tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5274291.post5044286226796549514..comments2023-10-30T09:45:32.994-05:00Comments on The Musings of Kev: Drunken Lemur AlertKevhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01433235586096305061noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5274291.post-4714159438278266602009-01-27T23:46:00.000-06:002009-01-27T23:46:00.000-06:00Oh. Heh. Gotcha. I guess I give Starbucks employ...Oh. Heh. Gotcha. <BR/><BR/>I guess I give Starbucks employees the benefit of the doubt, because one of my best friends was one until this past weekend. But it <I>was</I> a goofy answer, which is why it seemed like something that could have come out of a government employee's cubicle somewhere.Kevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01433235586096305061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5274291.post-4689589314722223392009-01-27T16:13:00.000-06:002009-01-27T16:13:00.000-06:00No apology necessary!!!! I actually thought the a...No apology necessary!!!! I actually thought the answer you were given was ridiculous and thought maybe they actually just made it up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5274291.post-18097887527160390972009-01-25T12:38:00.000-06:002009-01-25T12:38:00.000-06:00Hmm...I'll admit that I didn't read the "maximum o...Hmm...I'll admit that I didn't read the "maximum occupancy" sign, nor count the people in the building (which might have gotten me some funny looks, LOL). But that opens up a whole new can of worms; Did the aforementioned large group that took up all of the chairs (but very few of the tables) push the occupancy of the place in excess of that limit? And if so, was it easier for the store to hide behind some arcane health department regulation, rather than to put a sign on the door saying that nobody could sit down until a few people left?<BR/><BR/>(And if that were the case, would the people in the large group--most of whom appeared to be done with their coffee--realize that they were imposing on future guests and move their gathering elsewhere? I've <A HREF="http://themusingsofkev.blogspot.com/2007/04/mini-restau-rant-of-sorts.html" REL="nofollow">run into this situation</A> before.)<BR/><BR/>But my larger point is that someone at the health department seems to have made a mountain out of a molehill here. If it had indeed been an occupany/safety regulation, that would be a whole 'nother ball of wax, because that activity is dangerous whether done in public or at home. But as I said in the main post, people commingle inside/outside things in their own homes all the time without incident, and there's no reason for the government to nanny-state us to death here.<BR/><BR/>(Please understand that the current economic climate is going to lead me to rail on things that waste public money, and bureaucrats are high on my list. If you happen to be one, my apologies; besides, it's possible that you are one who does an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, thinks through situations instead of just blindly following "the rules," and so on. If that's the case, you're not the source of my ire here.)Kevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01433235586096305061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5274291.post-5493530398737179702009-01-25T09:00:00.000-06:002009-01-25T09:00:00.000-06:00I wonder if a more feasible answer like "due to 'o...I wonder if a more feasible answer like "due to 'occupancy/safety' regulations thrust upon us by the fire dept. we are not allowed to add the outside chairs" would have made you ponder so much about this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com