It seemed so innocent

I wrote this for the purpose of a Facebook note, but I would love to make it more public. So, here ya go.

~~~

As I returned to town with girlfriend in company, I had a sudden idea. I had recently purchased a new driver from Play It Again Sports on Bangor Street. Good investment from a good business. The employee there – almost certainly still in high school – went so far as to virtually insist on carrying out my other, bulkier purchases for me. If not a good business sense, then he at least at a solid grasp on common decency. So in my desire to complete the satisfaction around my recent acquisition, I decided to stop by T’s Golf in Manchester to hit a couple balls.

It wasn’t far from closing time and I didn’t want to make anyone wait around for me to hit a full bucket. Besides that, I had a lovely lady to entertain. As such, I only wanted to hit 3 or 4 balls. Purchasing a full bucket wasn’t in my plans.

Upon arriving at the range, I noticed the empty lot. I always wondered why I rarely saw many vehicles at this business. This night I chalked it up to the late time and gloomy weather.

I grabbed my clubs, a few balls and set up at one of the deserted tees. It didn’t take long for Rawn “Misspelled-Name-And-All” Torrington to come out with his wife Judy. When he asked “Are you hitting your own golf balls?”, I naturally assumed the best in him, thinking he was making some friendly chit-chat. Just imagine it. The local proprietor seeking quality relations with his customers. It happens all the time, every day. As much as I’ll rag on Hannaford or McDonald’s or any other lowing-paying retail location, they usually higher good people who usually treat customers with kindness; if not always great service, then at least kindness. But we all know what happens when one assumes. It makes an “ass” out of “u” and “me”.

Rather than being the savvy owner I expected, Torrington instead showed a complete disregard for good business sense, not to mention common decency. He opened by chiding me for daring to use his facilities for free. “I have $200,000 invested in this operation!” he wailed. Okay. Let’s hang on a second.

It’s fair enough that he wouldn’t offer his services for free. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to let a person take a whack or two on range where a roaming tumble-weed may be expected, especially if said person is using his own equipment. There’s no gain or loss, regardless of the operation being worth $2, $200,000, or $2,000,000. But again, it’s fair enough. It’s his business and he isn’t supplying anyone with a free playground.

That isn’t the problem.

The problem is that Torrington’s blood was virtually boiling. He had no justification for his reaction. He was perhaps only rivaled by Mrs. Torrington’s immaturity.

I say without embellishment or revision, our reaction was nothing if not mild. I briefly explained that I just wanted to hit a ball or two to try out a new club. Judy Torrington tore into us, foam not far behind her lips.

“You should know better!”, she screeched.

Know better than what, Torringtons? Than to innocently hit a few balls into a field? I’ll concede that asking would have been prudent. But whether or not I should have known better or done differently is far from the point. The point is that bad behavior is rarely justified. This falls under no exception of which I can imagine, if there even are any.

In the interest of full disclosure, I let fly some colorful language. I regret ceding the high-ground, though not the sentiment behind the words.

We packed up our gear, constantly reminding these two horrible business owners that we weren’t maliciously attacking their livelihood. They seemed convince that any action which does not result in profit for them must also be a personal slight.

And here’s the kicker. Had either of these individuals simply explained, with calm and composure, that they didn’t allow people to hit their own golf balls, I would have asked how much a small bucket cost. I assumed at least $5, not to mention the time it’d take for me to hit them when I arrived. As it turns out, according to their website, I could have gotten 10 balls for a buck fifty. I have no doubt that I would have made the investment.

As a result of the – to be frank – dumb business practices of T’s Golf in Manchester, they have forever lost my business. In reality, I didn’t contribute an arm and a leg in the first place. Independent of all this, I’ve always thought their mini golf was one of the worst I’ve ever played; it has no pop, no pizzazz. What’s more, they don’t provide the clubs for their driving range. T’s Golf, regardless of the poorly customer-versed owners, is not a good facility from the get-go. This recent debacle only ensures that even less of my money – precisely zero dollars – ever gets spent there.

But the story doesn’t end here. And I’m not alone.

Immediately following this incident, I headed over to All Steak Hamburger on Hospital Street. It was there that I spoke with the owner (whose name I missed).

Because he has a driving range (as well as a restaurant and batting cages) I asked him what he would do if someone wanted to hit a couple of their own golf balls from his tees. He said it didn’t matter to him. Anyone who does it will obviously lose anything they hit, but people can bring entire bags of golf balls for all he cares (and they have). That’s good business sense.

After he explained his casual position to my scenario, I told him that I had just come from T’s and…his laughter quickly cut me off.

“Well, there’s your problem.”

As an anecdote, he told me that he gets about 1 customer per week as a result of Rawn and Judy Torrington and their bad business sense. I believe it. In speaking with further friends and family, that anecdote seems to be slowly morphing into a pattern.

So let’s break down what happened. I went to hit a few balls into a field. Rawn and Judy Torrington not only said no, but they practically cried it. It would be fine for them to kindly object to what I was doing. My actions were reasonable, but quality justifications can certainly be made against them. But, again, that isn’t the point. It’s the reaction to my actions which deserve the attention here. The bad moral and bad business decisions of the Torrington’s forever cost them my dollars. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say it has cost them the dollars of anyone reading this. Furthermore, it damages their reputation. Granted, the anecdotes appear to indicate that they already have awful reputations, but this certainly doesn’t help.

I guess I can’t just blame the rain for their empty parking lot. After all, All Steak Hamburger had both of their parking areas filled. Funny that.

Searches

One person used these terms to find my blog:

jehovah witness bad?

The answer is “yes”.

Linky

I have yet to read this article, but it looks interesting. I figured I’d offer something up until I can get to it, what with my lack of posting recently.

Soon

bruins07

Hiking the AT

I’ve got a friend hiking the AT right now. He’s posting (well written) updates I will be following, hence this post and the link under my blogroll.

Ignoring points

People prefer rhetoric. They do not care about the details. That is why creationism thrives. It’s why global warming denialists still have a place. It’s why Republicans get elected (Democrats, too). It’s so much easier to paint life with a broad brush – black and white colors only – than to actually delve into the nuance of existence.

Rather than address specific points, people give responses filled with rhetoric. When did this happen? When did we become a nation based upon the best zinger? Look at Joe the Plumber. That asshole was nothing but a political tool (and real life tool). America ate up that fecal deposit.

Go on to any random message board or comment section for any article. If people are disagreeing about an issue (and they are), they aren’t going point-by-point. They aren’t saying “I disagree with this statement and here’s why”. They’re saying “I disagree with your primary position and for that reason do not care to address anything you say”. It’s vapid.

(By the way, my post title references the final episode of “Band of Brothers”.)

Why?

because I like Golden Lion Tamarins.

entrada_goldenlion

Drink of my blood

Just a notice people living in the Augusta area that there will be a blood drive on March 9. Here is the information. A few more results for the area (and other parts of the country as well) can be found here.

Penney Memorial Church 1038 Perkins Hall
35 Grove St
Augusta, ME 04330

Because giving blood is far more effective than pretending to drink it. UPDATE: Here’s a thought. PZ Myers had a whole big deal where he desecrated a Catholic wafer. It was to prove a point that nothing is sacred (basically). But instead of a wafer, how about dumping out some blessed ‘blood of Christ’ outside a donation location? It’d be especially poignant to do it outside a church. But this time the point wouldn’t be that nothing is sacred but rather that deep belief, prayer, and silly rituals* are far less effective than simply being a good person and doing good things (for example, like actually helping people by giving them real blood).

*To be fair, PZ surely mocked these things as well throughout wafer-gate.

Words from a 'respected' theologian

Why we still respect theologians is beyond me. These people are nothing more than literay critics with a very narrow focus. At least this one only seems to have made headlines at a Christian site. On top of that, he actually said some things which aren’t batshit crazy.

“If you understand Christianity or even Theism – the belief of a sovereign creator God – and evolutionary theory in its dominant form , I find it impossible to reconcile the two,” Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on his radio program Thursday, the 200th birthday anniversary of Charles Darwin.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say impossible, but it is tremendously difficult.

The seminary head went on to explain how the “originating mechanism of creation” is where theism runs right into collision with where modern evolutionary theory is.

Whereas the Biblical account of creation accepts the role of a Creator, the theory of evolution “suggests that natural selection is indeed the mechanism and that it is entirely natural and in no case supernatural,” said the theologian.

“There is no way for God to intervene in the process and for it to remain natural,” he asserted.

He’s sort of right. Theism and evolution can intersect. It’s just that the theism has to be precisely superfluous with evolution. That, of course, makes the theism rather useless, but it does solve the issue of being irreconcilable: a god just needs to match the established scientific fact. A religion like that would be a very powerful force, indeed. Aside from having the noteworthy property of being true, it would also have the worthwhile attribute of being beautiful.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said last week that the idea of evolution could be traced to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, according to the Telegraph in London. Both theologians had observed that big fish eat smaller fish and that forms of life had been transformed slowly over time.

This is a bug creationists love. Attempting to discredit Darwin seems to give them a tingle up their legs. I don’t quite understand why this is so popular but let’s just state a fact: Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace discovered evolution independently around the same time. No one else gets credit for this big discovery. That’s because no one else described what they observed (nor even observed the same things) like Darwin and Wallace. These two men get the credit. End of story, you filthy, lying creationists.

Although Mohler said he rejected evolution as a way to explain the origin of all things, he acknowledged that there are changes in animals that take place over time.

“No Conservative Christian should deny there is a process of change that is evident within the animal kingdom. And there is even a process of natural selection that appears at least to be natural,” he said, adding all one has to do is look at a herd of cattle to find evidence of adaptation and a competition of genes.

Apparently in la-la land principles of change stop applying once they become inconvenient. “Oh, sure, gravity applies to apples and such, but certainly not galaxies. I mean, that’s too much to fathom!”

A Gallup poll released on Feb. 11 found that 200 years after Darwin most Americans still don’t believe in evolution, with only 4 out of 10 Americans saying they accepted the theory.

“I believe the reason why they cannot believe in evolution is because when they look in the mirror they cannot see an accident,” remarked Mohler.

It is true many humans have quite the ego, but I’d also propose that the campaign of ignorance as waged by the Discovery Institute, Ben Stein, and other dishonest creationist organizations/creationists is a much larger factor.

Perhaps if this literary critic went to school for a real education, he’d have far less ignorance on which to rely. But whom am I to talk? Mohler has a Master of Divinity and Ph.D. in “Systematic and Historical Theology”.

Words from a ‘respected’ theologian

Why we still respect theologians is beyond me. These people are nothing more than literay critics with a very narrow focus. At least this one only seems to have made headlines at a Christian site. On top of that, he actually said some things which aren’t batshit crazy.

“If you understand Christianity or even Theism – the belief of a sovereign creator God – and evolutionary theory in its dominant form , I find it impossible to reconcile the two,” Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on his radio program Thursday, the 200th birthday anniversary of Charles Darwin.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say impossible, but it is tremendously difficult.

The seminary head went on to explain how the “originating mechanism of creation” is where theism runs right into collision with where modern evolutionary theory is.

Whereas the Biblical account of creation accepts the role of a Creator, the theory of evolution “suggests that natural selection is indeed the mechanism and that it is entirely natural and in no case supernatural,” said the theologian.

“There is no way for God to intervene in the process and for it to remain natural,” he asserted.

He’s sort of right. Theism and evolution can intersect. It’s just that the theism has to be precisely superfluous with evolution. That, of course, makes the theism rather useless, but it does solve the issue of being irreconcilable: a god just needs to match the established scientific fact. A religion like that would be a very powerful force, indeed. Aside from having the noteworthy property of being true, it would also have the worthwhile attribute of being beautiful.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said last week that the idea of evolution could be traced to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, according to the Telegraph in London. Both theologians had observed that big fish eat smaller fish and that forms of life had been transformed slowly over time.

This is a bug creationists love. Attempting to discredit Darwin seems to give them a tingle up their legs. I don’t quite understand why this is so popular but let’s just state a fact: Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace discovered evolution independently around the same time. No one else gets credit for this big discovery. That’s because no one else described what they observed (nor even observed the same things) like Darwin and Wallace. These two men get the credit. End of story, you filthy, lying creationists.

Although Mohler said he rejected evolution as a way to explain the origin of all things, he acknowledged that there are changes in animals that take place over time.

“No Conservative Christian should deny there is a process of change that is evident within the animal kingdom. And there is even a process of natural selection that appears at least to be natural,” he said, adding all one has to do is look at a herd of cattle to find evidence of adaptation and a competition of genes.

Apparently in la-la land principles of change stop applying once they become inconvenient. “Oh, sure, gravity applies to apples and such, but certainly not galaxies. I mean, that’s too much to fathom!”

A Gallup poll released on Feb. 11 found that 200 years after Darwin most Americans still don’t believe in evolution, with only 4 out of 10 Americans saying they accepted the theory.

“I believe the reason why they cannot believe in evolution is because when they look in the mirror they cannot see an accident,” remarked Mohler.

It is true many humans have quite the ego, but I’d also propose that the campaign of ignorance as waged by the Discovery Institute, Ben Stein, and other dishonest creationist organizations/creationists is a much larger factor.

Perhaps if this literary critic went to school for a real education, he’d have far less ignorance on which to rely. But whom am I to talk? Mohler has a Master of Divinity and Ph.D. in “Systematic and Historical Theology”.