SarahScoot

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 25 posts - 826 through 850 (of 874 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: spring #661710

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    True, JanS – let’s not forget those (Pemco?) ads. Oh, socks-with-sandals guys. The best are the black-socks-with-sandals guys who think that the black socks make the look dressy enough to wear in a business-casual office. With suit pants. :-/

    in reply to: spring #661706

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    The rules about white don’t apply anymore. Really, truly; ask Stacy & Clinton (from TLC’s “What Not to Wear”) – they have shot down many of those rules. It’s still weird to wear out-of-season clothes, so if you were talking about wearing white shorts and sandals now for the sake of fashion, that’s another story. It’s still awfully cold, after all!

    in reply to: Setting the record straight about Chipotle . . . #661687

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    All right, sorry for the misinformation! I’ve only eaten at Chipotle once, in approx. 2005, and immediately afterward learned that they were “owned” by McDonald’s (which was true at the time.) I must admit I hadn’t researched it since then. I guess I will end my Chipotle avoidance ;-)

    in reply to: RANT: Taco Time giving vegetarians meat #661641

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    Just chiming in to say to the poster who suggested Chipotle as a better alternative: Chipotle is owned by McDonald’s. That may not be a problem for you, but I’d rather support locally-owned and operated Taco Time than a pseudo-responsible chain owned by McDonald’s. Just mentioning it because I’ve found that a LOT of people aren’t aware of which companies own what in this country. Just last week I found out one of my veggie friends didn’t know Kraft owned the Boca line of vegetarian products.

    in reply to: The Office #661603

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    Hmmm he splits off and starts his own paper distribution company? Dwight follows? I’m actually really unsure where they’re going with that, but it could be interesting. Maybe Jim will be made Regional Manager, and Michael will end up crawling back to Dunder Mifflin? I don’t know, but it is satisfying when Michael isn’t played off as a complete buffoon; I like the episodes where he actually has some self-respect. I’ve still enjoyed this season, but they’ve definitely dumbed-down Michael even more, and sometimes it’s just too unbelievable.

    I’ve also been frustrated with how the whole Angela/Andy/Dwight triangle played out; I was hoping for a little more realistic tension after Andy found out about Angela and Dwight, and instead they just let that fade out, as though the writers weren’t sure where to take it and just hoped the viewers would just forget about it (?)

    in reply to: Chris Mathews/$5 million a year (MSNBC) #661499

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    Hmm this seems like it would get complicated because GE is a huge company and, yes, owns MSNBC. However, for MSNBC to thrive they need strong, well-known news personalities. In my opinion, $5 million is not an extravagant salary for someone who draws in millions of viewers on a daily basis. I doubt MSNBC would draw the same viewership without Chris as their “Hardball” host, and he could easily leave for another network if a better offer were on the table.

    in reply to: RAVE! Karaoke at the Yen Wor #661150

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    I’ve heard the karaoke at Yen Wor is awesome and the drinks are strong and cheap. Just don’t eat the food :-X

    (Full disclosure: We got takeout from there once, about two years ago and really did not like it. To be fair, I haven’t given it a second chance, so maybe we just chose bad dishes, or they were having a bad day.)

    in reply to: Tiny Chinese Restaurant on CA #661185

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    I would assume you’re talking about Jade West also, but I’m thrown by the “East on California” statement… California runs north/south. If you meant north on California, and on the right hand side of the street heading that direction, then yep, Sue’s suggestion is right.

    I’ve heard good things but have never been brave enough to try it ;-)

    in reply to: SUPERRAVE- Mashikos #661121

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    I love Mashiko. Even though I can’t eat fish, I looove shellfish and all their veggie rolls; plenty to rave about there! Mmm and even the fried oysters are plump and delicious. But what’s the trend around here of turning everything possessive? It’s Mashiko, not Mashiko’s, Buddha Ruksa, not Ruksa’s, Husky Deli, not Husky’s, Nordstrom, not Nordstrom’s… ;-P

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660738

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    Wasn’t the private bathroom episode because of his fake disability? Now I’m getting George’s crazy schemes mixed up. The bathroom might have had something to do with pretending to be an executive (?) Anyway…

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660730

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    Kevin @ reply 100 (!!!): Believe me, I am shocked by how many replies this topic drew. I knew there would be several (umm, any topic involving dogs in this forum is good for 20-30 replies. Even “I have a dog” would draw in as many). I really did try to remain diplomatic, as I always enjoy a debate more than an argument.

    Oh, and I have a cousin Kevin here in West Seattle… you’re not my cousin, are you? ;-)

    Edit: nope, you’re not my cousin; just looked at your profile and you’re in IT. Carry on…

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660728

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    Thanks for the reply, BPP – really, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position on the subject. I didn’t realize it was such a minor issue with the KCBoH. A few years back, when I worked in a (non-alcoholic) beverage serving position in an Alaska Junction business, we were instructed to be very strict regarding allowing dogs in, as another business had recently been hit with fines for doing so. That experience made me assume that this was a “big deal” in the health code, which it sounds like isn’t the case.

    As I said several times, I really, truly enjoy spending the occasional Friday evening at BPP; apparently, so do many dogs :-) Maybe I should switch to a different day… or maybe my last visit was just an exceptionally busy day for dogs in bars (is Feb. 27 a dog holiday, by chance?)

    Anyway, I’ll scope out the dog situation in advance next time.

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660679

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    I’m sorry JoB, but your perfume argument is a straw man. I sympathize for what you deal with, really I do. Let’s turn that around into an apt comparison to what I’ve been talking about. Imaging that the health department did pass a ban on wearing fragrances in public enclosed spaces, including bars and restaurants. Finally, you can go out and not worry about getting a debilitating migraine or having trouble breathing!

    Now imagine that your favorite restaurant, one you visit more than any other, doesn’t enforce this ban and the place has become known as THE place to go if you want to wear fragrance. (Yes, this is an odd set-up, I realize). Would you be ok with that, or would you want to say something to the restaurant’s proprietors? Would you expect them to enforce the no-fragrance ban?

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660676

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    Actually, I do get headaches from people who wear too much cologne/perfume. And the headache I have now is similar to that – a sort of fuzzy, dull ache. But I digress.

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660673

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    Thanks, WesCAddle (Eddie Vedder fan, or…?) There have been so many straw man arguments on this thread that I don’t even know where to begin. So far, none of the comparisons offered match up; no, it’s not the same as Jak’s not offering enough vegetarian options. They are not REQUIRED to offer vegetarian options. If anyone actually wants to debate the issue using comparable examples, I’ll gladly join in.

    The false logic in these replies is giving me a headache (similar to a too-much-cologne headaches, actually…)

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660668

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    Hi EmmyJane,

    I realized my thoughts were jumbled in my last post. I was trying to say that the annoying side is NOT the owners of BPP for allowing the dogs, or even necessarily the people who choose to bring their dogs (because, as you said, they are welcome there); the problem, in my opinion, is with the people that just do not understand how their actions (in this case, bringing along a dog) effect others. It’s the people that assume that I or others hate dogs when we question the privilege of bringing them along everywhere. I hope that makes a little more sense.

    That’s what just annoys me. I’m just disappointed that I can no longer fully enjoy BPP, but I don’t hold resentment over it.

    And yes, I’m hoping to one day adopt a poodle or something fairly hypoallergenic :-) Or maybe allergy treatments will advance enough that I can pick up a pug from Seattle Pug Rescue.

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660665

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    And guess what? I truly don’t hate dogs. I actually really like them and if I weren’t allergic (and had more space), I’d own one. However, I’m very aware of the effects my actions and choices have on those around me. When I smoked (for a short time when I was 19 or so) I would keep clear of other people. I live in a condo building, so guess what? I keep my TV and music volumes low because we share walls with other people. And I really enjoy seeing a well-behaved dog out in public. It’s not a matter of hate, it’s a matter of courtesy.

    And at this point, I’m not referencing courtesy on the part of BPP’s owners, or even the people that bring their dogs with them because they’re welcome there; rather, it’s about the entitled attitude of people that can’t seem to understand how their actions negatively effect others.

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660664

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    EmmyJane – I brought up the health code example because really this IS a health code issue. I know it’s a health code violation; I simply said I won’t be the one to call them on it. Yes, it’s the business’s choice whether they allow dogs (and risk fines for that choice). But it definitely is a health code violation, so my argument re: no shirts and shoes is more apt than the Hooters example. Sorry.

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660659

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    Yeah, my peanut allergy has become milder as I’ve gotten older. When I was a kid I’d break out in hives and have an asthma attack when peanuts were handed out on planes. Now, there have been a few times when I accidentally ate a peanut (who puts peanuts in a green salad, anyway?) and had a bad itchy throat, but was ok after an hour or so. No epi-pen needed! Anyway, back to the discussion at hand…

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660657

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    The funny part of that last comparison, Cait? I DO have a peanut allergy as well as the dog allergy. And it does suck! Does that mean I get more sympathy on the dogs in bars issue? ;-) (Kidding…)

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660642

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    Cait, the Hooters comparison is false logic. There is nothing in any ordinance or law where Hooters does business that restricts them from doing what they do. There is a health code in the city of Seattle, however, that forbids non-service animals from entering food and drink establishments. I won’t be too extreme in my example, but I’d be more apt to compare it to a bar in which all men are allowed to be shirtless or shoeless if they chose. This is against health codes (thus the no shirt, no shoes, no service signs), so they’d be in violation; how would you feel about that? Say your favorite restaurant realized they’d get a lot of business if they were known as the place where people didn’t need to wear shirts or shoes – you’d be fine with that?

    I realize it’s an odd example, but it’s the most vivid one I could think of.

    I think the logic people use to defend BPP’s choice is much worse than their choice itself.

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660635

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    Thanks, j, I wasn’t aware there are other bars in West Seattle. /snark

    My point was that I like going to this particular bar because it’s laid back (partially due to the fact that it doesn’t serve hard alcohol – weeds out many people), within walking distance of my home, has very friendly staff, and has a great rotating selection of beers and wine.

    in reply to: Beveridge Place Pub & Dogs #660628

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    CarolPB – it is a health code violation, but I don’t want to be the one that “tattles”… and they don’t serve food, so I figure that if that’s the direction the owners want to go, good for them. It does really disappoint me because I live within walking distance and really love the beer and wine selection there.

    And because I know someone will say it soon: yes, these dogs are well-behaved, but that doesn’t help someone with allergies :-)

    in reply to: Old-timey Avalon Way #660623

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    Wow… thanks for sharing the photo! Another great place to look (that you may already be aware of) is the UW’s photo archives: http://content.lib.washington.edu/seattleweb/index.html

    in reply to: Good-bye Seattle P.I. #660559

    SarahScoot
    Participant

    I’m aware that this has been in-the-making; however, yes, I consider an announcement that the newspaper will be shuttered tomorrow abrupt. I guess I assumed they’d give a little more lead time; maybe that was naive of me. Good luck to all the reporters/columnists/editors who are out of jobs tonight.

Viewing 25 posts - 826 through 850 (of 874 total)