It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Dianec
reply to post by snarky412
I would have said something but it was so surreal. I am shocked the waitresses didn't since the kid (10 or 11 years old) could have tipped the table over and almost did as it wasn't designed for a 80 pound human. I won't eat there again given the sanitary conditions. There are health codes for a reason. Ecoli, woms, other paracites such as giardia (sp?), salmonella, and who knows what else can be in human feces as in the case at starbucks. Dirty feet where my food is plopped doesn't seem right either. These could have touched those things and more (and I like going barefooted but don't stick them in my food or rub on my table). I understand changing a diap in a hurry but I see the Starbucks person saying something for health reasons. And I [color=6699FF]see kids all the time behaving badly. Our jobs as parents is to set limits and ultimately raise responsible socially acceptable people who don't embarrass themselves or worse. Kids need boundaries (not talking about the baby of course) and I'm glad you stepped up and said something. So many are afraid to do so. It does take a community to raise a kid in some cases.
Originally posted by ImTheGreatest
Maybe y'all should read the article. Never once did it mention the child was changed on the table.
The employee said to wipe the seat when he was done. From that I gather he did it in a booth not the table.
Originally posted by skalla
how come the filthy rich and non tax paying (in the uk) starbucks cant shell out a few quid for a changing table? then non of this non-event would even have happened....
ETA: and yes, it was gross, but the mom may well have been sick of places with cruddy facilities for those who give them their living.edit on 18-5-2013 by skalla because: (no reason given)edit on 18-5-2013 by skalla because: confusing me with too many nons, non?
Originally posted by citizenx1
Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Obviously no one here read the article.
She didn't change her child on a DINING table. She changed the baby on a seat.
"He said make sure to wipe the seat when you're done," he said. "They started talking amongst themselves and laughing about it."
I find it humorous that so many people are so offended at a misrepresentation of what actually happened. Is this really the meat and potatoes of what we're here for?
Also, the lady was doing what she had to do as a mother. When your kid poops you don't jog down the street while your kid luxuriates in his/her own filth. The problem really started when some snide, hipster Starbucks employee was a disrespectful smartass about it.
I'm not saying the mother didn't have a better option - but when these things happen you just be..a human about it.
Are we really so insensitive as a society to look down on a woman caring for her child? You people make me sad.edit on 17-5-2013 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)
What if it was a doubly-incontinent old person. They equally have no control of it, should their carer have been allowed to deal with the situation in the same location?
Don't be so damned silly.
Originally posted by stirling
What a bunch of pansies! Dont you know what goes in must come out?
Is there nothing better for people to do than go off on some harrassed mother with a poopy kid?
Youve all # a diaper at some point.
I am sure you didnt want to sit in it too.....edit on 18-5-2013 by stirling because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by riverwild
Originally posted by skalla
how come the filthy rich and non tax paying (in the uk) starbucks cant shell out a few quid for a changing table? then non of this non-event would even have happened....
ETA: and yes, it was gross, but the mom may well have been sick of places with cruddy facilities for those who give them their living.edit on 18-5-2013 by skalla because: (no reason given)edit on 18-5-2013 by skalla because: confusing me with too many nons, non?
Then she should have gone elsewhere or gone through the drive-thru window if she needed her Starbucks so badly.
Im certian there was nothing on the menu the baby could eat.