kids, what would you have done?" First, I would turn off the laptop and take it away. Then, I would send them to their room. Then, I would take some deep breaths and say a prayer. Next, I would talk to them about self-respect and remind them of what happens to girls who are too liberal with their bodies. Finally, I would put parental controls on their laptop and ground them for a month. They would then have to post a video online about why their actions were wrong, before they could get off punishment, but they would still not be able to use Facebook or Youtube for another three months.
The simple fact is, the only person who came close to being right in this situation is the mother--for calling the police. Still, did she ever talk to the girls about not falling for the hype? Did she tell them that their bodies were more than a source of entertainment for others? Also, what was her reasoning behind calling the police: to protect them from their father or to protect them from Child Protective Services? At an rate, the mother at least did well to protect her daughters and no has a chance to discuss their father's possible manifest message. As for the father, if he does get to keep his parental rights, at least he has learned that there are more positive, civilized ways to discipline a child.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Lessons my parents taught me: Part 2--Being grateful for what you have
"If you can't appreciate what God has already given you, why should He give you anything else?" This is what my mother told me a few years ago. This was during a time when I had graduated from grad school and was looking for a job, but by the 12th interview, I was given another rejection letter. Even a woman who knew me, saw me in action, and even prayed with me turned me away. I felt that I had a right to a decent job. After all, I worked hard in school and the part-time job at the time, I had a perfect GPA, I belonged to two honor societies (which I did not neglect to put on my resume), I was a Christian who went to church every Sunday without fail, I was an elder, a hymnist, a Director of Sextons, and I ran the acolyte program. I felt that I earned each job for which I applied and that any position for which I qualified was mine by divine right.
Thus, when I was rejected those positions, there was nothing left for me to feel but sorry for myself, and angry with God--so angry that I boldly rebuked a promise Christ made to His disciples: "Ask, and you will receive." My response was, "I have done nothing but ask, yet I do not receive. Were you just whistling Dixie or what? Here I am, Your servant, singing--bellowing--for my supper, yet you let others stuff themselves around me while I starve!" I was furious, doubtful, but above all, foolish.
Therefore, one day, I told my mother about what I was reading in the Book of Job, quoting things he lamented about his plight. I sided with him and expressed how unfair God was being to me. My mother reminded me that I still had a job, food on the table, and a place I could call my own. When all of that failed to get through my thick skull, she said what was quoted at the beginning of this post. Soon after, a man who has been like a father to me, Pastor Kluge, said in a sermon, "God is unfair for our own good." He elaborated by saying that if God were fair, Christ would not have been sent to suffer and die for our sins, and we would be damned for eternity. Indeed, we deserve nothing, but God is good, and He provides for us as He knows we need to be.
There is a Buddhist principle that applies to all people--especially Christians: "All life is suffering." Who is to blame for that suffering? Us! Our sinful nature is the cause of our own suffering, and the suffering of others. We as Americans especially! Our greed, selfishness, and desire are the cause of our own suffering. A man wants to live in a mansion and is tired of eating hot dogs and cereal when he feels he deserves to eat steak and lobster and drive a Lexus. So, he gets involved in the drug trade for more money, goes to prison, and his wife and children are forced to live on the streets. A woman wants a rich, macho Romeo who will feed her sexual desires and buy her expensive presents. So, she sleeps outside of wedlock with a man whom she knows does not love or even respect her, and she becomes pregnant and infected with an STD.
The irony of it is, when we think we are poor and unfortunate, there are those who are really poor who are content with what they have. You live in a studio apartment where all of your neighbors take no pride in their homes or their community? There are people living in makeshift houses with tin roofs, and they praise the Lord that it gives them shelter from the rain. You hate the rundown car you are driving? There are people who must walk 20 miles to find clean drinking water. Are you tired of eating Stovetop or not having enough hamburger in your Helper? There are people who barely eat a full bowl of gruel a week. We do not deserve riches and comfort, we do not deserve, Declaration of Independence notwithstanding, happiness, and we do not even deserve good health. We deserve nothing that is good. Anything remotely positive that we deserve is the right to claim what others hold from us--things society says we can have if we earn them. Mind you, we have the right to claim, but not to take. These things we are given by God all in good time, but only if it is His will.
Thus, when I was rejected those positions, there was nothing left for me to feel but sorry for myself, and angry with God--so angry that I boldly rebuked a promise Christ made to His disciples: "Ask, and you will receive." My response was, "I have done nothing but ask, yet I do not receive. Were you just whistling Dixie or what? Here I am, Your servant, singing--bellowing--for my supper, yet you let others stuff themselves around me while I starve!" I was furious, doubtful, but above all, foolish.
Therefore, one day, I told my mother about what I was reading in the Book of Job, quoting things he lamented about his plight. I sided with him and expressed how unfair God was being to me. My mother reminded me that I still had a job, food on the table, and a place I could call my own. When all of that failed to get through my thick skull, she said what was quoted at the beginning of this post. Soon after, a man who has been like a father to me, Pastor Kluge, said in a sermon, "God is unfair for our own good." He elaborated by saying that if God were fair, Christ would not have been sent to suffer and die for our sins, and we would be damned for eternity. Indeed, we deserve nothing, but God is good, and He provides for us as He knows we need to be.
There is a Buddhist principle that applies to all people--especially Christians: "All life is suffering." Who is to blame for that suffering? Us! Our sinful nature is the cause of our own suffering, and the suffering of others. We as Americans especially! Our greed, selfishness, and desire are the cause of our own suffering. A man wants to live in a mansion and is tired of eating hot dogs and cereal when he feels he deserves to eat steak and lobster and drive a Lexus. So, he gets involved in the drug trade for more money, goes to prison, and his wife and children are forced to live on the streets. A woman wants a rich, macho Romeo who will feed her sexual desires and buy her expensive presents. So, she sleeps outside of wedlock with a man whom she knows does not love or even respect her, and she becomes pregnant and infected with an STD.
The irony of it is, when we think we are poor and unfortunate, there are those who are really poor who are content with what they have. You live in a studio apartment where all of your neighbors take no pride in their homes or their community? There are people living in makeshift houses with tin roofs, and they praise the Lord that it gives them shelter from the rain. You hate the rundown car you are driving? There are people who must walk 20 miles to find clean drinking water. Are you tired of eating Stovetop or not having enough hamburger in your Helper? There are people who barely eat a full bowl of gruel a week. We do not deserve riches and comfort, we do not deserve, Declaration of Independence notwithstanding, happiness, and we do not even deserve good health. We deserve nothing that is good. Anything remotely positive that we deserve is the right to claim what others hold from us--things society says we can have if we earn them. Mind you, we have the right to claim, but not to take. These things we are given by God all in good time, but only if it is His will.
"Though He giveth and He taketh
God His children never forsaketh.
It's His loving purpose solely
To preserve them pure and holy."
Saturday, February 16, 2013
So, you're going to call someone who hates telephones...
I don't deny it; I have always hated telephones--since I was a child. They have caused me much anxiety and frustration (blast you, Bell and Meucci!) because every time the phone rang, my concentration was shot, dinner was interrupted, my plans were delayed, and family time was interrupted (and ultimately ended). If it were up to me, there would be no telephones--just letters, emails, and texting services. (Can I get an Amen, fellow phone haters?) In fact, I love getting letters!!! However, as I am a practical man, I know I need a phone for all types of emergencies.
Be that as it may, there are a few things phone-lovers can do to minimize how much you irritate phone haters like me:
1. If it is after 9PM (or right before 9PM), I am probably winding down and preparing for bed. Don't call unless it's an emergency! The latter statement will hereafter be abbreviated to DCUE.
2. If it is before 8AM on a weekday, I am probably preparing for work. DCUE! If I am late because you interrupted my routine, we'll have a problem.
3. If it is between 8AM and 6PM, I am probably at work. DCUE! I probably won't answer, but I will be annoyed nonetheless.
4. If it is between 6PM and 7PM, I am probably just getting in from work and/or preparing/eating dinner. DCUE! Give me a chance to cool down and relax, or we'll have a problem.
5. If it is a Saturday before noon, I am probably still in bed. DCUE! I work hard at a stressful job all week, so I deserve it. Wake me up, and we'll have a problem.
6. If it is on a Sunday before 1PM, I am at church or on my way. DCUE! Otherwise, the Lord will strike you down! Just kidding! Seriously, calling me when you know I SHOULD be at church is just annoying. Either send me a text or wait until later.
7. If it is Sunday between 7:30PM and 10PM, I am watching, or preparing to watch, Downton Abbey. DCUE! I mean it!
8. If you know I am tired or sick, DCUE, or if you are calling to check up on me. If you are calling about anything else, I am going to be angry and may have trouble hiding it.
9. If you are calling at a decent time, please keep it short. When I say short, I mean no more than 5 minutes (unless it is a complicated situation or I have not talked to you in a very long time). If you need to talk for a long period of time, let's meet in person. I don't know why, but long phone conversations seem to really torture me, and there are only two people I will allow to torture me in such a way: my mother and my future wife.
10. If you do call at a decent time and it sounds like I am busy, and it's not an emergency, please keep it very short. By very short, I mean 90 seconds or less.
Thank you for reading this and for understanding that I don't mean to be rude or unsociable; I just hate telephones. I do hope that you take my guidelines seriously. Otherwise, we'll have a problem!!!
Be that as it may, there are a few things phone-lovers can do to minimize how much you irritate phone haters like me:
1. If it is after 9PM (or right before 9PM), I am probably winding down and preparing for bed. Don't call unless it's an emergency! The latter statement will hereafter be abbreviated to DCUE.
2. If it is before 8AM on a weekday, I am probably preparing for work. DCUE! If I am late because you interrupted my routine, we'll have a problem.
3. If it is between 8AM and 6PM, I am probably at work. DCUE! I probably won't answer, but I will be annoyed nonetheless.
4. If it is between 6PM and 7PM, I am probably just getting in from work and/or preparing/eating dinner. DCUE! Give me a chance to cool down and relax, or we'll have a problem.
5. If it is a Saturday before noon, I am probably still in bed. DCUE! I work hard at a stressful job all week, so I deserve it. Wake me up, and we'll have a problem.
6. If it is on a Sunday before 1PM, I am at church or on my way. DCUE! Otherwise, the Lord will strike you down! Just kidding! Seriously, calling me when you know I SHOULD be at church is just annoying. Either send me a text or wait until later.
7. If it is Sunday between 7:30PM and 10PM, I am watching, or preparing to watch, Downton Abbey. DCUE! I mean it!
8. If you know I am tired or sick, DCUE, or if you are calling to check up on me. If you are calling about anything else, I am going to be angry and may have trouble hiding it.
9. If you are calling at a decent time, please keep it short. When I say short, I mean no more than 5 minutes (unless it is a complicated situation or I have not talked to you in a very long time). If you need to talk for a long period of time, let's meet in person. I don't know why, but long phone conversations seem to really torture me, and there are only two people I will allow to torture me in such a way: my mother and my future wife.
10. If you do call at a decent time and it sounds like I am busy, and it's not an emergency, please keep it very short. By very short, I mean 90 seconds or less.
Thank you for reading this and for understanding that I don't mean to be rude or unsociable; I just hate telephones. I do hope that you take my guidelines seriously. Otherwise, we'll have a problem!!!
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
The Best Chili In Town
There were two brothers: Jared and Joshua. They owned a restaurant in the town of Squire's Pond called J and J Chili Shack. Their main dish was, you guessed it, chili. They dubbed it "the best chili in town." For a while, it seemed true. There was always a huge line of people every day, hankering for a bowl of chili. The two brothers had so many customers that they had to hire a staff. Even with the staff, Jared and Joshua profited a sum that was large enough to make them well-off.
Things were going very well for the brothers until one day. Joshua noticed that they were losing money by each week and could not imagine why. The prices for the products remained the same, and the workers only made minimum wage with a 4% raise each year. One day, it dawned on him; some of the regular customers stopped coming. Joshua talked about it with his brother.
"Why do you think they have stopped coming?" he asked. "The economy is the same as it was when we opened, and I know they still have their jobs."
"I'll handle it," Jared said smugly.
"What are you going to do?" asked Joshua.
"Just trust me," said Jared.
The next day, after work, Jared decided to drop in on the missing regulars. First, he went to Carl's house.
"Haven't seen you in a while, Carl," said Jared as Carl opened the door. "Why haven't you come over for some chili lately? We miss you."
"Sorry I haven't been by," answered Carl. "I have been trying out this new place across town called Chili Heaven, and they are really good! I'm sorry, but THEIRS is the best chili in town. But you and Josh have so many customers already. You shouldn't miss me." Suddenly, Jared's face turned red with anger.
"So, you went to another chili place, huh? How could you? I thought you were loyal!"
"But Jared..."
"Drop dead, traitor!" yelled Jared, turning to leave.
Jared then went to other regulars who stopped coming in for chili. They all told him that they have been going to Chili Heaven across town, and Jared responded by yelling and cursing at them. He even pulled out one of Mariah's begonias.
After he visited all of the regulars, Jared was so angry that he felt he needed to teach the owners of Chili Heaven a lesson. He went back to his restaurant (Joshua and the workers already went home) and grabbed two crates of rotten tomatoes that were meant to be thrown out. He then drove to Chili Heaven (they were closed), brought the crates from his car, and walked around the restaurant, throwing the tomatoes at the windows. He made a tragically gigantic mess. Someone saw him and called the police. Like clockwork, the police came and saw him in action. He was promptly arrested.
In the morning, Joshua went to bail out his brother. When he learned how Jared treated the customers, he took the list from him and told him to go home and think about what he had done. He went to all of the regulars, apologized for what his brother had done, and paid to replace Mariah's begonia. He then asked WHY they stopped coming to J and J Chili Shack. These were the responses:
"I'm a vegetarian now, and all of your chili has meat."
"Frankly, your chili has too many beans. It was fine when your's was the only chili place in town, but when Chili Heaven opened, I got curious. Chili Heaven has an even blend of meat and beans."
"I like chili, but I don't like beans, and all of your chili has beans in it. Before Chili Heaven opened, I always had to strain out the beans."
"While your three-alarm chili is supposed to be the hottest one you have, it is not hot enough for me. I like to feel as if I ate a red coal or something."
"I had no problem until you started that rule where there is a thirty minute seating limit at your tables. I like to enjoy my meal and talk to my friends and family without feeling rushed."
Joshua thanked them for their input and went away with many ideas. With Jared's guilt-driven cooperation, the two brothers made some great changes for J and J Chili Shack. The first thing they did was add tables and chairs to the outside of the restaurant and eliminate the thirty minute limit. They then added more variety to their menu. Not only did they add a vegetarian option, but they also added fewer beans to each chili dish, a bean-less option, and a four alarm chili, which included the hottest chili peppers in the world. For added oomph, they started serving chili cheese dogs, chili burgers, and turkey chili. As a result, J and J Chili Shack offered more variety than Chili Heaven. Most of the regular customers came back, and those who did not were quickly replaced by new customers who became regulars.
So, children, what is the moral of the story?
Things were going very well for the brothers until one day. Joshua noticed that they were losing money by each week and could not imagine why. The prices for the products remained the same, and the workers only made minimum wage with a 4% raise each year. One day, it dawned on him; some of the regular customers stopped coming. Joshua talked about it with his brother.
"Why do you think they have stopped coming?" he asked. "The economy is the same as it was when we opened, and I know they still have their jobs."
"I'll handle it," Jared said smugly.
"What are you going to do?" asked Joshua.
"Just trust me," said Jared.
The next day, after work, Jared decided to drop in on the missing regulars. First, he went to Carl's house.
"Haven't seen you in a while, Carl," said Jared as Carl opened the door. "Why haven't you come over for some chili lately? We miss you."
"Sorry I haven't been by," answered Carl. "I have been trying out this new place across town called Chili Heaven, and they are really good! I'm sorry, but THEIRS is the best chili in town. But you and Josh have so many customers already. You shouldn't miss me." Suddenly, Jared's face turned red with anger.
"So, you went to another chili place, huh? How could you? I thought you were loyal!"
"But Jared..."
"Drop dead, traitor!" yelled Jared, turning to leave.
Jared then went to other regulars who stopped coming in for chili. They all told him that they have been going to Chili Heaven across town, and Jared responded by yelling and cursing at them. He even pulled out one of Mariah's begonias.
After he visited all of the regulars, Jared was so angry that he felt he needed to teach the owners of Chili Heaven a lesson. He went back to his restaurant (Joshua and the workers already went home) and grabbed two crates of rotten tomatoes that were meant to be thrown out. He then drove to Chili Heaven (they were closed), brought the crates from his car, and walked around the restaurant, throwing the tomatoes at the windows. He made a tragically gigantic mess. Someone saw him and called the police. Like clockwork, the police came and saw him in action. He was promptly arrested.
In the morning, Joshua went to bail out his brother. When he learned how Jared treated the customers, he took the list from him and told him to go home and think about what he had done. He went to all of the regulars, apologized for what his brother had done, and paid to replace Mariah's begonia. He then asked WHY they stopped coming to J and J Chili Shack. These were the responses:
"I'm a vegetarian now, and all of your chili has meat."
"Frankly, your chili has too many beans. It was fine when your's was the only chili place in town, but when Chili Heaven opened, I got curious. Chili Heaven has an even blend of meat and beans."
"I like chili, but I don't like beans, and all of your chili has beans in it. Before Chili Heaven opened, I always had to strain out the beans."
"While your three-alarm chili is supposed to be the hottest one you have, it is not hot enough for me. I like to feel as if I ate a red coal or something."
"I had no problem until you started that rule where there is a thirty minute seating limit at your tables. I like to enjoy my meal and talk to my friends and family without feeling rushed."
Joshua thanked them for their input and went away with many ideas. With Jared's guilt-driven cooperation, the two brothers made some great changes for J and J Chili Shack. The first thing they did was add tables and chairs to the outside of the restaurant and eliminate the thirty minute limit. They then added more variety to their menu. Not only did they add a vegetarian option, but they also added fewer beans to each chili dish, a bean-less option, and a four alarm chili, which included the hottest chili peppers in the world. For added oomph, they started serving chili cheese dogs, chili burgers, and turkey chili. As a result, J and J Chili Shack offered more variety than Chili Heaven. Most of the regular customers came back, and those who did not were quickly replaced by new customers who became regulars.
So, children, what is the moral of the story?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)