Penn
06-02-2014, 20:17
“Your outside area should be dog friendly or not. Our dog is a regular @ el tule & bitter bob's. He went to cafe Galleria once & because of that will be in the "dog days of lambertville" calendar. If you'd rather have ignorant customers than decent locals, we wish you the best of luck. Our hard earned money will never promote people who encourage bread discrimination. Don't blame your own ignorance on other people”.
Let’s start here, shall we?
“Our hard earned money will never promote people who encourage bread discrimination. Don't blame your own ignorance on other people".
Ms, with all due respect, and in response to your statement quoted above, your accusations lacks merit. There simply is no "bread discrimination" at the restaurant, nor has there ever been. We enjoy Rye, Pumpernickel, and Sour Dough equally, and we are very particular in the choice of bread we serve. Also, we unequivocally support the bread industry and encourage sustainable agriculture practices, as a result, we are by proxy, bread making members of 36G, the local bakers union associated with the very liberal AFL-CIO.
However, your disjointed topic does reference dogs, principally, your nameless dog.
For the sake of continuity, we’ll address your dog, a 65-85 pound unyielding Rottweiler, which you kept on a very short leash, as “Rover”. This will afford us the opportunity to address “Rover” as an individual, equally deserving of the same basic dinning rights as you and I. Regardless, if “Rover” on occasion sniffs a crotch other than your own, or excretes without regard to time or place, but on whim. Having co-habit with a number of Golden Retrievers, I am aware how embarrassing and humorless that can be.
That said, you then present a comparative argument. “If you'd rather have ignorant customers than decent locals, we wish you the best of luck”.
A pure logic analysis proves your argument false. We have customers that are local and not ignorant. NJ demographics indicate that 87.6% graduate high school, and of those, 43.7% attain a Bachelor’s degree, with 12.9 % achieving an advanced degree.
Inferred and implied by your diction, sentence structure, and verbiage that your note contains, we assume you must be among those in the study representing the 12.3% percentile of academic performance, which renders further comment as unnecessary. Saving of course, your social equality concerns.
Though daunting, the courageous example of social activism you display, with regard canine dinning equality, leaves me breathless, if not speechless. Your concern, if you consider that 1 out of every 6 people in the United States goes hungry at some point during the week involuntarily, totaling 49 million people, is misplaced.
Though not a health care professional, you present concerns which to any reasonable person, would be considered inappropriate, and appear at the very least, selfish, a possible clear display of Narcissistic rage, which is best addressed by a fearless commitment to psychoanalysis with a Psychologist, as there is no remedy in speaking with a chef, who would, in a worst case scenario view “Rover” as a food resource in difficult times.
In that sense you are barking up the wrong tree.
Let’s start here, shall we?
“Our hard earned money will never promote people who encourage bread discrimination. Don't blame your own ignorance on other people".
Ms, with all due respect, and in response to your statement quoted above, your accusations lacks merit. There simply is no "bread discrimination" at the restaurant, nor has there ever been. We enjoy Rye, Pumpernickel, and Sour Dough equally, and we are very particular in the choice of bread we serve. Also, we unequivocally support the bread industry and encourage sustainable agriculture practices, as a result, we are by proxy, bread making members of 36G, the local bakers union associated with the very liberal AFL-CIO.
However, your disjointed topic does reference dogs, principally, your nameless dog.
For the sake of continuity, we’ll address your dog, a 65-85 pound unyielding Rottweiler, which you kept on a very short leash, as “Rover”. This will afford us the opportunity to address “Rover” as an individual, equally deserving of the same basic dinning rights as you and I. Regardless, if “Rover” on occasion sniffs a crotch other than your own, or excretes without regard to time or place, but on whim. Having co-habit with a number of Golden Retrievers, I am aware how embarrassing and humorless that can be.
That said, you then present a comparative argument. “If you'd rather have ignorant customers than decent locals, we wish you the best of luck”.
A pure logic analysis proves your argument false. We have customers that are local and not ignorant. NJ demographics indicate that 87.6% graduate high school, and of those, 43.7% attain a Bachelor’s degree, with 12.9 % achieving an advanced degree.
Inferred and implied by your diction, sentence structure, and verbiage that your note contains, we assume you must be among those in the study representing the 12.3% percentile of academic performance, which renders further comment as unnecessary. Saving of course, your social equality concerns.
Though daunting, the courageous example of social activism you display, with regard canine dinning equality, leaves me breathless, if not speechless. Your concern, if you consider that 1 out of every 6 people in the United States goes hungry at some point during the week involuntarily, totaling 49 million people, is misplaced.
Though not a health care professional, you present concerns which to any reasonable person, would be considered inappropriate, and appear at the very least, selfish, a possible clear display of Narcissistic rage, which is best addressed by a fearless commitment to psychoanalysis with a Psychologist, as there is no remedy in speaking with a chef, who would, in a worst case scenario view “Rover” as a food resource in difficult times.
In that sense you are barking up the wrong tree.