(08-22-2016 03:55 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 11:59 AM)Smokey 1 Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 11:43 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 11:34 AM)Smokey 1 Wrote:  That is the problem. You have expanded its meaning beyond its dictionary definition. Now its just a word to throw at someone you are trying to insult or denigrate. On that note I am done. This is just a pet peeve of mine and I don't wish to take this off topic thread off topic.

It's not a problem, until that is someone does or says something racist and some apologist says "nuh-uh Mexican isn't a race".

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck.....

See and now we have someone who comes out and lies about what was posted because someone dared question the word's use. Pathetic.

I'm not lying about what was posted, what would be the point of that? I was speaking in generalities as this is an internet argument I've had before. I wouldn't say you are being an "apologist" based on your posts and apologize if you took it that way but you'd be the 1 out of 10 who's making that argument from a purely academic standpoint.

OK, I will accept your explanation and apology that you weren't saying I was being an apologist which I wasn't. And yes, I am one of those 1 out of 10 making this argument from a purely academic standpoint. I believe words should be used as accurately as possible, particularly words that are as charged as that one is.

  ImageUploadedByCSNbbs1471907686.750056.jpg (Size: 67.96 KB / Downloads: 52)

(08-22-2016 04:00 PM)Smokey 1 Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 03:55 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 11:59 AM)Smokey 1 Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 11:43 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 11:34 AM)Smokey 1 Wrote:  That is the problem. You have expanded its meaning beyond its dictionary definition. Now its just a word to throw at someone you are trying to insult or denigrate. On that note I am done. This is just a pet peeve of mine and I don't wish to take this off topic thread off topic.

It's not a problem, until that is someone does or says something racist and some apologist says "nuh-uh Mexican isn't a race".

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck.....

See and now we have someone who comes out and lies about what was posted because someone dared question the word's use. Pathetic.

I'm not lying about what was posted, what would be the point of that? I was speaking in generalities as this is an internet argument I've had before. I wouldn't say you are being an "apologist" based on your posts and apologize if you took it that way but you'd be the 1 out of 10 who's making that argument from a purely academic standpoint.

OK, I will accept your explanation and apology that you weren't saying I was being an apologist which I wasn't. And yes, I am one of those 1 out of 10 making this argument from a purely academic standpoint. I believe words should be used as accurately as possible, particularly words that are as charged as that one is.

***Alert*** Major Derail!

I guess, I would make that 2 out of 20 then. I really dislike when words are not used properly. I agree with your points about the word "racist". Another far more benign word that is rarely used accurately is "literally." I hear Millennials , and others--but mostly Millennials, use it all the time to add emphasis to their remark rather than the nature of the point they are making.

22 words - a viral click bait fb ad thingy just picked up the story, saw it circulating in my FB feed this morning. Not sure if it's a case of Big Brother seeing the same key words from this thread in the same browser or if it was legit picked up. Just thought it was interesting to see the story start to get some legs. headline doesn't say anything about Jess', HBurg or JMU...

(08-23-2016 08:07 AM)JMU_71 Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 04:00 PM)Smokey 1 Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 03:55 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 11:59 AM)Smokey 1 Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 11:43 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  It's not a problem, until that is someone does or says something racist and some apologist says "nuh-uh Mexican isn't a race".

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck.....

See and now we have someone who comes out and lies about what was posted because someone dared question the word's use. Pathetic.

I'm not lying about what was posted, what would be the point of that? I was speaking in generalities as this is an internet argument I've had before. I wouldn't say you are being an "apologist" based on your posts and apologize if you took it that way but you'd be the 1 out of 10 who's making that argument from a purely academic standpoint.

OK, I will accept your explanation and apology that you weren't saying I was being an apologist which I wasn't. And yes, I am one of those 1 out of 10 making this argument from a purely academic standpoint. I believe words should be used as accurately as possible, particularly words that are as charged as that one is.

***Alert*** Major Derail!

I guess, I would make that 2 out of 20 then. I really dislike when words are not used properly. I agree with your points about the word "racist". Another far more benign word that is rarely used accurately is "literally." I hear Millennials , and others--but mostly Millennials, use it all the time to add emphasis to their remark rather than the nature of the point they are making.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally

A radio host contacted the two people who were served by the waitress, and they both say they didn't write it. They signed the check and left a cash tip, and since her back is to the camera in the surveillance video that "proves" they did it, there's no way to say differently. It's their word against hers, but this has hinky written all over it. Just some of the problems:
-They are in a position to actually know what they wrote, she isn't.
-They say they gave her a cash tip. Did anyone ask her if that happened?
-The family of the woman who signed the check knows the waitress. There were multiple connections between them prior to this incident. Kind of odd for them to leave a racist note for a person known to them, even if only vaguely.
-The woman who signed the check is Puerto rican, and the man is African-American. It doesn't mean they can't be racist, but it seems odd.

The identity of this woman is all over the internet. If she really didn't do this, there is no way she's ever going to get her reputation back.

Link to the story: http://www.koolidge.com/blog

http://www.koolidge.com/blog/dispelling-some-myths...

I'm not going to make any assumptions on who did or didn't, but I did find the way the comment was written a little odd.
It looks like "TIP CITIZENS" was written first, and the "WE ONLY" was crammed in above it to clarify.
The more info comes out, the more questions I have.

(08-26-2016 09:34 AM)QuinDuke Wrote:  A radio host contacted the two people who were served by the waitress, and they both say they didn't write it. They signed the check and left a cash tip, and since her back is to the camera in the surveillance video that "proves" they did it, there's no way to say differently. It's their word against hers, but this has hinky written all over it. Just some of the problems:
-They are in a position to actually know what they wrote, she isn't.
-They say they gave her a cash tip. Did anyone ask her if that happened?
-The family of the woman who signed the check knows the waitress. There were multiple connections between them prior to this incident. Kind of odd for them to leave a racist note for a person known to them, even if only vaguely.
-The woman who signed the check is Puerto rican, and the man is African-American. It doesn't mean they can't be racist, but it seems odd.

The identity of this woman is all over the internet. If she really didn't do this, there is no way she's ever going to get her reputation back.

Link to the story: http://www.koolidge.com/blog

http://www.koolidge.com/blog/dispelling-some-myths...

I will add that a quick scan of the article you posted states that story changed from the man handing the waitress the cash to leaving it under the receipt in a small blue envelope. Either Tom changed his story or the Mike (the author) didn't accurately capture what he was told. Which would be ironic considering he includes his own post that he stated, "Do journalist actually do journalism anymore?" I don't know anything about Mike Koolidge but if he started thinking conspiracy because a receipt was greasy (the first detail he states), the guys seems a little off the wall.

Just to play the devil's advocate to your third point. IF she was going to fake the story WHY would she choose a family friend. I'm sure this wasn't the first opportunity she had to fill in a blank receipt.

Wait a second, why trust random blog guy? And why are we assuming that they know her? The waitress herself said she doesn't know them.

There was some discussion earlier about the people that allegedly wrote the note not being Caucasian. From reading about this, the Ada person that signed the receipt is Puerto Rican. The waitress is of Honduran and Mexican descent. Puerto Ricans and Mexicans often are not big fans of each other so it's not a stretch to see this happening.

(08-26-2016 11:54 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 09:34 AM)QuinDuke Wrote:  A radio host contacted the two people who were served by the waitress, and they both say they didn't write it. They signed the check and left a cash tip, and since her back is to the camera in the surveillance video that "proves" they did it, there's no way to say differently. It's their word against hers, but this has hinky written all over it. Just some of the problems:
-They are in a position to actually know what they wrote, she isn't.
-They say they gave her a cash tip. Did anyone ask her if that happened?
-The family of the woman who signed the check knows the waitress. There were multiple connections between them prior to this incident. Kind of odd for them to leave a racist note for a person known to them, even if only vaguely.
-The woman who signed the check is Puerto rican, and the man is African-American. It doesn't mean they can't be racist, but it seems odd.

The identity of this woman is all over the internet. If she really didn't do this, there is no way she's ever going to get her reputation back.

Link to the story: http://www.koolidge.com/blog

http://www.koolidge.com/blog/dispelling-some-myths...

I will add that a quick scan of the article you posted states that story changed from the man handing the waitress the cash to leaving it under the receipt in a small blue envelope. Either Tom changed his story or the Mike (the author) didn't accurately capture what he was told. Which would be ironic considering he includes his own post that he stated, "Do journalist actually do journalism anymore?" I don't know anything about Mike Koolidge but if he started thinking conspiracy because a receipt was greasy (the first detail he states), the guys seems a little off the wall.

Just to play the devil's advocate to your third point. IF she was going to fake the story WHY would she choose a family friend. I'm sure this wasn't the first opportunity she had to fill in a blank receipt.

It sounds to me like this radio guy didn't understand what the guy told him, and after his initial post, "Tom" called him back to correct it.

Summarizing this guy's initial objections as 'the receipt was greasy' doesn't really do justice to what made his alarms go off.

Note clearly I am not saying she faked it. I don't know what happened. I do think there's enough here to call into question the narrative that pretty much everyone immediately jumped to, which was bright and clear and made absolute sense, and was therefore not likely to be whatever actually took place.

(08-26-2016 12:29 PM)bridgeforthduke Wrote:  Wait a second, why trust random blog guy? And why are we assuming that they know her? The waitress herself said she doesn't know them.

There was some discussion earlier about the people that allegedly wrote the note not being Caucasian. From reading about this, the Ada person that signed the receipt is Puerto Rican. The waitress is of Honduran and Mexican descent. Puerto Ricans and Mexicans often are not big fans of each other so it's not a stretch to see this happening.

Why trust him? Well, I don't trust him, necessarily. But he's a veteran and syndicated radio host, and has a reputation to uphold. If he's got a personal agenda past debunking, he does a pretty decent job of hiding it in the posts I linked to. If he came up with this out of thin air and got the two people from Jess's Lunch to sign up to it, that would be something.

Here's what is never said, by me or him: that the waitress knew these people. Her mother apparently had known them for years. Whether the timeline fits for them being aware that she worked there, who knows. But the fact that they knew her mother seems to me to make it less likely this was random hateful racists.

As for Puerto Ricans and Mexicans not liking each other...well, how does the customer know she's Honduran/Mexican? I know we like to think as Americans that we can tell regional accents apart...can Spanish-speakers do the same, based on limited interactions from ordering food? Enough to spark a bias such that a nasty comment like this would be left? And if they knew her enough know her background, then it goes against the narrative that this is a random hate encounter.

I read this radio guy as not convinced that these two jerks strode into Jess's one random day, got waited on a by a waitress of Hispanic descent, and left a random hate note. I thought it was likely that wasn't exactly what happened when I heard it, and now I think it's very likely something else occurred.

What a long strange trip it was. The doors are closed. Thanks for the memories.
During my lean high school years-I could crush a cheeseburger, two Chile dogs and an order of fries no problem.

For 4 years my office was a couple of blocks down the street from Jess'. When I ate out it was Jess' or the Little Grill, which was only a block in the other direction. We called Jess' chilli dogs with mustard and onions "Gut Grenades" and two with fries supplied my grease quotient for a week. Sometimes I was adventurous and skipped the fires and went for 3 Gut Grenades.

I can see the grand reopening and rebranding with the same menu:

Jess' Keto Colon Cleanse

It's all in the marketing baby!

Is the Downtown Grill still there? That place was tiny.

Can still get your fix at Jess's #2 on 33.

(02-13-2020 03:53 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  Can still get your fix at Jess's #2 on 33.

Jess's #2 sounds more like a warning for those about to order.

(02-13-2020 04:04 PM)JMaddy Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 03:53 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  Can still get your fix at Jess's #2 on 33.

Jess's #2 sounds more like a warning for those about to order.

now that was funny!!!

(02-13-2020 04:04 PM)JMaddy Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 03:53 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  Can still get your fix at Jess's #2 on 33.

Jess's #2 sounds more like a warning for those about to order.

And one well worth heeding!

In defense of a Harrisonburg icon, I have to point out that that's just cat food in that chili, not poop. A little Nine Lives never hurt anybody!