| |
Main
Date: 13 Aug 2006 12:54:42
From:
Subject: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
In any store, whether you order a hot coffee or iced coffee, the price
should be the same.
Not so at Starbucks.
Each size iced coffee costs more than the same size hot coffee.
Their reason is that they use a different coffee--espresso or
something--in their iced coffee. In my opinion, the practice is bogus
and an excuse to charge more money.
Iced coffee ought to be the same coffee as hot coffee, only with ice.
Furthermore, since there's so much less coffee in the cup, it ought to
be cheaper, not more expensive.
I'm a big Starbucks consumer, love their coffee, and buy it almost
daily.
But as for iced coffee: To hell with Starbucks.
By contrast, Peet's charges the same price for the same size, iced or
hot.
And guess what? Since going to Peet's for iced coffee, I'm getting in
the habit of buying their hot coffee, too. Which of course is as good
as (or even better than) Starbucks.
***
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2006 20:05:00
From: GoDucks
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
Charging more for iced coffee drinks is not unusual, as, done right,
the iced coffee must be prepared ahead of time and kept in the
refrigerator. The alternative, and the standard in many coffee joints
is to charge the same, but just give you hot coffee poured over ice.
Now that is a really BAD deal, as what you are getting is just watered
down coffee from the resultiung ice melt and it usually is not very
cold. As usual, the better alternative is to make it yourself.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Aug 2006 09:37:35
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2006 23:26:22
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
|
| | |
Date: 13 Aug 2006 22:44:34
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
"D. Ross" <ross@math.hawaii.NOSPAM.edu > wrote in message
news:44dfb4b6.7819493@localhost...
>
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2006 09:43:43
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2006 13:36:02
From:
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
Thanks for reply, Kyle.
I always buy a small coffee, which hot is $1.58 and iced is about
$1.94.
***
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2006 12:59:49
From: Kyle
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
bao...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In any store, whether you order a hot coffee or iced coffee, the price
> should be the same.
>
> Not so at Starbucks.
>
> Each size iced coffee costs more than the same size hot coffee.
>
> Their reason is that they use a different coffee--espresso or
> something--in their iced coffee. In my opinion, the practice is bogus
> and an excuse to charge more money.
>
> Iced coffee ought to be the same coffee as hot coffee, only with ice.
> Furthermore, since there's so much less coffee in the cup, it ought to
> be cheaper, not more expensive.
>
> I'm a big Starbucks consumer, love their coffee, and buy it almost
> daily.
>
> But as for iced coffee: To hell with Starbucks.
>
> By contrast, Peet's charges the same price for the same size, iced or
> hot.
>
> And guess what? Since going to Peet's for iced coffee, I'm getting in
> the habit of buying their hot coffee, too. Which of course is as good
> as (or even better than) Starbucks.
The iced coffee at Starbucks is (according to what an employee told me)
twice the strength of their regular coffee. It has to be stronger, or
else it will be quickly be rendered bland by the melting ice. So I
don't mind if they charge a little -- and I believe it is just a little
-- more than they do for their regular coffee.
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2006 16:24:28
From: Colin B.
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
baobob@my-deja.com wrote:
> In any store, whether you order a hot coffee or iced coffee, the price
> should be the same.
Why?
The price can be whatever the store wants it to be. If they're smart,
they'll set a price to maximise their profits.
If people are willing to pay more for iced coffee than hot, then the store
will charge more for it.
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2006 04:11:32
From: stephendnes@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
If anyone's interested in a popular economic analysis of coffee
pricing, may I recommend the recent book 'The Undercover Economist' by
Tim Harford
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195189779/002-8907773-1744020?v=glance&n=283155;
a nice companion to the famed 'Freakonomics').
The first chapter, entitled 'Who Pays for Your Coffee', explains basic
economic theory using coffee shops as an example, but goes on to talk
about price discrimination, or how firms like Starbucks try to extract
the varying maximum amounts different consumers are willing to pay.
They seem to use signals, such as whipped cream on hot chocolate, or an
exotic version of their frozen drinks, and of course store location, to
single out customers who aren't so price conscious and charge them much
more than, say, the whipped cream cost. Of course, this isn't really
that unfair: no one is forced to buy the more expensive item, and
presumably those who do do so because they derive enough benefit for it
to be worth making the transaction.
Such behaviour was perhaps applied unfairly by Costa Coffee in the UK a
few years back, when they used fairtrade coffee as a signal. An extra
ten pence charge was levied, when the coffee cost perhaps an extra
three pence; the charge has since been withdrawn. But let's not get
into the Vietnam of the fairtrade debate!
Of course, supermarkets have got to take the crown of price
discrimination. Ever wondered what they were up to with your loyalty
card? Chances are there's a database of all your purchases for years,
used to work out where prices can be silently increased, and where a
'special offer' (almost always compensated with a price rise elsewhere)
will have the greatest effect. Amazon tried a similar profiling system
with computer cookies, charging higher prices to customers identified
as having high income group tastes, though as far as I know they have
stopped doing this now.
So it looks like Starbucks has identified that your average iced coffee
drinker is a little less price consious than a hot coffee drinker.
Stephen
baobob@my-deja.com wrote:
> In any store, whether you order a hot coffee or iced coffee, the price
> should be the same.
>
> Not so at Starbucks.
>
> Each size iced coffee costs more than the same size hot coffee.
>
> Their reason is that they use a different coffee--espresso or
> something--in their iced coffee. In my opinion, the practice is bogus
> and an excuse to charge more money.
>
> Iced coffee ought to be the same coffee as hot coffee, only with ice.
> Furthermore, since there's so much less coffee in the cup, it ought to
> be cheaper, not more expensive.
>
> I'm a big Starbucks consumer, love their coffee, and buy it almost
> daily.
>
> But as for iced coffee: To hell with Starbucks.
>
> By contrast, Peet's charges the same price for the same size, iced or
> hot.
>
> And guess what? Since going to Peet's for iced coffee, I'm getting in
> the habit of buying their hot coffee, too. Which of course is as good
> as (or even better than) Starbucks.
>
> ***
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 07:58:03
From: tjnamtiw
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
I guess my dilemna is the fact that you guys rave about your super expensive
espresso machines and grinders and then turn right around and talk about
StarBucks as being a 'palatable' cup of coffee..... It makes no sense to
me. I like my coffee black, whether it is Americano or espresso and
StarBucks has NEVER come close to palatable. Yes, if you throw enough other
stuff in there to hide the taste of the horrible bitter coffee, it might
taste OK but then what is the reason to spend $3 for such a concion.
With all that sugar, just get a Mountain Dew! :o)
<baobob@my-deja.com > wrote in message
news:1155498882.871404.284030@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> In any store, whether you order a hot coffee or iced coffee, the price
> should be the same.
>
> Not so at Starbucks.
>
> Each size iced coffee costs more than the same size hot coffee.
>
> Their reason is that they use a different coffee--espresso or
> something--in their iced coffee. In my opinion, the practice is bogus
> and an excuse to charge more money.
>
> Iced coffee ought to be the same coffee as hot coffee, only with ice.
> Furthermore, since there's so much less coffee in the cup, it ought to
> be cheaper, not more expensive.
>
> I'm a big Starbucks consumer, love their coffee, and buy it almost
> daily.
>
> But as for iced coffee: To hell with Starbucks.
>
> By contrast, Peet's charges the same price for the same size, iced or
> hot.
>
> And guess what? Since going to Peet's for iced coffee, I'm getting in
> the habit of buying their hot coffee, too. Which of course is as good
> as (or even better than) Starbucks.
>
> ***
>
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 18:25:46
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On Wed, 16 Aug, tjnamtiw <tjwitman@bellsouth.net > wrote:
> and then turn right around and talk about StarBucks as being a
> 'palatable' cup of coffee.....
I think you're reading a different alt.coffee group than I am.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 16:42:38
From: Tom
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
No, Ian, I read the blasts aimed at Starbucks' quality and agree completely.
There are also those that defend them. In the string above, the word
'palatable' is used twice, albeit not mentioned directly with Starbucks, but
since the string is about Starbucks....... Also the mention of people
drinking starbucks and paying $3 indicates that some see it as 'palatable'
otherwise they wouldn't buy it. The stuff at 7-11 is better coffee. You
just don't get all of the fancy coverups.
"Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote in message
news:slrnee6opa.dhj.ian@acheron.smithnet...
> On Wed, 16 Aug, tjnamtiw <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> and then turn right around and talk about StarBucks as being a
>> 'palatable' cup of coffee.....
>
> I think you're reading a different alt.coffee group than I am.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 21:15:33
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:42:38 -0400, Tom <tjwitman@bellsouth.net > wrote:
> In the string above, the word
> 'palatable' is used twice, albeit not mentioned directly with Starbucks,
So what you're claiming is that people should be forbidden from using
the word 'palatable' and 'starbucks' in the same posting, even when
not applying one to the other?
So I can't, for example, say - 'I once bought a very palatable
sandwich from a shop just down the road from a Starbucks'?
> since the string is about Starbucks....... Also the mention of people
> drinking starbucks and paying $3 indicates that some see it as 'palatable'
> otherwise they wouldn't buy it.
Of course some people find it palatable - they wouldn't make any
profit if no-one found it palatable. However, your specific
accusation was that people who rave _on_this_group_ about the expense
and fantasticness of their coffee machines claim starbucks to produce
palatable coffee
I think it unlikely you'll find any posting meeting this
specification. I'd be staggered if you can find postings from (say)
three different individuals that meet it. Please post the references.
> The stuff at 7-11 is better coffee.
I wouldn't know.
I've never tasted coffee sold by either Starbucks or 7-11.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 17:17:56
From: Tom
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
Well, you clearly want to be argumentative and there is really no reason to
continue. My meaning was clear and the reference above was to coffee, not
sandwiches. Go argue somewhere else, Ian.
"Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote in message
news:slrnee72nl.du6.ian@acheron.smithnet...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:42:38 -0400, Tom <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> In the string above, the word
>> 'palatable' is used twice, albeit not mentioned directly with Starbucks,
>
> So what you're claiming is that people should be forbidden from using
> the word 'palatable' and 'starbucks' in the same posting, even when
> not applying one to the other?
>
> So I can't, for example, say - 'I once bought a very palatable
> sandwich from a shop just down the road from a Starbucks'?
>
>> since the string is about Starbucks....... Also the mention of people
>> drinking starbucks and paying $3 indicates that some see it as
>> 'palatable'
>> otherwise they wouldn't buy it.
>
> Of course some people find it palatable - they wouldn't make any
> profit if no-one found it palatable. However, your specific
> accusation was that people who rave _on_this_group_ about the expense
> and fantasticness of their coffee machines claim starbucks to produce
> palatable coffee
>
> I think it unlikely you'll find any posting meeting this
> specification. I'd be staggered if you can find postings from (say)
> three different individuals that meet it. Please post the references.
>
>> The stuff at 7-11 is better coffee.
>
> I wouldn't know.
> I've never tasted coffee sold by either Starbucks or 7-11.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 06:39:50
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Tom <tjwitman@bellsouth.net > wrote:
> Well, you clearly want to be argumentative and there is really no
> reason to continue. My meaning was clear and the reference above
> was to coffee, not sandwiches. Go argue somewhere else, Ian.
Your clear meaning was that there were a significant group of people
that on this group both proclaim the magnificence of their own coffee
machines and laud Starbucks as producing palatable coffee.
These people don't exist.
You've singularly failed to provide a single instance.
Since they don't exist, what was the point of your original post?
Why did you make the post? What was its meaning?
It seems pointless to discuss and attempt to explain the non-existent
behaviour of a group of people that don't exist. It's a little like
discussing exactly which brand of blue cheese the moon is made of.
It's therefore far from argumentative to ask for an illustrative
example of the behaviour you apparently believe is sufficiently rife
that it's worth discussing. Otherwise, what are we discussing?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 00:00:20
From: ensenadajim
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On 17 Aug 2006 06:39:50 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Tom <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, you clearly want to be argumentative and there is really no
>> reason to continue. My meaning was clear and the reference above
>> was to coffee, not sandwiches. Go argue somewhere else, Ian.
>
>Your clear meaning was that there were a significant group of people
>that on this group both proclaim the magnificence of their own coffee
>machines and laud Starbucks as producing palatable coffee.
>
>These people don't exist.
>You've singularly failed to provide a single instance.
>
>Since they don't exist, what was the point of your original post?
>Why did you make the post? What was its meaning?
>
>It seems pointless to discuss and attempt to explain the non-existent
>behaviour of a group of people that don't exist. It's a little like
>discussing exactly which brand of blue cheese the moon is made of.
>
>It's therefore far from argumentative to ask for an illustrative
>example of the behaviour you apparently believe is sufficiently rife
>that it's worth discussing. Otherwise, what are we discussing?
>
>regards, Ian SMith
You are clearly ignorant of what has transpired here over time. Hush
up now or we'll let your mommy know you are playing with her computer
again.
While I don't brag on my machines, I do enjoy a Starbucks, especially
when there are no suitable local operations to patronize. There are
plenty of places that describes.
jim
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 11:49:29
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 06:39:50 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >Your clear meaning was that there were a significant group of people
> >that on this group both proclaim the magnificence of their own coffee
> >machines and laud Starbucks as producing palatable coffee.
> >
> >These people don't exist.
> >You've singularly failed to provide a single instance.
>
> You are clearly ignorant of what has transpired here over time. Hush
> up now or we'll let your mommy know you are playing with her computer
> again.
>
> While I don't brag on my machines, I do enjoy a Starbucks, especially
> when there are no suitable local operations to patronize. There are
> plenty of places that describes.
Eh?
I people matching the criterion don't exist. You say that I'm wrong,
and to prove it, provide an example of someone (yourself) that doesn't
match the criterion.
Kind of like, I say there's no such thing as a pale blue coffee bean,
and you say "you're just ignorant - and here's a brown coffee bean to
prove it".
So we're still at the situation of failing to provide a single example
of a post meets the OP's specification.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 18:11:10
From: ensenadajim
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On 17 Aug 2006 11:49:29 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2006 06:39:50 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Your clear meaning was that there were a significant group of people
>> >that on this group both proclaim the magnificence of their own coffee
>> >machines and laud Starbucks as producing palatable coffee.
>> >
>> >These people don't exist.
>> >You've singularly failed to provide a single instance.
>>
>> You are clearly ignorant of what has transpired here over time. Hush
>> up now or we'll let your mommy know you are playing with her computer
>> again.
>>
>> While I don't brag on my machines, I do enjoy a Starbucks, especially
>> when there are no suitable local operations to patronize. There are
>> plenty of places that describes.
>
>Eh?
>
>I people matching the criterion don't exist. You say that I'm wrong,
>and to prove it, provide an example of someone (yourself) that doesn't
>match the criterion.
I am that proof shit for brains, in case the roaringly obvious went
right over your head. You have been slam dunked, moron. Now shut up,
leave the playing field and go back to the bench you should have never
left.
Try searching on me, some five to seven years back.
jim
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 23:00:05
From: Tom
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
Ian, :o). He said it perfectly.....
"ensenadajim" <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:lg4ae257k0vmb9tn5gchfkv9vl75kup485@4ax.com...
> On 17 Aug 2006 11:49:29 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 17 Aug 2006 06:39:50 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Your clear meaning was that there were a significant group of people
>>> >that on this group both proclaim the magnificence of their own coffee
>>> >machines and laud Starbucks as producing palatable coffee.
>>> >
>>> >These people don't exist.
>>> >You've singularly failed to provide a single instance.
>>>
>>> You are clearly ignorant of what has transpired here over time. Hush
>>> up now or we'll let your mommy know you are playing with her computer
>>> again.
>>>
>>> While I don't brag on my machines, I do enjoy a Starbucks, especially
>>> when there are no suitable local operations to patronize. There are
>>> plenty of places that describes.
>>
>>Eh?
>>
>>I people matching the criterion don't exist. You say that I'm wrong,
>>and to prove it, provide an example of someone (yourself) that doesn't
>>match the criterion.
>
> I am that proof shit for brains, in case the roaringly obvious went
> right over your head. You have been slam dunked, moron. Now shut up,
> leave the playing field and go back to the bench you should have never
> left.
>
> Try searching on me, some five to seven years back.
>
>
> jim
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 06:23:02
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 11:49:29 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 17 Aug 2006 06:39:50 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Your clear meaning was that there were a significant group of people
> >> >that on this group both proclaim the magnificence of their own coffee
> >> >machines and laud Starbucks as producing palatable coffee.
> >> >
> >> >These people don't exist.
> >> >You've singularly failed to provide a single instance.
> >>
> >> You are clearly ignorant of what has transpired here over time. Hush
> >> up now or we'll let your mommy know you are playing with her computer
> >> again.
> >>
> >> While I don't brag on my machines, I do enjoy a Starbucks, especially
> >> when there are no suitable local operations to patronize. There are
> >> plenty of places that describes.
> >
> >Eh?
> >
> >I people matching the criterion don't exist. You say that I'm wrong,
> >and to prove it, provide an example of someone (yourself) that doesn't
> >match the criterion.
>
> I am that proof shit for brains, in case the roaringly obvious went
> right over your head. You have been slam dunked, moron. Now shut up,
> leave the playing field and go back to the bench you should have never
> left.
Eh? So why did you say you weren't.
Why did you say "I don't brag on my machines". The poster
specifically required someone that brags about their machines and
finds starbucks palatable.
So, were you lying last post, or are you lying now? Why?
> Try searching on me, some five to seven years back.
Seven years ago. And teh OP has only just got round to querying
it now?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 01:57:40
From: ensenadajim
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On 18 Aug 2006 06:23:02 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2006 11:49:29 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On 17 Aug 2006 06:39:50 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Your clear meaning was that there were a significant group of people
>> >> >that on this group both proclaim the magnificence of their own coffee
>> >> >machines and laud Starbucks as producing palatable coffee.
>> >> >
>> >> >These people don't exist.
>> >> >You've singularly failed to provide a single instance.
>> >>
>> >> You are clearly ignorant of what has transpired here over time. Hush
>> >> up now or we'll let your mommy know you are playing with her computer
>> >> again.
>> >>
>> >> While I don't brag on my machines, I do enjoy a Starbucks, especially
>> >> when there are no suitable local operations to patronize. There are
>> >> plenty of places that describes.
>> >
>> >Eh?
>> >
>> >I people matching the criterion don't exist. You say that I'm wrong,
>> >and to prove it, provide an example of someone (yourself) that doesn't
>> >match the criterion.
>>
>> I am that proof shit for brains, in case the roaringly obvious went
>> right over your head. You have been slam dunked, moron. Now shut up,
>> leave the playing field and go back to the bench you should have never
>> left.
>
>Eh? So why did you say you weren't.
>
>Why did you say "I don't brag on my machines". The poster
>specifically required someone that brags about their machines and
>finds starbucks palatable.
>
>So, were you lying last post, or are you lying now? Why?
>
>> Try searching on me, some five to seven years back.
>
>Seven years ago. And teh OP has only just got round to querying
>it now?
>
>regards, Ian SMith
Nice try, sfb. "I don't brag on them." That is present tense.
Evidently you think it neans the same as never have. His delay is not
your problem. Your problem is you made a totally dumb-ass statement
saying that we do not exist. You asked for one person. I am that
person. I have flattened your position to the depth of a pool of water
on a parking lot. Now off with you to the sandbox and the other
children. You have lost and keep on digging your puny ass further into
a hole with each new post.
jim
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 12:49:24
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2006 06:23:02 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 17 Aug 2006 11:49:29 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 06:39:50 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >These people don't exist.
> >> >> >You've singularly failed to provide a single instance.
> >> >>
> >> >> While I don't brag on my machines, I do enjoy a Starbucks, especially
> >> >> when there are no suitable local operations to patronize. There are
> >> >> plenty of places that describes.
> >> >
> >> >Eh?
> >> >
> >> >I people matching the criterion don't exist. You say that I'm wrong,
> >> >and to prove it, provide an example of someone (yourself) that doesn't
> >> >match the criterion.
> >>
> >> I am that proof shit for brains, in case the roaringly obvious went
> >> right over your head. You have been slam dunked, moron. Now shut up,
> >> leave the playing field and go back to the bench you should have never
> >> left.
> >
> >Why did you say "I don't brag on my machines". The poster
> >specifically required someone that brags about their machines and
> >finds starbucks palatable.
>
> Nice try, sfb. "I don't brag on them." That is present tense.
> Evidently you think it neans the same as never have. His delay is not
> your problem. Your problem is you made a totally dumb-ass statement
> saying that we do not exist.
A statement that so far is 100% accurate, and not one example
disproving it has been presented.
On a point of accuracy, I didn't claim it was impossible for such a
person to exist - I actually said I had not noticed any such person,
and I would be staggered to find three such people.
I also have not claimed that no such person has ever existed.
Now, if you want to try playing games with tenses, note your own
wording: "that they do not exist". Present tense. Now. Not seven
years ago. I remain of the opinion that significant numbers of these
people do not exist. Not one example has been posted, yet the OP
asserts that this is (note: IS not was) a behaviour on the group
significant enough to comment on.
Also, you may care to note that making gratuitous ad-hominem attacks
merely makes your argument look less coherent. It looks like you're
aware your argument is weak, and you think that you can make up for
that by calling me "moron", "dumb-ass" etc. If your case is so
strong, why not simply present the evidence and let the facts speak
for themselves? What do you think you gain by being insulting?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 13:57:00
From: ensenadajim
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On 18 Aug 2006 12:49:24 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 18 Aug 2006 06:23:02 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On 17 Aug 2006 11:49:29 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 06:39:50 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >These people don't exist.
>> >> >> >You've singularly failed to provide a single instance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> While I don't brag on my machines, I do enjoy a Starbucks, especially
>> >> >> when there are no suitable local operations to patronize. There are
>> >> >> plenty of places that describes.
>> >> >
>> >> >Eh?
>> >> >
>> >> >I people matching the criterion don't exist. You say that I'm wrong,
>> >> >and to prove it, provide an example of someone (yourself) that doesn't
>> >> >match the criterion.
>> >>
>> >> I am that proof shit for brains, in case the roaringly obvious went
>> >> right over your head. You have been slam dunked, moron. Now shut up,
>> >> leave the playing field and go back to the bench you should have never
>> >> left.
>> >
>> >Why did you say "I don't brag on my machines". The poster
>> >specifically required someone that brags about their machines and
>> >finds starbucks palatable.
>>
>> Nice try, sfb. "I don't brag on them." That is present tense.
>> Evidently you think it neans the same as never have. His delay is not
>> your problem. Your problem is you made a totally dumb-ass statement
>> saying that we do not exist.
>
>A statement that so far is 100% accurate, and not one example
>disproving it has been presented.
>
>On a point of accuracy, I didn't claim it was impossible for such a
>person to exist - I actually said I had not noticed any such person,
>and I would be staggered to find three such people.
>
>I also have not claimed that no such person has ever existed.
>
>Now, if you want to try playing games with tenses, note your own
>wording: "that they do not exist". Present tense. Now. Not seven
>years ago. I remain of the opinion that significant numbers of these
>people do not exist. Not one example has been posted, yet the OP
>asserts that this is (note: IS not was) a behaviour on the group
>significant enough to comment on.
>
>Also, you may care to note that making gratuitous ad-hominem attacks
>merely makes your argument look less coherent. It looks like you're
>aware your argument is weak, and you think that you can make up for
>that by calling me "moron", "dumb-ass" etc. If your case is so
>strong, why not simply present the evidence and let the facts speak
>for themselves? What do you think you gain by being insulting?
>
>regards, Ian SMith
You have lost. You continue to make your momma proud of her precious
lttle moron, Ian. I do exist. You arguement is dead. There are others
who have posted here every so often and there are some who have posted
and moved on, not to be seen today. Some are enjoying a real heavenly
espresso, perhaps.
Silence does not mean a thing does not exist, just that they think you
are not worth communicating with or the issue is not worth addressing.
I did tell you the facts, however, you reject everything out of hand
that does not agree with your position. Your posting is ample evidence
of that.
What do youu gain by repeating your idiocy again and agian?
jim
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 21:35:43
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2006 12:49:24 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Nice try, sfb. "I don't brag on them." That is present tense.
> >> Evidently you think it neans the same as never have. His delay is not
> >> your problem. Your problem is you made a totally dumb-ass statement
> >> saying that we do not exist.
> >
> >A statement that so far is 100% accurate, and not one example
> >disproving it has been presented.
>
> You have lost. You continue to make your momma proud of her precious
> lttle moron, Ian. I do exist.
I don't doubt that you exist. However, you yourself explicitly stated
that you do not meet the requirement laid down, and you tell me that
7 years ago you thought Starbucks made palatable coffee. You haven't
even yet confirmed that 7 years ago you met the specifications - were
you bragging about your espresso machines then?
> What do youu gain by repeating your idiocy again and agian?
I'm still waiting for one single example of a post that contradicts
what I said. I'm curious how long you'll go on asserting that there
are plenty of examples, without actually citing a single one.
It might be idiocy, but it's idiocy that you haven't disproved,
despite repeatedly stating that it is easy to do. I'm wondering
why, if it's so easy to disprove, you don't simply do so. All it
takes is to quote a couple of postings showing a poster who is
bragging about their machine and who is lauding Starbucks for their
palatable coffee.
Of course, when you've done that you've merely demonstrated something
that I said was "unlikely". Unlikely things happen all the time. To
really make a point you'll need to find three people doing the same,
then you'll have achieved the astonishing objective of demonstrating
something I find staggering. You still haven't proved me wrong, you
note, merely surprised.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 23:49:24
From: ensenadajim
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On 18 Aug 2006 21:35:43 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 18 Aug 2006 12:49:24 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Nice try, sfb. "I don't brag on them." That is present tense.
>> >> Evidently you think it neans the same as never have. His delay is not
>> >> your problem. Your problem is you made a totally dumb-ass statement
>> >> saying that we do not exist.
>> >
>> >A statement that so far is 100% accurate, and not one example
>> >disproving it has been presented.
>>
>> You have lost. You continue to make your momma proud of her precious
>> lttle moron, Ian. I do exist.
>
>I don't doubt that you exist. However, you yourself explicitly stated
>that you do not meet the requirement laid down, and you tell me that
>7 years ago you thought Starbucks made palatable coffee. You haven't
>even yet confirmed that 7 years ago you met the specifications - were
>you bragging about your espresso machines then?
I made no such statement. You can try to read whatever idiocy your
mind wants to create into anything you want.
>> What do youu gain by repeating your idiocy again and agian?
>
>I'm still waiting for one single example of a post that contradicts
>what I said. I'm curious how long you'll go on asserting that there
>are plenty of examples, without actually citing a single one.
I have posted such on seveal occassions. Too bad the language passes
right by you.
>
>It might be idiocy, but it's idiocy that you haven't disproved,
>despite repeatedly stating that it is easy to do. I'm wondering
>why, if it's so easy to disprove, you don't simply do so. All it
>takes is to quote a couple of postings showing a poster who is
>bragging about their machine and who is lauding Starbucks for their
>palatable coffee.
You continuie making yo momma proud of your stupidity. She must be
ever so happy with you.
>
>Of course, when you've done that you've merely demonstrated something
>that I said was "unlikely". Unlikely things happen all the time. To
>really make a point you'll need to find three people doing the same,
>then you'll have achieved the astonishing objective of demonstrating
>something I find staggering. You still haven't proved me wrong, you
>note, merely surprised.
No, I only need me. You said one example does not exist. I do. You
lose, loser.
Now, back to the also-ran bench with you.
jim
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2006 09:04:08
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2006 21:35:43 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 18 Aug 2006 12:49:24 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Your problem is you made a totally dumb-ass statement
> >> >> saying that we do not exist.
> >> >
> >> >A statement that so far is 100% accurate, and not one example
> >> >disproving it has been presented.
> >>
> >> You have lost. You continue to make your momma proud of her precious
> >> lttle moron, Ian. I do exist.
> >
> >I don't doubt that you exist. However, you yourself explicitly stated
> >that you do not meet the requirement laid down, and you tell me that
> >7 years ago you thought Starbucks made palatable coffee. You haven't
> >even yet confirmed that 7 years ago you met the specifications - were
> >you bragging about your espresso machines then?
>
> I made no such statement. You can try to read whatever idiocy your
> mind wants to create into anything you want.
You said "I don't brag on my machines"
Message-ID: <kk48e257lv8bnqgqgoiddncm2vvvhbsgmf@4ax.com >
This after the original requirement was for someone that does "rave
about your super expensive espresso machines and grinders".
Message-ID: <6LDEg.27974$Uq1.9131@bignews6.bellsouth.net >
So you yourself explicitly stated you do not meet the requirements set
by the original post.
> >> What do youu gain by repeating your idiocy again and agian?
> >
> >I'm still waiting for one single example of a post that contradicts
> >what I said. I'm curious how long you'll go on asserting that there
> >are plenty of examples, without actually citing a single one.
>
> I have posted such on seveal occassions. Too bad the language passes
> right by you.
When? All you've done is asserted that you used to like Starbucks.
You have not posted one single example of a post that contradicts what
I said. Since it seems you may have forgotten what that was:
"... specific accusation was that people who rave _on_this_group_
about the expense and fantasticness of their coffee machines claim
starbucks to produce palatable coffee
"I think it unlikely you'll find any posting meeting this
specification. I'd be staggered if you can find postings from (say)
three different individuals that meet it."
Message-ID: <slrnee72nl.du6.ian@acheron.smithnet >
Also, you do realise that there's a difference between producing
something and merely asserting that it exists, don't you? Quoting and
referencing a post demonstrates it exists. Merely saying there are
loads of them does no so such thing.
> >Of course, when you've done that you've merely demonstrated something
> >that I said was "unlikely". Unlikely things happen all the time. To
> >really make a point you'll need to find three people doing the same,
> >then you'll have achieved the astonishing objective of demonstrating
> >something I find staggering. You still haven't proved me wrong, you
> >note, merely surprised.
>
> No, I only need me. You said one example does not exist.
No, I didn't. I've quoted it above - I said I'd be surprised to find
a post meeting the specification. You have not provided any example.
If you ever do, I will be surprised. If that comes to pass, I hope it
gives you a warm glow of satisfaction, though I'm now rather more
surprised that it's worth all the bluster and swearing and insults you
invested merely to demonstrate something I said was unlikely. (If you
ever do, which actually, following all the bluster, looks increasingly
unlikely, since I can't otherwise understand why you don't simply do
it.)
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2006 15:38:27
From: ensenadajim
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On 19 Aug 2006 09:04:08 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 18 Aug 2006 21:35:43 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On 18 Aug 2006 12:49:24 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your problem is you made a totally dumb-ass statement
>> >> >> saying that we do not exist.
>> >> >
>> >> >A statement that so far is 100% accurate, and not one example
>> >> >disproving it has been presented.
>> >>
>> >> You have lost. You continue to make your momma proud of her precious
>> >> lttle moron, Ian. I do exist.
>> >
>> >I don't doubt that you exist. However, you yourself explicitly stated
>> >that you do not meet the requirement laid down, and you tell me that
>> >7 years ago you thought Starbucks made palatable coffee. You haven't
>> >even yet confirmed that 7 years ago you met the specifications - were
>> >you bragging about your espresso machines then?
>>
>> I made no such statement. You can try to read whatever idiocy your
>> mind wants to create into anything you want.
>
>You said "I don't brag on my machines"
>Message-ID: <kk48e257lv8bnqgqgoiddncm2vvvhbsgmf@4ax.com>
>
>This after the original requirement was for someone that does "rave
>about your super expensive espresso machines and grinders".
>Message-ID: <6LDEg.27974$Uq1.9131@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
>
>So you yourself explicitly stated you do not meet the requirements set
>by the original post.
>
>
>> >> What do youu gain by repeating your idiocy again and agian?
>> >
>> >I'm still waiting for one single example of a post that contradicts
>> >what I said. I'm curious how long you'll go on asserting that there
>> >are plenty of examples, without actually citing a single one.
>>
>> I have posted such on seveal occassions. Too bad the language passes
>> right by you.
>
>When? All you've done is asserted that you used to like Starbucks.
>You have not posted one single example of a post that contradicts what
>I said. Since it seems you may have forgotten what that was:
>
>"... specific accusation was that people who rave _on_this_group_
>about the expense and fantasticness of their coffee machines claim
>starbucks to produce palatable coffee
>
>"I think it unlikely you'll find any posting meeting this
>specification. I'd be staggered if you can find postings from (say)
>three different individuals that meet it."
>Message-ID: <slrnee72nl.du6.ian@acheron.smithnet>
>
>Also, you do realise that there's a difference between producing
>something and merely asserting that it exists, don't you? Quoting and
>referencing a post demonstrates it exists. Merely saying there are
>loads of them does no so such thing.
>
>
>> >Of course, when you've done that you've merely demonstrated something
>> >that I said was "unlikely". Unlikely things happen all the time. To
>> >really make a point you'll need to find three people doing the same,
>> >then you'll have achieved the astonishing objective of demonstrating
>> >something I find staggering. You still haven't proved me wrong, you
>> >note, merely surprised.
>>
>> No, I only need me. You said one example does not exist.
>
>No, I didn't. I've quoted it above - I said I'd be surprised to find
>a post meeting the specification. You have not provided any example.
>If you ever do, I will be surprised. If that comes to pass, I hope it
>gives you a warm glow of satisfaction, though I'm now rather more
>surprised that it's worth all the bluster and swearing and insults you
>invested merely to demonstrate something I said was unlikely. (If you
>ever do, which actually, following all the bluster, looks increasingly
>unlikely, since I can't otherwise understand why you don't simply do
>it.)
>
>regards, Ian SMith
Again, your absurdity continues to shine through. I explained that
fully above. What words went over your head or did you not understand?
Are you getting tired of banging your head into the wall? Most people
would have a headache, but you lack the intelligence to register that.
And did you not try to call me a liar? You have little or no room to
complain about anyone calling you a jackass.
In case your own words went flyingout of your mouth without a thought
behind them, here you are, sfb: Your problem is you made a totally
dumb-ass statement
>> >> >> saying that we do not exist.
>> >> >
>> >> >A statement that so far is 100% accurate, and not one example
>> >> >disproving it has been presented.
I have done so. Time for you to shut up or forever remove any doubt
about your stupidity.
jim
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 08:11:41
From: Tom
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
Oh, and by the way, Ian (stands for I'm a Nothing), I am not the
OP........... Like he said, go back to your hole and let grownups converse.
"ensenadajim" <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:fvvae2t1hgfu4lv134o13mru2kr6atks5g@4ax.com...
> On 18 Aug 2006 06:23:02 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 17 Aug 2006 11:49:29 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> On 17 Aug 2006 06:39:50 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >Your clear meaning was that there were a significant group of people
>>> >> >that on this group both proclaim the magnificence of their own
>>> >> >coffee
>>> >> >machines and laud Starbucks as producing palatable coffee.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >These people don't exist.
>>> >> >You've singularly failed to provide a single instance.
>>> >>
>>> >> You are clearly ignorant of what has transpired here over time. Hush
>>> >> up now or we'll let your mommy know you are playing with her
>>> >> computer
>>> >> again.
>>> >>
>>> >> While I don't brag on my machines, I do enjoy a Starbucks,
>>> >> especially
>>> >> when there are no suitable local operations to patronize. There are
>>> >> plenty of places that describes.
>>> >
>>> >Eh?
>>> >
>>> >I people matching the criterion don't exist. You say that I'm wrong,
>>> >and to prove it, provide an example of someone (yourself) that doesn't
>>> >match the criterion.
>>>
>>> I am that proof shit for brains, in case the roaringly obvious went
>>> right over your head. You have been slam dunked, moron. Now shut up,
>>> leave the playing field and go back to the bench you should have never
>>> left.
>>
>>Eh? So why did you say you weren't.
>>
>>Why did you say "I don't brag on my machines". The poster
>>specifically required someone that brags about their machines and
>>finds starbucks palatable.
>>
>>So, were you lying last post, or are you lying now? Why?
>>
>>> Try searching on me, some five to seven years back.
>>
>>Seven years ago. And teh OP has only just got round to querying
>>it now?
>>
>>regards, Ian SMith
>
>
> Nice try, sfb. "I don't brag on them." That is present tense.
> Evidently you think it neans the same as never have. His delay is not
> your problem. Your problem is you made a totally dumb-ass statement
> saying that we do not exist. You asked for one person. I am that
> person. I have flattened your position to the depth of a pool of water
> on a parking lot. Now off with you to the sandbox and the other
> children. You have lost and keep on digging your puny ass further into
> a hole with each new post.
>
>
> jim
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 05:28:50
From:
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
ensenadajim <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > wrote:
> While I don't brag on my machines, I do enjoy a Starbucks, especially
> when there are no suitable local operations to patronize. There are
> plenty of places that describes.
I just spent 5 days in Regina, Saskatchewan... Canada
where Starbucks is virtually barred from the downtown area...
there is one Starbucks out in the "suburb"...
Unfortunately, some of the espresso offered by the
independants was more like battery-acid mixed with visine...
(Yes, on occasion I have been known to accidentally injest visine.)
After day 2, I was pining for Starbucks.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
www.coffeecrew.com Colin Newell's Daily Grind
rnewell AT vcn DOT bc DOT ca
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 05:23:30
From:
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote:
> So what you're claiming is that people should be forbidden from using
> the word 'palatable' and 'starbucks' in the same posting, even when
> not applying one to the other?
I was asked once never to use the word "serious"
and "coffee" in the same sentence on my webpage...
but THAT is another story... ;-)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
www.coffeecrew.com Colin Newell's Daily Grind
rnewell AT vcn DOT bc DOT ca
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 06:37:54
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
"Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net > wrote:
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 11:50:46
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, D. Ross <ross@math.hawaii.NOSPAM.edu > wrote:
> "Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 14:43:23
From: Alice Faber
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
In article <slrnee6opa.dhj.ian@acheron.smithnet >,
Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug, tjnamtiw <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > and then turn right around and talk about StarBucks as being a
> > 'palatable' cup of coffee.....
>
> I think you're reading a different alt.coffee group than I am.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
Indeed. I just returned from a 2500 mile road trip. Calling the
Starbucks I had en route "palatable" is damning with faint praise. It
was, in fact, the only road coffee I was able to finish.
--
AF
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 05:21:28
From:
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
tjnamtiw <tjwitman@bellsouth.net > wrote:
> I guess my dilemna is the fact that you guys rave about your super expensive
> espresso machines and grinders and then turn right around and talk about
> StarBucks as being a 'palatable' cup of coffee..... It makes no sense to
> me.
The last time I had a memorable cup of coffee at Starbucks
was 1993...
but it had very little to do with the coffee..
*nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, say no More!*
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
www.coffeecrew.com Colin Newell's Daily Grind
rnewell AT vcn DOT bc DOT ca
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 19:30:11
From: rasqual
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
baobob@my-deja.com wrote:
> Thanks for reply, Kyle.
>
> I always buy a small coffee, which hot is $1.58 and iced is about
> $1.94.
>
Fascinating.
I didn't price-check Starbucks before pricing my farmer's market one-up
Aeropress brews, but my prices are $1.50 for a 12 oz., $2.00 for 16 oz.
(tax incl.). That's hot or iced, either way. I can't imagine charging
more for iced.
The Aeropress brews strong, of course, so it's perfect on ice. Or top
it off with water for hot.
My case is a bit unique; I don't have the huge queues that many coffee
chains and indies have. Although doing brews one-up has slowed a couple
people down (short queue), I haven't seen irritation yet. Perhaps that
comes from keeping friendly banter at least one person ahead of who I'm
serving, and always having something to talk about with folks. It's a
bit more personal at the farmer's market -- not a lot of commuters
wanting a fast cup before dashing off to the firm, or what-not.
--
Scott
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 05:19:09
From:
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
>> I always buy a small coffee, which hot is $1.58 and iced is about
>> $1.94.
That is because Starbucks has to charge for the
"energy removed" from the hot coffee...
obviously this must cost something...
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
www.coffeecrew.com Colin Newell's Daily Grind
rnewell AT vcn DOT bc DOT ca
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 05:18:55
From: Leo95se
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
a chance to write about starbucks? ok!
from this mornings paper:
Protesters allege Starbucks infestation
By Justin Rocket Silverman
amNewYork Staff Writer
August 17, 2006
A 30-foot inflatable rat greeted caffeine junkies outside a Union
Square Starbucks Wednesday, as current and former baristas protested
what they called a vermin infestation that threatens the health of
workers and customers alike.
"I've seen cockroaches all over the espresso machine," said Tomer
Malchi, who has been serving coffee at the Union Square East location
for more than a year. "The cheddar brioche will have mice bites all
over them, and some make it onto the serving tray." Malchi is part of
small group of employees that has formed a "Starbucks Union" to
negotiate for higher wages and better working conditions.
advertisement
Starbucks itself does not recognize the union, and called allegations
"the latest tactic in an aggressive campaign against Starbucks designed
to damage the credibility and good name of the company." The protesters
said their only concern is a safe work environment, and that they had
filed a federal grievance against three infested locations -- Union
Square East, the East Village on Second Avenue and in midtown on 57th
Street and Lexington.
"I have a job where I have to smile all the time," complained Laura de
Anda, a shift supervisor at the East Village Starbucks. "But at the
same time I'm afraid to reach into the supply cabinet because I don't
know if something is going to bite me."
Protesters showed photographs and video clips of what they said were
roaches and rats crawling around inside Starbucks stores. They said the
city Health Department has issued dozens of violations to the coffee
giant. None of the individual Starbucks locations received enough
violations to be shut down, a Health Department spokesman said.
A Starbucks spokeswoman countered that all of the chain=B9s stores in
the city passed their most recent health inspection, and that all
locations are regularly serviced by a pest control company.
"I got sick twice at the new Starbucks on Roosevelt Island, but I still
go back," said 18-year-old Julie Slavinskaya Wednesday as she sipped a
Starbucks coffee in Union Square. "I don't know why. I guess it's just
because there is nowhere else to go."
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 02:50:08
From:
Subject: Re: Starbucks charges more for iced coffee than hot coffee.
|
Kyle wrote:
> bao...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In any store, whether you order a hot coffee or iced coffee, the price
> > should be the same.
> >
> > Not so at Starbucks.
> >
> > Each size iced coffee costs more than the same size hot coffee.
> >
> > Their reason is that they use a different coffee--espresso or
> > something--in their iced coffee. In my opinion, the practice is bogus
> > and an excuse to charge more money.
> >
> > Iced coffee ought to be the same coffee as hot coffee, only with ice.
> > Furthermore, since there's so much less coffee in the cup, it ought to
> > be cheaper, not more expensive.
> >
> > I'm a big Starbucks consumer, love their coffee, and buy it almost
> > daily.
> >
> > But as for iced coffee: To hell with Starbucks.
> >
> > By contrast, Peet's charges the same price for the same size, iced or
> > hot.
> >
> > And guess what? Since going to Peet's for iced coffee, I'm getting in
> > the habit of buying their hot coffee, too. Which of course is as good
> > as (or even better than) Starbucks.
>
> The iced coffee at Starbucks is (according to what an employee told me)
> twice the strength of their regular coffee. It has to be stronger, or
> else it will be quickly be rendered bland by the melting ice. So I
> don't mind if they charge a little -- and I believe it is just a little
> -- more than they do for their regular coffee.
Now this is a little strange but part of a greater plan for a better
world. Coffee should be free. No free cups; you should provide your
own.
FedWarAddict #392854
Games I Play
Multiplayer Online Games Strategy Games
Unification Wars - Massive Multiplayer Online Games
Galactic Conquest - Strategy Games
Runescape
Kings of chaos
http://uc2.gamestotal.com
|
|
