Local Village Mom and Pop coffee vendors to remain open

you didn't cite any source at all for your information. 

Woman of Color chiming in: I've read the majority of the thread and also saw this event on the news. A few things stood out to me. First, I don't blame Starbucks as much as I blame the woman behind the counter who felt some type of way about seeing black men in Starbucks, because, hey that NEVER happens, and black men in Starbucks waiting for others for a business meeting, because again, hey, that NEVER happens. There is something wrong with the judgement of the employee and not necessarily Starbucks. If Starbucks co-signs on her kicking these men out for loitering (which they seem to encourage), requesting to use the restroom (which they seem to encourage) and waiting for a party to arrive (which they seem to encourage), then again, the fingers of shame and racism point directly towards her and her views of black men. 

Second, I'm not a fan of Starbucks. Someone mentioned that the coffee tasted burned and that has always been my sentiment. In saying that, I've met many friends at Starbucks at a variety of locations and have never been asked to leave. I've also never asked to use the bathroom, so can't speculate on that. However, I will say, and perhaps men and women of color will chime in, that black women gathering is viewed TOTALLY different in establishments than black men gathering. Black men still carry the burden in some stores/restaurants as being "up to something". Even in business suits, driving high end vehicles with car seats in the back or carrying  Brunello Cucinelli briefcases, they are still viewed as suspicious. The SB employee who called the cops (who handled the situation horribly!) is one of these women who view black men as always being "up to something." 

DaveSchmidt said:
I left out the p-u-n. People hate a p-u-n.

kibbegirl said:
Woman of Color chiming in: I've read the majority of the thread and also saw this event on the news. A few things stood out to me. First, I don't blame Starbucks as much as I blame the woman behind the counter who felt some type of way about seeing black men in Starbucks, because, hey that NEVER happens, and black men in Starbucks waiting for others for a business meeting, because again, hey, that NEVER happens. There is something wrong with the judgement of the employee and not necessarily Starbucks. If Starbucks co-signs on her kicking these men out for loitering (which they seem to encourage), requesting to use the restroom (which they seem to encourage) and waiting for a party to arrive (which they seem to encourage), then again, the fingers of shame and racism point directly towards her and her views of black men. 


Second, I'm not a fan of Starbucks. Someone mentioned that the coffee tasted burned and that has always been my sentiment. In saying that, I've met many friends at Starbucks at a variety of locations and have never been asked to leave. I've also never asked to use the bathroom, so can't speculate on that. However, I will say, and perhaps men and women of color will chime in, that black women gathering is viewed TOTALLY different in establishments than black men gathering. Black men still carry the burden in some stores/restaurants as being "up to something". Even in business suits, driving high end vehicles with car seats in the back or carrying  Brunello Cucinelli briefcases, they are still viewed as suspicious. The SB employee who called the cops (who handled the situation horribly!) is one of these women who view black men as always being "up to something." 

 I have a dear sweet female cousin........a few years younger than me who owned a perfectly lovely home in the Fords /Edison area .  When a second Indian family moved to her block she herself moved.  I had never seen White flight in the suburbs.  A far larger and different but just as dangerous problem for this great

than sugar in one's coffee.

author said:

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

 You made the claim. 
You get the proof. 

 Try the  _ _ d d i _ g.

 Quite easy..............however you made it clear in a rather crude and frankly disappointing manner that you doubt my veracity.

Not me, author. If I decide to question someone’s veracity, I’ll accept the burden of proof myself. I also accept pudding. (Bedding and padding I have enough of for now.)

really?  If someone makes a claim with no sourcing, you don't ask for the source?  You do the legwork to find it out yourself?

ml1 said:
really?  If someone makes a claim with no sourcing, you don't ask for the source?  You do the legwork to find it out yourself?

 What better way to verify or disprove an assertion.   The game Watson is afoot

author said:

ml1 said:
really?  If someone makes a claim with no sourcing, you don't ask for the source?  You do the legwork to find it out yourself?

 What better way to verify or disprove an assertion.   The game Watson is afoot

 how about you just cite your source? It's not unfair of me to say that you have a long track record of making assertions that later turn out to be incorrect. 

I suggest switching to de-caf with a little Equal for the participants in this Sugar High Noon duel.

ml1 said:
really?  If someone makes a claim with no sourcing, you don't ask for the source?  You do the legwork to find it out yourself?

Sure, I’ll ask for a source. If none is given, I’ll either look for one myself or chalk it up as something that’s unverified. The question-someone’s-veracity card stays in my pocket (that is, in my ***) unless I can find contrary information.

But we’ve strayed again from Oreos and baked beef.

ETA: Count on a Brit for baked beef.

ml1 said:

author said:

ml1 said:
really?  If someone makes a claim with no sourcing, you don't ask for the source?  You do the legwork to find it out yourself?

 What better way to verify or disprove an assertion.   The game Watson is afoot

 how about you just cite your source? It's not unfair of me to say that you have a long track record of making assertions that later turn out to be incorrect

 Site my source?  When I have been drinking every type of coffee there for 7 years I can't name a better source than me.  Starbucks in an orgy of self revelation published on the net every conceivable fact about them selves which is where I got the figures about their high sugar use previously.  When you commonly

use sugar by the table spoons and not teaspoons you are a threat.  And I mean at least 5 of their products

that include in the area of 5 tablespoons  Put that much sugar in clear class and see what it amounts to.

Now imagine our 10 year olds drinking it with Starbucks blessing

I will later query  the owner of Village Coffee as to the sugar content of his drinks

Think I will have a freshly baked Pannini today

Try getting one at Starbucks that was not backed in Erie Pennsylvania yesterday.....and warmed up especially for you

DaveSchmidt said:

If none is given, I’ll either look for one myself or chalk it up as something that’s unverified. The question-someone’s-veracity card stays in my pocket (that is, in my ***) unless I can find contrary information.

I think we long ago established that you're a nicer person than I am.

I am not sure why blaming starbucks for selling drinks with sugar when that is clearly what many (most?) people prefer.  Most of the chains sell drinks overloaded with sugar.  The village coffee might (I doubt any place has done independent testing ) use less sugar but I tend to doubt it is significantly less without solid evidence.  

There is sugar in many places where people do not expect it to be so much (Ketchup and peanut butter come to mind) and yet I do not see Author stating that Village Coffee only uses sugar free ketchup.  (and you can google about the sugar in ketchup and think about how much we use and kids probably use a lot).  

So Author you can stop pretending to be someone who is concerned about the health of our kids or about how much sugar Starbucks puts in their drinks when the issue is you just hate starbucks for whatever reason.  Don't go there.  your choice and quite frankly nobody cares if you do a one man boycott.

ml1 said:

author said:
But some people have fond memories of Mussolini making the trains run on time.

Comparing Starbucks to Mussolini. I guess we've hit bottom in this discussion. Or perhaps the height. Of absurdity. 

 And you thought the discussion of "If" was weird.   

if you think most 10 year olds drink more $5 starbucks drinks than $2 sodas (with the same or more sugar) you clearly haven’t met many 10 year olds.

I can't verify the sugar level in the Village Coffee cookies, but they have been stale on both occasions we tried them. My son's tooth came out while he was in the middle of trying to chew a cookie monster cookie there. We just stick to meals there and go to one of the other establishments for our sugar and coffee intake, not Starbuck's. I'm glad to know that not all sugar is as bad as Starbuck's sugar. 

wendyn said:
if you think most 10 year olds drink more $5 starbucks drinks than $2 sodas (with the same or more sugar) you clearly haven’t met many 10 year olds.

 No am sure the amount of sugar taken in by our kids is much more from soda than Starbucks products

so why am I not attacking the beverage companies. For the same reason Custers cavalry men did not try to defeat the entire Confederate army.  And other critics are echoing the same tune.

mikescott said:
I am not sure why blaming starbucks for selling drinks with sugar when that is clearly what many (most?) people prefer.  Most of the chains sell drinks overloaded with sugar.  The village coffee might (I doubt any place has done independent testing ) use less sugar but I tend to doubt it is significantly less without solid evidence.  
There is sugar in many places where people do not expect it to be so much (Ketchup and peanut butter come to mind) and yet I do not see Author stating that Village Coffee only uses sugar free ketchup.  (and you can google about the sugar in ketchup and think about how much we use and kids probably use a lot).  


So Author you can stop pretending to be someone who is concerned about the health of our kids or about how much sugar Starbucks puts in their drinks when the issue is you just hate starbucks for whatever reason.  Don't go there.  your choice and quite frankly nobody cares if you do a one man boycott.
 

 Mike Scott.....pop psychologists are more funny than they are dangerous. I will assume you are a parent with maybe kids and even grand kids.  And you are not concerned with their health?  Sibling,  brothers and sisters as well as nieces and nephews..........and you would not warn them if you were placing themselves in a position of danger?

It is this easy........Starbucks does not use a little more sugar than others......they use a lot

The dangers of using excessive sugar on a recurring basis has been well documented

If  this does not penetrate............you will be happy to spend yourdays watching Dr. Phil

When I was growing up, there was a Friendly's near my home.  I'd often stop there and use my paper route money to buy myself a Fribble, which was a big milkshake.  I'm glad that back in the day there weren't any busybodies going around telling me that I was ruining my health and that my parents were negligent for letting me drink Fribbles.

author said:

It is this easy........Starbucks does not use a little more sugar than others......they use a lot

That is not actually true.  If you really, really care about such things, you should be losing your **** over Dunkin' Donuts.  Check out the nutritional information on this frozen coffee drink at DD.  Personally, I don't care if people want to drink this. But this item has something like the equivalent of about 45 teaspoons of sugar.

ml1 said:
When I was growing up, there was a Friendly's near my home.  I'd often stop there and use my paper route money to buy myself a Fribble, which was a big milkshake.  I'm glad that back in the day there weren't any busybodies going around telling me that I was ruining my health and that my parents were negligent for letting me drink Fribbles.

 Child abuse.

https://www.fatsecret.com/calo...

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/haagen-dazs-belgian-chocolate-shake-533916709

Mmmmm

nohero said:

ml1 said:
When I was growing up, there was a Friendly's near my home.  I'd often stop there and use my paper route money to buy myself a Fribble, which was a big milkshake.  I'm glad that back in the day there weren't any busybodies going around telling me that I was ruining my health and that my parents were negligent for letting me drink Fribbles.

 Child abuse.
https://www.fatsecret.com/calo...

 It's a wonder I survived.  My cholesterol was lower when I was drinking Fribbles however.  Maybe I should go back to drinking them.

I looked at the sugar levels online.  As posted above, Dunkin Donuts is worse than Starbucks.  

My kids/grandkids do not drink coffee or any of those drinks.  We push water and juice.   I have been in a starbucks once in the last 5 years and avoid dunkin donuts.  

Interesting and serious subject:  The amount of sugar in America's foods.

Moronic subject:  Talking about Starbucks like its a crack den on a block of churches.

And speaking of the block, if you think the issue is just about purveyors of sweets and not restaurants in general:  http://www.besthealthmag.ca/be...

bub said:
Interesting and serious subject:  The amount of sugar in America's foods.
Moronic subject:  Talking about Starbucks like its a crack den on a block of churches.

Amen.

Keep in mind, that this thread was started as an implication that local mom and pop coffee shops don't employee people with racial biases, but that the evil Starbucks empire does and therefore it has to close down all its stores for an afternoon.

I'm actually thankful that it's turned to sugar because it was getting weird with the whole Mediterranean comparison.

ltc said:

bub said:
Interesting and serious subject:  The amount of sugar in America's foods.
Moronic subject:  Talking about Starbucks like its a crack den on a block of churches.

Amen.
Keep in mind, that this thread was started as an implication that local mom and pop coffee shops don't employee people with racial biases, but that the evil Starbucks empire does and therefore it has to close down all its stores for an afternoon.
I'm actually thankful that it's turned to sugar because it was getting weird with the whole Mediterranean comparison.

 I haven't read this entire thread but it's premise is so ridiculous.  While that event was horrific, it could happen anywhere.  It's not a pattern at Starbucks.  And it certainly hasn't happened in our local Starbucks.  Get over it, author.  The building is up.  It's not coming down.  Starbucks isn't going to suffer from your posts.  Focus on something else...like people who turn left into spots on the Avenue!  Now that's something we that don't talk enough about!  (kidding)

author said:

ml1 said:

author said:

ml1 said:
really?  If someone makes a claim with no sourcing, you don't ask for the source?  You do the legwork to find it out yourself?

 What better way to verify or disprove an assertion.   The game Watson is afoot

 how about you just cite your source? It's not unfair of me to say that you have a long track record of making assertions that later turn out to be incorrect

 Site my source?  When I have been drinking every type of coffee there for 7 years I can't name a better source than me.  Starbucks in an orgy of self revelation published on the net every conceivable fact about them selves which is where I got the figures about their high sugar use previously.  When you commonly
use sugar by the table spoons and not teaspoons you are a threat.  And I mean at least 5 of their products
that include in the area of 5 tablespoons  Put that much sugar in clear class and see what it amounts to.


Now imagine our 10 year olds drinking it with Starbucks blessing


I will later query  the owner of Village Coffee as to the sugar content of his drinks
Think I will have a freshly baked Pannini today


Try getting one at Starbucks that was not backed in Erie Pennsylvania yesterday.....and warmed up especially for you 

A 20 oz Coke has 65 grams of sugar or 5.5 Tablespoons.  I am just providing clarity and context to your absurdity as you defend the coffee shops that sell sugary baked goods. 

ml1 said:
When I was growing up, there was a Friendly's near my home.  I'd often stop there and use my paper route money to buy myself a Fribble, which was a big milkshake.  I'm glad that back in the day there weren't any busybodies going around telling me that I was ruining my health and that my parents were negligent for letting me drink Fribbles.

 Darn it now I want a Chocolate Fribble.