> > So in this cast of nine principles -- Crotchedy A, Indignant B, Snicker C, Snicker D, Cutter E, Cutter F, Profanity G, Worker H, and Observer I -- who acted rightly in this, and who acted wrongly? Obviously, at the very least, Crotchedy A, Indignant B, Profanity G, and arguably Cutter E had very particular opinions at the time about who was right and who was wrong, to the point of these opinions being voiced confrontationally toward total strangers (which may or may not tie in with Dagmar's recent "to those who consider themselves human" thread). And yet, as these particular opinions were at odds, they can't all be wholly right.
> >
> > You have the floor.
>
> Indignant B all the way. Quite frankly, I'm ashamed you just stood there and let people cut. I HATE that. Whenever people pull crap like that, I get vocal. It pisses me off that the rest of the line just lets it happen.

I agree - with reservations. Indignant B, from what Sam observed, responded correctly (though quite a bit of what she did went onobserved). I'd also have to side with Cutter E - he thought (apparently, and not illogically) that there was a line at each register, and, when confronted by Profanity G, handled the situation nonconfrontationally (despite the fact that he had been assaulted) and smoothly. Worker H I'm not sure I agree with - she *had* to be aware of the fact that there was previously one line and that there gentlemen had cut in front of it. If so, she should have informed the Cutters of this; though I can understand siding with the more polite customers rather than the obnoxious Profanity G, I think that's motivated more by the desire for revenge than by anything else.

Profanity G was in the wrong. No matter what the situation, that is not the correct way to deal with it. Indignant B was partly right and partly wrong - she was right to tell off Crotchety A, but shouldn't have taken the issue up again afterwards. There was no point then. Crotchety A was also wrong, but don't waste your time trying to tell her that - I know the type. One sees a lot of them in my line of work - totally focused on themselves, uncaring about the effects of their actions on other people. The kind who will come into the store, see a line, grab what they want, but to the front of the line and toss their money on the counter.

Snickers C and D were not necessarily wrong, but certainly weren't helping things. Toss them in the "neutral" category. Cutter F goes with them, since we were not informed of any action he took. He seemed to defer to Cutter E.

That leaves Observer I. Observer I is the toughest one, because we are looking out from him rather than in toward him. If Observer I cared much about being cut in front of, then remaining neutral was the wrong thing to do; he should have said something, supported Indignant B, or at least given her a positive reaction when she looked for support. On the other hand, if he truly didn't care, then his neutrality was proper. Either way, I think we've too little information to render even a preemptive judgement of Observer I.

Dar "What I meant to say is that I worship the ground Observer I observes upon" ien