> You have the floor.

My own two cents:

Indignant A is almost certainly oblivious from the start; just about everyone agrees here. However, when it was pointed out to her that she'd cut in line, she should've politely apologized and gone to the back. Were I cashiering there, I would've directed her to the back of the line.

Indingant B: has a point, but could've expressed it better. Whether I would've pointed out A's error or not in B's position depends upon how long I've been waiting in line. 2 minutes? 5 minutes? 10? If it was a short line without many behind me, I'd let it pass, but if I'd spent a significant amount of time in line and the others behind me had as well, it's no longer permissible. "Excuse me, ma'am [always, always, respectfully, no matter how annoyed you are], but the line begins by the other door." If she'd refused, and the cashier did nothing? Well, what else can you do but shoot a "sorry, I tried" look at those behind you and move on?

Snickers C and D: I would be one of these were I not eating alone (and you'll never catch me at a McD's of my own volition, so I wouldn't be alone). 1. Anything can trigger a private joke; you all know what I mean. She probably reminded them of someone else they knew - no shortage of that type. 2. There's not much you can do about the situation from further back in the line without making a scene, might as well vent by joking about it. 3. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter how long it takes to get your burger. I think. They were perhaps aggravating things a little, but not actively.

Cutters E and F: Again, oblivion. Probably. If they came in from the other door, the angle from which they viewed the bank-style line might've made it look like just a bunch of people milling around. Granted, it's unusual to have so many people just milling around, but stranger things have happened, and I doubt they gave the people much more than a cursory look once they saw an unobstructed path to the register. However, once the structure of the line was pointed out, they should've gone to the rear.

Profanity G: Clearly wrong, when the cutters acted in ignorance or not. Had someone pointed out politely that the line formed the other way, there might be a possibility that, not having noticed, the line-breakers would go the other way. However, now E and F "lose face" if they back down to this guy. It's a rare person who would apologize to this guy and move to the rear of the line, though that would be the best course of action: it might surprise G if E/F defied stereotypical behavior, and at the very least G'd no longer have anything to be irritated about regarding their place in line.

Actually, E may even have thought he was doing a service to those behind him by pointing out that four lines could be formed. Not as efficent, but the line *appears* shorter.

Worker H: I feel her pain. Counting in seconds indeed, no doubt. However, she isn't blameless; one glance at the situation should've made it clear that the lines were forming bank-style (which I prefer as well). Instead of just "there's four lines", she should've directed E and F to the rear and then suggested that the correctly-queued customers form four lines. But if she didn't notice their late arrival, she really can't be expected to have done anything else - and it is to her advantage for there to be four separate lines, because it avoids confusion on the part of arriving customers and disputes in front of the register. After all, her job doesn't get done any faster no matter how the lines are moving.

Observer I: There's not much he can do in his position, either; unless you're right next to the offending party and can do so quietly, pointing out that one has broken in line usually makes a scene. And at least he came away with valuable observations on the matter, which is probably more than we can say for the others.

My personal take:

1. Bank-style lines are much better. However, if there are no lines marking off a bank-style line, lines should form behind individual registers to avoid just such confusion.

2. Profanity G bears the most blame in this situation. He deliberately chose to aggravate a situation that was only a minor annoyance. If everyone had reacted as he did, there really would've been a rumble at McD's, and not just ruffled fathers. B's annoyance at the situation was justified, but her manner of pointing it out and her continued barbs once there was nothing to be done about the situation were not. A, E, and F's initial mistakes can be excused, but they should subsequently have corrected themselves. They were at first in the right, doing what they thought to be correct, but once their mistakes were pointed out, should have corrected them. C and D were not helping matters, but weren't doing much harm, either. H could've helped had she noticed, but can be excused. I - what could he do?

OK, a bit more that 2 cents... make that 35 cents for a super-size.

-Fob"hasn't set foot in a fast-food place since quitting KFC"ulis