I suppose the story would not work so well with the Queen of Hearts and the Sword of Damocles as lead characters...

Roll on...

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

. . . no, nothing to do with these forums . . . nothing at all . . .

But the way I heard this story, there were 20 or 30 people who came into the bar every once in a while, harassing other patrons who enjoyed these conversations despite the bartender's restrictions. Some of the "20 or so" developed a plan to force some of the patrons they didn't like out of the bar by lying to the liquor commission about what was going on in the bar, and what the people, who these plotters disliked, did outside the bar.

Ironically, some of the patrons who were the target of this plot had been asked by the bartender to keep an eye on this group of 20+ people. These watchers found out about the plot and helped the bartender stop it, so that the bar could continue to provide its unique service. Rather than be happy with this, the bartender tightened his rules and ignored the very people who helped uncover the plot! And now, as you have pointed out, "the humanity and spontaneity" is gone and the conversations are fewer, guarded, and mostly uninteresting.

I've been in this bar too.
But what happened was one of the bartenders would get involved in the discussion to the point where name calling started, then drop out of the discussion for a few days to suddenly come back in and throw patrons out.

I'm sure glad THAT bartender is gone.

Oh, yeah, I remember that. The name-calling was often started by a strange tricycle rider from up North who would flounce into the bar, spew some nonsense, and then get angry when the bartender pointed out her lack of intelligence and reasoning ability. This would always get the tricycle rider's panties in a bunch, but having very little in the way of intellectual ability, she could never do anything about it.

LOL, but the biker didn't get fired.
(raspberry noise)

LOL, but the biker didn't get fired.
(raspberry noise)

Neither did the bartender.

LOL, but the biker didn't get fired.
(raspberry noise)

Neither did the bartender.

Neither did the binge drinker.
(belching noise)

---

me@rescam.org

Neither did the bartender.

Seems that the ex-bartender has been reduced to volunteer beer taster.
No power to throw people out of the bar.

So it was here it all went when it went from the Rocky's Cafe.

But the beer testers get free beer... :-D

And some of the former bartenders, even they haven't thrown people out of the bar for ages still have to watch their backs for muggers when they leave the bar. The muggers are some of those who were kicked out of the bar. Strangely enough some of the current barkeepers are among them too, the muggers...

By the way, I have lately spent a lot of time in some other bar which is just as fun as the bar in question was before the 1000 page book of regulations, there all the &%@£'s and @£¤%#'s can be said out loud, it's much more fun there. Plus the entertainment is funnier!

Oh, and I spend a lot of time now a days in an another bar where there's a lot of . All good fun. :-D

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Neither did the bartender.

Seems that the ex-bartender has been reduced to volunteer beer taster.
No power to throw people out of the bar.

Hah! You make that sound like a bad thing, but it's really quite nice, not dealing with pissant tricycle riders and such. And of course, as Fuzzy says, the free beer (virtual beer) is an added benefit. If asked, the guy (whomever he is) would probably become a bartender again, not so he can throw people out of the bar, but so he can serve a community that should welcome all patrons, until they act up and deserve to be thrown out. That is fair and reasonable, even though certain tricycle riders will never understand.

As I stated, sometimes it was the bartender who started with the name calling.

The defense rests.

Hah! You make that sound like a bad thing, but it's really quite nice, not dealing with pissant tricycle riders and such.

Once I saw the tricycle had training wheels I knew I had seen it all.

---

me@rescam.org

As I stated, sometimes it was the bartender who started with the name calling.

The defense rests.

Your exact words from post #930085 were, "one of the bartenders would get involved in the discussion to the point where name calling started," but that doesn't really say the bartender started the name-calling. In fact, the bartender never called anyone names, just pointed out the logical and factual flaws in their "discussions", much as I am doing here. This may have felt like name calling to those poor, embarrassed, uninformed patrons, but if it really was name-calling, that bartender would have been escorted out by other bartenders (as some bartenders were).

Interesting that you put yourself in the position of "the defense" . . . as the defendant is the party charged with some offense. Oh, I understand now. How embarassing for those patrons to have you characterize them that way. Well, the prosecution rests, but reserves time for rebuttal.

This may have felt like name calling to those poor, embarrassed, uninformed patrons

My research shows that these same people believe that bearhugs are actually hugs given to bears.

---

me@rescam.org

---

Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now

How true.

However, at one point the bar owners hired an "Unfrozen Caveman Bartender" named Barney, who had (and still has) supreme authority over all patrons and bartenders. The odd twist here is that Barney has Multiple-Personality Disorder, and some days what you do is fine, but another day what you do gets you kicked out. This sure is a strange place.

As I stated, sometimes it was the bartender who started with the name calling.

The defense rests.

Your exact words from post #930085 were, "one of the bartenders would get involved in the discussion to the point where name calling started," but that doesn't really say the bartender started the name-calling. In fact, the bartender never called anyone names, just pointed out the logical and factual flaws in their "discussions", much as I am doing here. This may have felt like name calling to those poor, embarrassed, uninformed patrons, but if it really was name-calling, that bartender would have been escorted out by other bartenders (as some bartenders were).

Interesting that you put yourself in the position of "the defense" . . . as the defendant is the party charged with some offense. Oh, I understand now. How embarassing for those patrons to have you characterize them that way. Well, the prosecution rests, but reserves time for rebuttal.

While technically correct:

spew some nonsense, and then get angry when the bartender pointed out her lack of intelligence and reasoning ability. This would always get the tricycle rider's panties in a bunch, but having very little in the way of intellectual ability, she could never do anything about it.

is not "name-calling", but it might be seen by some as rather derogatory/inflammatory, but as that wasn't the accusation, blah, blah, blah.

If this were the bartender's standard modus operandi, is it really any wonder why some customers decided to go to another bar? If the bartender wishes to retain custom might it not be better to steer the customer to additional sources of information, than point out that they're dumb and can't make a sound argument (even if the bartender believes both to be true)?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Oh, bobby,

You call that bartender's actions "derogatory/inflammatory" and deride the argument as, simply, "blah, blah, blah". The whole point of your post is to show that my argument is not sound. These are rather derogatory/inflammatory things to say about my post. How is what you are doing any different from what you find so offensive about that (former) bartender?

But discussions are often arguments, where people express different points of view. It is a perfectly valid technique, in such debates, to point out an opponent's logical and factual errors, and if one doesn't like that aspect of arguing, or gets so easily offended by being shown to be wrong, then maybe that person shouldn't participate in discussions.

Teddy Roosevelt said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.", and as you pointed out, "some customers decided to go to another bar". Other customers checked their egos at the door, listened, and looked into the bartender's arguments without preconceptions. Some of those customers were surprised to find that the bartender was mostly right.

Other customers checked their egos at the door, listened, and looked into the bartender's arguments without preconceptions. Some of those customers were surprised to find that the bartender was mostly right.

LOL
In the ficticious bar being discussed, there was no mention of the bartender joining in on the discussions taking place.
It can hardly be called a fair exchange when a bartender holds the power of access to the bar and censorship of opinion over individuals and their involvement in the discussions.

It takes a special disposition to be able to monitor a bar room's activities while remaining above the fray.

Some bartenders are incapable of the task, especially when they see themselves as "mostly right" all the time.

Oh, bobby,

You call that bartender's actions "derogatory/inflammatory" and deride the argument as, simply, "blah, blah, blah". The whole point of your post is to show that my argument is not sound. These are rather derogatory/inflammatory things to say about my post. How is what you are doing any different from what you find so offensive about that (former) bartender?

But discussions are often arguments, where people express different points of view. It is a perfectly valid technique, in such debates, to point out an opponent's logical and factual errors, and if one doesn't like that aspect of arguing, or gets so easily offended by being shown to be wrong, then maybe that person shouldn't participate in discussions.

Teddy Roosevelt said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.", and as you pointed out, "some customers decided to go to another bar". Other customers checked their egos at the door, listened, and looked into the bartender's arguments without preconceptions. Some of those customers were surprised to find that the bartender was mostly right.

I derided choosing to defend against the letter of an accusation while describing another's posts as nonsense and calling the poster dumb, as "blah, blah, blah", i.e. since there it wasn't claimed the bartender was derogatory or inflammatory, only that the bartender was "name calling", so the bartender was at liberty to be anything other than what was claimed. Yes, I was dismissive of this point of view, while conceding that it's technically correct. If you want a full and deep discussion on why I am dismissive of this attitude, we can do that, though I'd hope anyone with a basic understanding of civility would understand where I'm coming from. Is civility not a prerequisite for bartenders?

I agree it is perfectly valid to point out logical and factual errors, I take issue with drawing conclusions, based on a person's propensity to make such errors, that said person is an idiot. Ad homs, as a general rule, are insulting, derogatory and inflammatory, and something I do my best to avoid.

It's been my observation that bartenders who engage in debates with the patrons appear to do so without regard to the fact that the patron may be in fear of refusal of service for saying something in contradiction of the 1000 page rule book, while the bartenders may argue that they never breach the rules themselves, a position the patrons do not seem able to challenge. This lack of regard is a key distinguishing feature between my being derogatory and/or inflammatory and a bartender doing the same.

WRT the bartender being mostly right, apart from that being entirely a matter of opinion, read the paragraph above once more and it may strike you that the patrons agreed with the bartender merely for continued service.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Soooooo, it is OK for you to deride my post by saying my argument was "blah, blah, blah", but when I point out flaws in a hypothetical argument, I am somehow inexcusably insulting? You hypocrite! My comment was directed at some unnamed, imaginary bar patron, while your comment was aimed directly at me, that is, at my post, in this thread; and you have the nerve to lecture me about ad hominem arguments?

As for calling someone an "idiot", using the term without more may be insulting, but when someone exhibits the traits of being an idiot, calling them that is merely descriptive. More simply, if someone acts like or argues like an idiot, then they should expect to be called one. It's up to the person listening in on the discussion to judge whether the term fits the evidence; I recall that that bartender was usually right in his descriptions of those patron's conversations, whether he called them idiots or geniuses, and he always gave his reasons for the descriptive term he used.

Your supposition that patrons only agreed with the bartender for fear of being thrown out denies reality. Bartenders, by themselves, could not throw people out--they needed the approval of a majority of the other bartenders. In other words, if you were thrown out, it was not because you offended one person, but because a majority of the bartenders found that you violated the rules. Don't believe me? There are plenty of bartenders around (probably watching this conversation very closely) who can confirm it! And in fact, even bartenders, at times, were thrown out.

It's too bad that you don't like the way some patrons were treated, but since your dislike of the place is based on facts the are either skewed or just wrong, your complaints garner no sympathy. But taking a page from your book, I will make the supposition that you will disagree with everything I have said and simply fall back on the unsupported belief that I am wrong and you are right, which you are free to do, but you are just fooling yourself.

One more small thing: I did not say that the bartender under discussion was mostly right, I said that some patrons "were surprised to find that the bartender was mostly right" after looking into the bartender's arguments. That statement is a fact about which I have personal knowledge.

---

Other customers checked their egos at the door, listened, and looked into the bartender's arguments without preconceptions. Some of those customers were surprised to find that the bartender was mostly right.

LOL
In the ficticious [sic] bar being discussed, there was no mention of the bartender joining in on the discussions taking place.

Why do you continue to say things that are clearly untrue? In your post #930085 you said, "I've been in this bar too. But what happened was one of the bartenders would get involved in the discussion to the point where name calling started, then drop out of the discussion for a few days to suddenly come back in and throw patrons out." So you did claim that the bartender joined in the discussions. What else could you have meant by getting "involved in" the discussions?

It can hardly be called a fair exchange when a bartender holds the power of access to the bar and censorship of opinion over individuals and their involvement in the discussions.

Yeah, bobby was wrong about this too.

It takes a special disposition to be able to monitor a bar room's activities while remaining above the fray.

You are right, and the bartender says thank you for recognizing that in him.

Some bartenders are incapable of the task, especially when they see themselves as "mostly right" all the time.

That makes no sense, doesn't "mostly right all of the time" just mean mostly right?? Please don't mangle my carefully selected words into gibberish, just deal with what I really said about that bartender, not what your brain warps it into.