Came back from delivery when this deformed guy walks in store.

unless he litrally had half his face missing it wouldn't bother memarkop2003

How about a quarter? Or a third? Or even a fifth :o

You work with some ****ed up people.ernie1989

Word for word what I was thinking.

[QUOTE="markop2003"]unless he litrally had half his face missing it wouldn't bother meDrSponge

How about a quarter? Or a third? Or even a fifth :o

if it was like a fith of his head missing right in the middle and all the way through like a tunnel then that would be a bit weird

[QUOTE="Ilived"]He looked like he had 4-foreheads and none of them were aligned.andyboiii

was it this guy?

omg its calvin klein(cactuar and tonberry reference)

Was it this guy?

I think this is who you're talking about, because nobody will deal with him at my work either...

I would feel satisfied if she got fired, but oh well.

Anyway good for you. It would have been real odd if the guy was just standing there for half an hour just waiting for someone to take his order.

If his order was refused, he could have called human rights service and got the place sued or shut down :twisted:WushuFighter

I don't know about that. Most stores "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" I think that's how the saying goes. I haven't seen that sign in quite awhile though.

It is quite messed up, kinda like how fat people get treated...

[QUOTE="WushuFighter"]If his order was refused, he could have called human rights service and got the place sued or shut down :twisted:Poedon

I don't know about that. Most stores "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" I think that's how the saying goes. I haven't seen that sign in quite awhile though.

Wait a minute. Stores have the option to not serve me? Does it have to be a logical reason for not serving me or can they do it without a reason?

[QUOTE="WushuFighter"]If his order was refused, he could have called human rights service and got the place sued or shut down :twisted:Poedon

I don't know about that. Most stores "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" I think that's how the saying goes. I haven't seen that sign in quite awhile though.

It is quite messed up, kinda like how fat people get treated...

I don't think most places do that. And if the person was obviously disfigured, he could very easily file a successful lawsuit.

I couldnt take his order... just look at his face... its like effn salad.... lmfao

Dude thats so messed up on so many levels...

Your co-workers are lame. I serve de-formed people quite often at the Wendy's I work at (Probably has something to do with a hospital being across the street) and have no trouble doing it. The only thing that bugs me is when they catch me by surprise and I have to quickly keep from reacting badly.....

We actually have a regular who I believe is a nurse and her fingers are all shortened (about half the size they should be) and they are mishapen a bit.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Well, if they were disgusted at it - which I assume was why they couldn't take the order - they have no control over the response. It's not really their fault that they feel revulsion.BranKetra

What, you can stop any emotion whenever you want? Impressive.

[QUOTE="Egonga"]Beauty is only skin deep, which is why skeletons don't make good supermodels.DrSponge

Tell that to Kate Moss >_>

You've got a point there...

Everyone that works there should be shot in teh face. That's what I think.killercuts3

You mean shot with common sense right? Seriously though, the staff is totally shallow. Isn't this kinda illegal? I mean not wanting to service the guy because of how that one looked? That's called discrimination, and I totally show zero tollernance for that in a work force.

These people should be written up and or fired!

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Well, if they were disgusted at it - which I assume was why they couldn't take the order - they have no control over the response. It's not really their fault that they feel revulsion.Funky_Llama

What, you can stop any emotion whenever you want? Impressive.

A reaction to seeing something disturbing is not an emotion. Unless they instantly puked everywhere, they should've had self-control.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Well, if they were disgusted at it - which I assume was why they couldn't take the order - they have no control over the response. It's not really their fault that they feel revulsion.chesterocks7

What, you can stop any emotion whenever you want? Impressive.

A reaction to seeing something disturbing is not an emotion. Unless they instantly puked everywhere, they should've had self-control.

Actually, disgust/repulsion is an emotion. ;)

[QUOTE="chesterocks7"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Well, if they were disgusted at it - which I assume was why they couldn't take the order - they have no control over the response. It's not really their fault that they feel revulsion.Funky_Llama

What, you can stop any emotion whenever you want? Impressive.

A reaction to seeing something disturbing is not an emotion. Unless they instantly puked everywhere, they should've had self-control.

Actually, disgust/repulsion is an emotion. ;)

Emotion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emotion

Reaction: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reaction

Emotion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emotion

Reaction: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reaction

chesterocks7

False dichotomy. ;)

Besides which... I suggest you read the first four words of Wikipedia's article on 'disgust'.

[QUOTE="chesterocks7"]

Emotion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emotion

Reaction: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reaction

Funky_Llama

False dichotomy. ;)

Besides which... I suggest you read the first four words of Wikipedia's article on 'disgust'.

I don't use Wikipedia as a credible source, because you could have very well gone and edited the definition listed. There's a reason college professors don't allow students to use Wikipedia as a referenced source.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="chesterocks7"]

Emotion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emotion

Reaction: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reaction

chesterocks7

False dichotomy. ;)

Besides which... I suggest you read the first four words of Wikipedia's article on 'disgust'.

I don't use Wikipedia as a credible source, because you could have very well gone and edited the definition listed. There's a reason college professors don't allow students to use Wikipedia as a referenced source.

:lol: Since you ignored my first point, I'll state it again: your point was a false dichotomy.

Secondly... here's a revision from months ago. Still refers to it as an emotion. So no, I didn't edit it.

[QUOTE="chesterocks7"]

Emotion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emotion

Reaction: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reaction

Funky_Llama

False dichotomy. ;)

Besides which... I suggest you read the first four words of Wikipedia's article on 'disgust'.

Lol, I always see you arguing with someone, Funky. :P

But I agree with Funky Llama on this one. I just feel sorry for the guy. Makes me wonder what happend to him. :?

Lol, I always see you arguing with someone, Funky. :P

FallofAthens

:D 'tis fun.

[QUOTE="chesterocks7"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="chesterocks7"]

Emotion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emotion

Reaction: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reaction

Funky_Llama

False dichotomy. ;)

Besides which... I suggest you read the first four words of Wikipedia's article on 'disgust'.

I don't use Wikipedia as a credible source, because you could have very well gone and edited the definition listed. There's a reason college professors don't allow students to use Wikipedia as a referenced source.

:lol: Since you ignored my first point, I'll state it again: your point was a false dichotomy.

Secondly... here's a revision from months ago. Still refers to it as an emotion. So no, I didn't edit it.

What's your point with the false dichotomy? You are claiming it as an emotion, and I'm saying it is a reaction. Sure there are other possibilities, but that definition of emotion clearly shows that disgust is not an emotion.

Here's another source to back up my claim: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disgust

And concerning Wikipedia, whether or not you wrote the article is irrelevant. My point was that anybody can write articles for Wikipedia, thus it is not a reliable source.

[QUOTE="FallofAthens"]

Lol, I always see you arguing with someone, Funky. :P

Funky_Llama

:D 'tis fun.

I see you get a kick out of it. Don't tell the TCWU I said this, but if it makes you happy go for it. :lol:

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="chesterocks7"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="chesterocks7"]

Emotion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emotion

Reaction: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reaction

chesterocks7

False dichotomy. ;)

Besides which... I suggest you read the first four words of Wikipedia's article on 'disgust'.

I don't use Wikipedia as a credible source, because you could have very well gone and edited the definition listed. There's a reason college professors don't allow students to use Wikipedia as a referenced source.

:lol: Since you ignored my first point, I'll state it again: your point was a false dichotomy.

Secondly... here's a revision from months ago. Still refers to it as an emotion. So no, I didn't edit it.

What's your point with the false dichotomy? You are claiming it as an emotion, and I'm saying it is a reaction. Sure there are other possibilities, but that definition of emotion clearly shows that disgust is not an emotion.

Here's another source to back up my claim: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disgust

And concerning Wikipedia, whether or not you wrote the article is irrelevant. My point was that anybody can write articles for Wikipedia, thus it is not a reliable source.

It is, in this case, both an emotion and a reaction. And actually, since disgust is 'an affective state of consciousness', it meets that definition.

What's that other source actually meant to prove?

Wikipedia has been demonstrated to be reliable. Especially the larger, more heavily scrutinised articles.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="FallofAthens"]

Lol, I always see you arguing with someone, Funky. :P

FallofAthens

:D 'tis fun.

I see you get a kick out of it. Don't tell the TCWU I said this, but if it makes you happy go for it. :lol:

Hang on, I thought you were agnostic. Since when were you in the TCWU? :P

[QUOTE="chesterocks7"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="chesterocks7"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="chesterocks7"]

Emotion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emotion

Reaction: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reaction

Funky_Llama

False dichotomy. ;)

Besides which... I suggest you read the first four words of Wikipedia's article on 'disgust'.

I don't use Wikipedia as a credible source, because you could have very well gone and edited the definition listed. There's a reason college professors don't allow students to use Wikipedia as a referenced source.

:lol: Since you ignored my first point, I'll state it again: your point was a false dichotomy.

Secondly... here's a revision from months ago. Still refers to it as an emotion. So no, I didn't edit it.

What's your point with the false dichotomy? You are claiming it as an emotion, and I'm saying it is a reaction. Sure there are other possibilities, but that definition of emotion clearly shows that disgust is not an emotion.

Here's another source to back up my claim: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disgust

And concerning Wikipedia, whether or not you wrote the article is irrelevant. My point was that anybody can write articles for Wikipedia, thus it is not a reliable source.

It is, in this case, both an emotion and a reaction. And actually, since disgust is 'an affective state of consciousness', it meets that definition.

What's that other source actually meant to prove?

Wikipedia has been demonstrated to be reliable. Especially the larger, more heavily scrutinised articles.

That other source shows over and over that disgust is caused by encountering something external, thus falling under the definition of reaction.

And please show me some proof that Wikipedia is reliable. Just because lots of people cite it daily in online forums does not make it reliable.

[QUOTE="FallofAthens"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="FallofAthens"]

Lol, I always see you arguing with someone, Funky. :P

Funky_Llama

:D 'tis fun.

I see you get a kick out of it. Don't tell the TCWU I said this, but if it makes you happy go for it. :lol:

Hang on, I thought you were agnostic. Since when were you in the TCWU? :P

For awhile now, lol. I just don't evangelize like they do. Hmm... so I come off as agnostic..? Strange, I guess I should spread God's word more loudly then. Thanks Funky. :P J/K

That other source shows over and over that disgust is caused by encountering something external, thus falling under the definition of reaction.

And please show me some proof that Wikipedia is reliable. Just because lots of people cite it daily in online forums does not make it reliable.

chesterocks7

*sigh* you really don't get it, do you? It is in this case both a reaction and an emotion. Just because it meets the definition of 'reaction' does not mean that it is not an emotion. And given that it is 'an affective state of consciousness' (unless you're willing to argue that it's volitional or cognitive :lol: ), then it does indeed meet the definition of emotion.

"Nature.com decided to conduct a small test to see how Wikipedia would fare against the Encyclopedia Britannica. Working from a statistically small sample of 42 randomly chosen science articles, the results show that the two are closer than many would assume. On average, Wikipedia had 33 percent more errors, with 162 "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements, " as compared to 123 for Britannica. In terms of egregious errors involving inaccurately explained concepts or misinterpretations of data, the experts found four instances in each of the two encyclopedias."

So Wikipedia has 33% more errors than Britannica. Only 33% more than a professionally edited encyclopedia means it can be considered comparably reliable.

Anyway... off to college.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="FallofAthens"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="FallofAthens"]

Lol, I always see you arguing with someone, Funky. :P

FallofAthens

:D 'tis fun.

I see you get a kick out of it. Don't tell the TCWU I said this, but if it makes you happy go for it. :lol:

Hang on, I thought you were agnostic. Since when were you in the TCWU? :P

For awhile now, lol. I just don't evangelize like they do. Hmm... so I come off as agnostic..? Strange, I guess I should spread God's word more loudly then. Thanks Funky. :P J/K

What have I done?! :P

[QUOTE="chesterocks7"]

That other source shows over and over that disgust is caused by encountering something external, thus falling under the definition of reaction.

And please show me some proof that Wikipedia is reliable. Just because lots of people cite it daily in online forums does not make it reliable.

Funky_Llama

*sigh* you really don't get it, do you? It is in this case both a reaction and an emotion. Just because it meets the definition of 'reaction' does not mean that it is not an emotion. And given that it is 'an affective state of consciousness' (unless you're willing to argue that it's volitional or cognitive :lol: ), then it does indeed meet the definition of emotion.

"Nature.com decided to conduct a small test to see how Wikipedia would fare against the Encyclopedia Britannica. Working from a statistically small sample of 42 randomly chosen science articles, the results show that the two are closer than many would assume. On average, Wikipedia had 33 percent more errors, with 162 "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements, " as compared to 123 for Britannica. In terms of egregious errors involving inaccurately explained concepts or misinterpretations of data, the experts found four instances in each of the two encyclopedias."

So Wikipedia has 33% more errors than Britannica. Only 33% more than a professionally edited encyclopedia means it can be considered comparably reliable.

Anyway... off to college.

Your links to that "small test" lead to an article that is no longer there.