Lucky it's Christmas, Max, so you can get away with 'a tad bad/as ad'! I
think the point of their policy is not so much that you should look their
product is stimulating, rather that you should be seen to be
'participating' so phone frolics and business chat are fine with them.
Bikk
On Thursday, 24 December 2015, Max Richards <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> At Starbucks, Dozing
>
> 'We can't have sleeping in here’.
> That’s what my wife heard;
> I was asleep.
>
> The Starbucks young woman
> passing our table said it.
> My wife asked me:
>
> ‘Did you hear that? How
> offensive. Look round - ’
> I opened my eyes, taking in
>
> all the other tables: no-one
> slept at them, laptops
> and cellphones engrossed
>
> all the patrons, beside
> their empty cups and plates.
> I went and got two drinks.
>
> Oh all my life in libraries
> and such, snoring old men
> have saddened me.
>
> Now I’m one of them.
> No doubt I seem a tad bad
> as ad for the coffee here,
>
> the reverse of stimulating.
> My wife is cross on my behalf.
> She emails Starbucks at length.
>
> Gets back a formulaic
> robotic dumb answer
> and a twenty dollar voucher.
>
> Writes again, still they don’t
> get the point. Friends say:
> Dump Starbucks, try so-and-so.
>
> So we do when we can find them.
> They lurk, less visible, waiting
> for me to come and doze there.
|